1. Early Foundations of Curriculum Thought
The chapter begins by situating curriculum history in ancient educational systems—Greek, Roman, and medieval scholastic traditions. Early curricula were narrow, elite-focused and centred on classical knowledge, rhetoric, and moral training. These historical models established the early idea of a structured course of study (currere), which later influenced Western schooling.
2. The Rise of Modern Schooling and the Common School Era
The authors highlight the 19th-century expansion of public schooling in the United States, particularly through the work of Horace Mann and the common school movement. This era introduced:
-
universal access to education
-
graded schools
-
standardised subjects
-
the teacher as prescribed lesson-giver
These developments laid the groundwork for curriculum standardisation and the belief that education should serve national development and democratic stability.
3. The Progressive Movement and Child-Centred Curriculum
A major turning point was the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when progressive educators (e.g., John Dewey) challenged rigid, subject-centred approaches. Their contributions included:
-
a focus on experiential learning
-
integration of subjects
-
education aligned with children’s interests and developmental stages
-
the school as a social and democratic community
This movement foregrounded the idea that curriculum must be responsive, holistic, and socially relevant.
4. The Scientific Curriculum Movement
Glatthorn discusses how early 20th-century industrialisation encouraged a contrasting emphasis on efficiency, measurement and school accountability. Figures such as Franklin Bobbitt and W.W. Charters introduced:
-
scientific management of curriculum
-
detailed behavioural objectives
-
task analysis
-
systematisation of content
This movement laid the foundation for modern curriculum design models and outcome-based education.
5. Ralph Tyler and the Rationale
Perhaps the most influential turning point was the emergence of Ralph Tyler’s (1949) four-question curriculum rationale, which emphasised:
-
Clear educational objectives
-
Selection of learning experiences
-
Organisation of experiences
-
Evaluation
Glatthorn notes that Tyler’s framework remains central to contemporary curriculum development, serving as a bridge between scientific precision and progressive educational values.
6. Post-Sputnik Reform and Standards-Driven Curriculum
The launch of Sputnik (1957) triggered a national push for curriculum modernisation in science, mathematics, and languages. The authors note that this period reinforced:
-
curriculum centralisation
-
content rigour
-
increased federal involvement
-
stronger emphasis on accountability
It set the stage for later standards-based reforms such as A Nation at Risk (1983), No Child Left Behind (2001), and contemporary performance frameworks.
7. Critical and Humanistic Curricular Perspectives
From the 1970s onward, curriculum thinkers expanded the field by critiquing inequities embedded in curriculum structures. Influential perspectives include:
-
humanistic curriculum (Maslow, Rogers) emphasising personal growth
-
critical pedagogy (Freire, Giroux) challenging oppression, ideology and hidden curriculum
-
multicultural and inclusive curriculum focusing on equity and representation
These shifts diversified the aims of curriculum beyond efficiency and academic mastery, toward social justice, cultural responsiveness, and student agency.
8. Implications for Curriculum Leadership
Glatthorn argues that curriculum leaders must understand these multiple historical strands because effective curriculum work demands:
-
balancing academic rigour with learner needs
-
navigating accountability and flexibility
-
integrating equity-oriented perspectives
-
recognising patterns of reform cycles
-
anticipating how past tensions recur in modern debates
Curriculum history becomes a tool for wisdom, enabling leaders to apply lessons from the past to avoid repeating ineffective reforms.
Overall Argument
Part I emphasises that curriculum is not static; it is shaped by social forces, political priorities, philosophical shifts, and educational research. By examining these historical patterns, Glatthorn and colleagues show that curriculum leadership is inherently contextual, requiring a deep understanding of how past movements—progressive, scientific, standards-driven and critical—compete and coexist.
