While reading this article I found it interesting that there were so many different movements and ideas against the traditional curriculum. It made me question whether the traditional curriculum truly was not working. I find it interesting to note that there are so many differing ideas about what our children should be taught. One would think that there is a clear-cut answer as to what would be most beneficial for our children to learn, but this is not the case. Now, as the article states, instead of choosing just one curriculum, we have deemed it "more politically expedient" to mix them up.

I think it’s interesting to look at the different situations that have caused curriculum to change. This article changed my views of what curriculum is and I really realized that social movements have a large impact on what is taught in our schools. I think it is interesting (and a little scary) to think about how many of the social factors that we are facing will impact future curriculum. I especially thought about how terrorism, the War in Iraq, immigration, the environment and job outsourcing will impact the curriculum when we are teachers.

I think I have some idea of why different curriculums may have been introduced; social movements (that you mentioned Candace), the types of knowledge available, and, especially now, differing of opinions.
What struck me about this article is the social efficiency ideal. One statement suggests that school would NOT be a place for mental development but a "place where the individual would be prepared to assume a specific social role." I can see how in the early 20th century this would have seemed great. But what if someone came up with that TODAY??? Earlier in the article it is stated that people saw no relevance for the traditional subjects, forgien language, mathematics, physics, literature and others. I hate to think about what kind of world we would live in today if students quit studying mathematics and physics 100 years ago...

___________________

Audrey Fowler