Cynthia Galegar

CIED 5053
Article Response #1
September 14th, 2009

Kliebard, H. M. (2009). The rise of scientific curriculum-making and its aftermath. Flinders, D.J., &
Thornton, S.J. (Eds), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 52-61). New York: Routledge.

The study of curriculum raises important questions when it comes to how it should be taught,

especially in science and math. Every educator has their own opinion as to what works best in their

classroom. After reading an article titled “The Rise of Scientific Curriculum-Making and Its Aftermath”,

by Herbert M. Kliebard, I began to think about how curriculum is taught in my own classroom.

In Kliebard’s article, he compares ideas by Franklin Bobbitt, W.W. Charter, and Boyd Bode how

curriculum should be taught and how students learn best. Bode had a more modern philosophies idea

while Bobbitt and Charters’ were more radical points of views. Bobbitt and Charters came from a time

period when curriculum did not have much structure or blue print to follow. I believe some of their

ideologies came from the lack of created policies concerning curriculum. Back in the 1920’s and 30’s not

much was known or studied about how to teach curriculum in the classroom. Bobbitt was the pioneer

for science education curriculum. Charter mainly approached the problems in curriculum by looking at

how it was ways it is functional. As stated by Kliebard, “Charter was able to apply professional expertise

to the development of curricula in many diverse fields, including secretarial studies, library studies,

pharmacy, and especially teacher education” (pp. 53). I find Charter’s statement important to my view

points for education today because not all my students are going to be educators someday. Most of

them will choose other fields of study. As an educator, I want to make sure I teach them in such a way

that they can use the curriculum presented in their field of study too.
 Kliebard also quotes Bobbitt from his book How to Make a Curriculum, “Education is primarily

for adult life, not for child life. Its fundamental responsibility is to prepare for the fifty years of

adulthood, not for the twenty years of child and youth” (53). I really liked this statement because it

seemed to show truth when it comes to education. We go to school to learn skills for the future,

whether it is for a job or trait, we need skills to make ourselves good citizens of society. In my

classroom, I have many students who do not think it is important to have a high school diploma. They

tell me all the time, “Why do I need a high school diploma when I already know what I am going to do”.

They also respond by saying, “I can get paid now and I feel like you are wasting my time”. I then always

ask them if they need skills in order to do their job? They end up telling me, yeah but it is nothing that

has to do with science. I finally, explain to them that if they get nothing else out of my class, I at least

hope they will come away with the ability to problem solve. They will be using it for the rest of their

lives. Sometimes I do not think students can see into the future. All they know is the here and now, so

if I teach them ways they can use the curriculum, now I am teaching in the classroom then they will

hopefully see that there is a purpose to what I am teaching.

Bode has objections to the way that Bobbitt believes curriculum should be used. Where Bode

has the problem with Bobbitt’s viewpoints is how scientific curriculum should be used. He

thinks the objectives should be laid out before the students, not so broad. He also thinks there

should be more structure rather than emotion put into the curriculum. A good example is made

as to how Bode thinks.

In considering the efficient functioning of the human body, for example we have no

guidance as to whether to begin with the leg, the foot, the toe, or the toenail. The same

problem would arise if we were dealing with the ability to swing a hammer or the ability

to solve quadratic equations. The scientific curriculum makers’ allegiance to specificity

 was allied to Thorndick’s concept of the mind as consisting of multitudinous separate

and individual functions (55).

Bode seems to hold strong to the concept that step by step instructions should be given when it comes

to curriculum issues.

As I think about how Bobbitt, Charters, and Bode’s philosophies related to my teaching, I believe

I use a little bit from what each of them believe. I like the way that both Bobbitt and Charters are open

to the idea of change and new ideas. I also like how they believe that we are not using curriculum to

teach students in the here and now, but rather for the future. I teach high school biology at a school

that is very diverse. Many of my students have plans of going onto college or technical school after high

school; however getting other students to complete ninth grade biology is a huge challenge. I always

want the best for all of my students and challenge them to be the best that they can be, but not all of

my students have had guidance of parents to encourage higher education. I think some of them have

parents who did not finish high school themselves; therefore they do not have a clue as to how to direct

their children be better educated and make something of themselves.

While reading about Bobbitt’s and Charters’ ideas as to what curriculum should be, I was

reminded of the End of Instruction exams that I give my students each year. What would they think

about all students being taught a concept and then given the same test? Does this mean that we have

made curriculum we teach our students much like a cookie cutter (everyone teaching the same exact

thing at the same exact time)? It seems as though teachers are not given the choice to choose what

they want to teach any more but rather we are given certain standards that must be followed in order

to show our students are successful. I believe Bobbitt and Charter would ask if we define student

success basically by how well they do on a test once a year. Not all students learn in the same way or
have the same goals, so in order for them to be successful we should teach curriculum that is more

widely accepted by all.