June 20, 2015

Dear fellow curriculum writers,

In taking the Developing Curriculum I learned about the different approaches to school reform in
the United States. I did not realize how many individuals had the answers to reform centuries
ago. I understood the current history and the history since I started teaching in 2001, but I did
not understand the rich history of the origins of the need for change in the educational system.
The authors take us through many different schools of curricular thought from the European
influenced curriculum of colonial times, to the struggle between the traditionalists and
progressive school of thought, to our present day pursuits to standardize instruction and
assessment to measure the United States intellectual position in our global society. I would like
to focus on some of the individuals who have influenced the curriculum that is taught in our
schools today.
Benjamin Franklin was a pioneer in supporting the practical arts. He stated, It would be well if
they could be taught everything that is useful and everything that is ornamental: but art is long
and their time is short. It is therefore proposed that they learn those things which are likely to be
most useful and most ornamental. (Marsh, C. & Willis, G., 2007, pg. 33) His ideas for the
educational system included the development of academies where learners not only studied
classical subjects, but pursued studies in the practical arts and Humanities. Being a fine art
educator it was refreshing that one of our founding fathers had such insight into the need for the
study of the Humanities in order to understand and communicate their importance in cultures
throughout history. Many of Franklins ideas would not come to fruition until the early part of the
19th century.
In reading about school reform, I was amazed at how people like John Dewey understood the
kinds of reform that would bring our content, learners needs, and societal demands into focus.

In 1838 he said, The difference between civilization and savagery, to take an example on a
large scale, is found in the degree in which previous experiences have changed the objective
conditions under which subsequent experiences takes place, (Dewey, 1938, pg. 39). This was
written in 1938 and still holds true today it makes so much sense, and yet, it has not always
been the view of our reformation of schools.
In recent decades our political leaders have destroyed the curricular balance with their
mandates, their lack of confidence in teaching professionals, and their unwillingness to fund the
programs they prescribe.
In the late nineteenth century our government became concerned that our nation was at risk
and not achieving academically in comparison to other countries. This put a fear in society that
we were doomed unless we made changes in what was being taught in our schools.
In order to preserve the U.S. Department of Education, the National Commission on Excellence
in Education was formed and published their findings as A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform in 1983. Not only did it lack historical evidence, it mandated what should be
taught to all students at the secondary level, without considering the needs of individual
learners.
The real kicker was where the funding was coming from to institute these mandates. President
Ronald Reagan announced to the nation that any additional money that might be needed to
support its recommendations would not be forthcoming from the federal government. (Marsh,
C. & Willis, G., 2007, pg. 59.) They wanted to mandate the changes, but they did not want to
lend the economic support for their implementation.
This report declared that President Reagan was a great educational reformer, when in reality, he
had very little to do with the report which redirected his focus to get rid of the Department of
Education and take credit for its findings.

Once again, the No Child Left Behind mandate, which was signed into law during the
administration of George W. Bush robbed the curriculum of its balance by stripping the
importance of the individual needs of the learners in our educational system. This law focused
on the areas of math and language arts and used standardized testing to evaluate adequate
yearly progress on standardized assessments in order to maintain the federal funding of
schools, but that was not all. Indeed one of the least desirable outcomes of NCLB has been the
de-skilling of the teachers through diminishing opportunity for teachers to actually make
decisions about curriculum and instruction (Marsh, C. & Willis, G., 2007, pg. 64). The creativity
and differentiation that educators wanted to provide was stifled by the need to teach to the test
in order to reduce testing anxiety in hopes that this would help the learners cope with the high
demands of standardized testing. This Initiative once again left states burdened with paying for
the change in curriculum and the cost of standardized testing.
The nature of the individual contends that all curriculums are not appropriate for all learners. .
To take into account individual experience, the curriculum cannot be entirely determined in
advance for any individual, let alone for any group. (Marsh, C. & Willis, G., 2007, pg. 28). With the
focus on standardized curriculum

and assessment, the policy makers were not taking into account

the interests of our students nor developing their ability to function on their own in situations in
which they would have to think critically.
The push in our country today is the adoption of the Common Core Standards which again
mandate standardized curriculum and assessments. To its credit there is more emphasis on
reading in the content areas. This aspect may give our students the ability to apply their reading
skills and gaining insight into subjects such as science, social studies, and the fine arts, but will
the assessments accurately assess each students educational growth. Once again the federal
government is not going to foot the bill, and individual states struggle to foot the bill due to the
economic situation that our country is in.

If only the decision makers realized how many of the struggling schools are struggling because
of the demands that society imposes upon them, their teachers, and their students, as well there
need of the money to acquire the supplies to expand the experience of our learners. We
continually perpetuate societal problems because not all learners are the same, and we are still
trying to mold them into the conformists that our government dictates, but will not financially
support.
I do see a shift from these practices as more and more innovative educators realize that our
learners are missing the skills to meet future demands. Marsh and Willis contended that,
External characteristics of subject matter deal with how accurately and how broadly the chosen
subject matter represents the reality of the world beyond the students immediate experience,
(Marsh, C. & Willis, G., 2007, pg. 26). This is very refreshing as I have held this same opinion
throughout my teaching experience.
They go on to explain, To take into account individual experience, the curriculum cannot be
entirely determined in advance for any individual, let alone for any group. (Marsh, C. & Willis,
G., 2007, pg. 28). This is where I have struggled in my practice.
There are so many needs that our learners have to today. Granted, some of these have existed
to an extent for a long time, but some are truer of our current society. A great deal of these
needs come from the change in family dynamics over the past century. As the divorce rate and
single parent rate has risen, so has the need for our learners to find continuity wherever they
can. Many times the school environment is where they find this continuity. The school setting is
a community in which students can feel that they belong and their emotional, physical and
intellectual needs can be addressed. Parent often count on the school to provide more
services, as parents spend more and more time working to support their families and have little
time left over to meet the needs of their children.

I believe that a school is a place that enables us to take the developmentally appropriate steps
to encourage and demand that our students become lifelong learners. I feel that this should be
student centered learning where learners are guided by a teacher to discover who they are,
where they came from, and how they can use the educational system to become vital citizens
within our democratic society by learning through past experiences and their current reality to
create questions and solutions in the future. My beliefs sound a lot like John Deweys dont you
think?
As I continue my teaching career, I am going to take more time to consider the needs of my
learners both when developing curriculum and planning instruction. I believe this can only
improve my practice and benefit the learners within my classroom.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Reicher

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Marsh, C. & Willis, G. (2007). 4th Ed. Chap. 2. Curriculum history. Curriculum: Alternative
approaches, ongoing issues (pp.23-67). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson