r:,rz.o,Nt: :tiC' Cv/(I(IC t/L UNI : /1(6 (3 tC"1tt I--bi..

/r/C,
,lip; Po.ss/b'/L./r/.s... (SE:c:.O,.O (t'7?;)
E. cl. ftt'/L-E; W. ces)
"
A!G'W Y';(,K.' S t/#Y ,P)f?C.sS
FIVE
Models of Curriculum Planning
George]. Posner
H
ow does one plan a curriculum? For many students of curriculum, the
answer to this question constitutes a major goal of their studies. In this
chapter, we will attempt to determine the ways educators have addressed this
question.
Many students find answers to this question in the curriculum litera
ture to be somewhat confusing. The so-called Tyler Rationale prescribes
four "questions" that any curriculum planner must addressjl Taba provides
seven "steps" to folIowj2 Walker's "naturalistic model" describes three "ele
ments" of curriculum planning;3 Johnson's "model" represents the curricu
lum as an "output of one system and an input of another";4 and Goodlad's
"conceptual system" describes three different "levels of curriculum deci
sion making.
s
" What accounts for this wide array of answers to the ques
tion of curriculum planning? Or, alternatively, are they answers to different
questions?
In this chapter, I argue that this wide variety of approaches to curriculum
planning can be partially understood as a set of responses to different curricu
lum planning questions. We will examine answers to three different questions
related to curriculum planning:
79
GEORGE]. POSNER
1. The procedural question: What steps should one follow in planning a
curriculum?
2. The descriptive question: How do people actually plan curricula; i.e.,
what do they do? .
3. The conceptual question: What are the elements of curriculum plan
ning and how do they relate to one another conceptually?
In order to understand curriculum planning more fully, we must examine
not only different curriculum planning questions, but also different curriculum
planning perspectives. I maintain
6
that one perspective on curriculum planning
has dominated curriculum thought and, thus, influenced not only the answers
to the three questions outlined above, but even the fonnulation of these ques
tions. I then examine briefly another perspective that not only answers the
three questions in radically different ways but also argues for the priority of
other questions and, in particular, underlying ideological questions.
The Technical Production Perspective
The dominant perspective is best represented in Ralph Tyler's work.
Tyler's rationale for curriculum planning has been a major influence on cur
riculum thought since its publication in 1949.
7
It has been interpreted by
most educators as a procedure to follow when planning a curriculum; that is,
as an answer to the procedural question, what steps does one follow in plan
ning a curriculum?8 Because of its importance, I examine its features.
Tyler suggests that when planning a curriculum, four questions must be
answered. First, planners must decide what educational purposes the school
should seek to attain. These "objectives" should be derived from systematic
studies of the learners, from studies of contemporary life in society, and from
analyses of the subject matter by specialists. These three sources of objectives
are then screened through the school's philosophy and through knowledge
available about the psychology oflearning. The objectives derived in this way
should be specified as precisely and unambiguously as possible, so that evalu
ation efforts can be undertaken to determine the extent to which the objec
tives have been attained.
Second, planners must determine what educational experiences can be
provided that are most likely to attain these purposes. Possible experiences
are checked for consistency with objectives and for economy.
Third, the planner must find ways that these educational experiences can
be organized effectively. The planner attempts to provide experiences that
have a cumulative effect on students. Tyler recommends that experiences
build on one another and enable learners to understand the relation among
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
their learning activities in various fields. In so doing, attention should be
given to the sequence of experiences within each field (e.g., mathematics) and
to integration of knowledge across fields. Certain concepts, skills, and values
are sufficiently complex to require repeated study in increasing degrees of so
phistication and breadth of application, and sufficiently pervasive to help the
student relate one field to another. The planner uses these organizing elements
to provide the sequence and integration the curriculum requires.
Finally, the planner must determine whether the educational purposes
are being attained. Objective evaluation instruments (e.g., tests, work samples,
questionnaires, and records) are developed to check the curriculum's effec
tiveness. The criterion for success is behavioral evidence that the objectives of
the curriculum have been attained.
The Tyler Rationale and, in particular, his four questions regarding the
selection of educational purposes, the determination of experiences, the orga
nization of experiences, and the provision for evaluation, have dominated
thought on curriculum planning for nearly fifty years. Moreover, the publica
tion of Tyler's syllabus represents not the beginning of its influence but,
instead, a distillation of ideas derived from the founders of the curriculum
field in the first quarter of this century.9 In fact, Bobbitt's seminal books on
curriculum
10
and, in particular, their focus on the development of specific ob
jectives based on scientific methods, established the basic approach to cur
riculum planning continued by Tyler in his syllabus.
Since its publication in 1949, educators representing a wide range of ori
entations have turned to the Tyler Rationale for an analysis of the procedural
questions of curriculum. Test-oriented behaviorists such as James Popham
use it explicitly for the selection of objectives.u Course planning guides, such
as those by Posner and Rudnitskyl2 and by Barnes,13 use elaborations of
the Tyler Rationale as the basis for their handbooks. Even humanistic educa
tors such as Elliott Eisner, who have spent considerable effort criticizing
Tyleresque objectives and evaluation approaches, when it comes time to dis
cuss procedure, revert (perhaps unknowingly) to a step-by-step approach that
differs only slightly from the Tyler Rationale. 14 .
Perhaps the major reason for the domination of curriculum planning by
the Tyler Rationale is its congruence with our assumptions about both
schooling and curriculum planning. Unquestioned acceptance of these as
sumptions even makes conceiving of an alternative to this basic approach im
possible.
Schooling is assumed to be a process whose main purpose is to promote
or produce learning. Students are termed learners; objectives are conceived in
terms of desirable learning; evaluation of the school's success is targeted al
most exclusively on achievement test scores; "educational" goals are distin
guished from "noneducational" goals by determining if they can be attributed
80 81
GEORGEJ. POSNER
to learningi
15
"curriculum" is defined (not by Tyler but by his followers, such
as Goodlad) in terms of "intended learning outcomes."16 Thus, schooling is
conceived as a production system, in which individual learning outcomes are the
primary product. After all, if learning is not what schooling is for, then what
could be its purpose?
Further, curriculum planning is assumed to be an enterprise in which the
planner objectively and, if possible, scientifically develops the means neces
sary to produce the desired learning outcomes. There is no place for personal
biases and values in selecting the means; effectiveness and efficiency in ac
complishing the ends are primary. This means-end reasoning process serves as
the logic underlying all rational decision making. Educational experiences are
justified by the objectives that they serve.
This means-ends rationality is taken a step further when ends not only
serve as the primary justification for means but also as the starting point in
planning. After all, as this perspective rhetorically asks, How can one decide
on educational means except by referring to educational ends? The use of a
travel metaphor convinces planners that they must detennine the destination
before deciding on the route they should take and thus assume a linear view of
means and ends.
This means-ends rationality leads to the assumption that it is a technical
matter to decide such issues as instructional method and content, a matter
best reserved for people with technical expertise about the methods and con
tent optimally suited for particular objectives. As technical experts, they have
the responsibility of disallowing their own values from clouding the objectiv
ity of their work; that is, they try to keep their work value free. Even decisions
about purpose are conceived as a technical matter based on specialized knowl
edge which experts develop, either from studies of learners and contemporary
society or by virtue of their subject matter expertise. After all, who is better
equipped to make these decisions than the people with the most knowledge
relevant to the decisions?
I refer to views on curriculum planning that uncritically accept these as
sumptions as based on a technical production perspective. They are technical if
they consider educational decisions to be made objectively, primarily by ex
perts with specialized knowledge; they are production oriented if they view
schooling as a process whose main purpose is to produce learning, in which
the logic of educational decison making is based on means-ends reasoning.
Furthermore, they are linear technical production models if they require the
determination of ends before deciding on means;
The technical production perspective has served as a basis for a variety of
models intended to guide curriculum thought (particularly when comple
mented with the assumption of linearity). I examine some major analyses of
curriculum planning that accept the central assumptions of this perspective
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
but differ in important ways. They can be interpreted as answers to the basic
procedural, descriptive, and conceptual questions of curriculum planning.
The Procedural Question
As a basic approach to curriculum development, the Tyler Rationale was
used as a point of departure by many writers sympathetic to its general orienta
tion. Some of these writers, most notably Hilda Taba, attempted to refine it by
adding steps and by further subdividing each of Tyler's four planning steps.17
Taba
Taba's work represents the most detailed elaboration of the Tyler Ratio
nale. Like Tyler, she explicitly accepts the assumption that curriculum plan
ning is a technical (or "scientific") rather than a political matter.
Scientific curriculum development needs to draw upon analysis of society and cul
ture, studies of the learner and the learning process, and analyses of the nature of
knowledge in order to determine the purposes of the school and the nature of its
curriculum.
18
(Emphasis added.)
She argues for a "systematic," "objective," "scientific," and "research
oriented" approach to curriculum development, requiring "objectivity."19 She
laments that
the tradition of rigorous scientific thinking about curricula is not as yet well es
tablished.... Curriculum designs are espoused on the basis of their concurrence
with a set of beliefs and feelings, rather than by their verifiable consequence on
learning or their contribution to educational objectives.
2o
Her view of curriculum development "requires expertness of many vari
eties,'J21 including
technical skills in curriculum making, mastery of intellectual discipline, the
knowledge of social and educational values which underlie educational decisions,
and the understanding of the processes of educational decisions and human engi
neering.
22
Like Tyler, Tabaalso accepts the assumption that learning is the ultimate
purpose of schooling. Her focus on the selection and organization of "learn
ing experiences," her preoccupation with learning outcomes and learning
82
83
GEORGE J. POSNER
objectives in her evaluation approach, her emphasis on learning theory in the
selection of objectives, and the centrality of learning objectives in her cur
riculum development model all imply a learning-oriented view of schooling.
As Taba succinctly states: "curricula are designed so that students may
learn.'>23
Her approach is more prescriptive than Tyler's regarding the procedure
of curriculum planning. Whereas Tyler offers four questions that must be ad
dressed, Taba forcefully argues for the order of her seven steps.
If one conceives of curriculum development as a task requiring orderly thinking,
one needs to examine both the order in which decisions are made and the way in
which they are made to make sure that all relevant considerations are brought to
bear on these decisions. This book is based on an assumption that there is such an
order and that pursuing it will result in a more thoughtfully planned and a more
conceived curriculum. This order might be as follows:
Step 1: Diagnosis of needs;
Step 2: Formulation of objectives;
Step 3: Selection of content;
Step 4: Organization of content;
Step 5: Selection oflearning experiences;
Step 6: Organization of learning experiences; and
Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of ways and means of doing it.
24
Thus, Taba's model is not only a technical-production model but also linear.
Schwab
Joseph Schwab takes issue with several of Tyler's and Taba's views, includ
ing the focus on objectives, the clear separation of ends and means, and the
insistence on an orderly planning procedure.
25
In order to characterize plan- .
ning more appropriately, he offers curriculum planners the concept of "delib
eration."
Deliberation is complex and arduous. It treats both ends and means and
must treat them as mutually detennining one another. It must try to identify, with
respect to both, what facts may be relevant. It must try to ascertain the relevant
facts in the concrete case. It must try to identify the desiderata in the case. It must
generate alternative solutions. It must make every effort to trace the branching
pathways of consequences which may flow from each alternative and affect
desiderata. It must then weigh alternatives and their costs .and consequences
against one another, and choose, not the right alternative, for there is no such
thing, but the best one.
26
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
Schwab's concept of deliberation is the centerpiece of this "practical"
language for developing curricula. For Schwab, this practical language is
preferable to the single-theory approaches that have dominated curriculum
development. Single-theory curricula, such as a science curriculum based on
Piagetian theory, a course on the novel as a source of vicarious experience, or
a math curriculum based on set theory, are fundamentally flawed, according
to Schwab. They are flawed in three ways in their reliance on a single princi
ple or theory for curriculum planning.
1. The Failure ofScope ... One curriculum effort is grounded in concern
only for the individual, another in concern only for groups, others in
concern only for cultures, or communities, or societies, or minds, or
the extant bodies of knowledge.... No curriculum, grounded in but
one of these subjects, can possibly be adequate or defensible.
27
2. The Vice ofAbstraction . .. All theories, even the best of them ... , nec
essarily neglect some aspects and facets of the facts of the case. A the
ory (and the principle derived from it) covers and fonnulates the
regularities among the things and events it subsumes. It abstracts a
general or ideal case. It leaves behind the nonuniformities, the particu
larities, which characterize each concrete instance of the facts sub
sumed.... Yet curriculum is brought to bear, not on ideal or abstract
representations, but on the real thing, on the concrete case, in all its
completeness and with all its differences from all other concrete cases
on a large body of facts concerning which the theoretic abstraction is
silent.
28
3. Radical Plurality . .. Nearly all theories in all the behavioral sciences
are marked by the coexistence of competing theories.... All the social
and behavioral sciences are marked by the "schools," each distin
guished by a different choice of principle ofenquiry, each of which se
lects from the intimidating complexities of the subject matter the small
fraction of the whole with which it can deal. ... The theories which
arise from enquiries so directed are, then, radically incomplete, each of
them incomplete to the extent that competing theories take hold of
different aspects of the subject of enquiry and treat it in a different
way.... In short, there is every reason to suppose that anyone of the
extant theories of behavior is a pale and incomplete representation of
actual behavior.... It follows that such theories are not, and will not
be, adequate by themselves to tell us what to do with actual human be
ings or how to do it. What they variously suggest and the contrary
guidances they afford to choice and action must be mediated and com
bined by eclectic arts and must be massively supplemented, as well as
mediated, by knowledge of some other kind derived from another
84
85
GEORGE J. POSNER
source.... It is this recourse to accumulated lore, to experience of ac
tions and their consequences, to action and reaction at the level of the
concrete case, which constitutes the heart of the practical. It is high
time that curriculum do likewise.
29
Curriculum planning can be no more based on single theory than can
other complex decisions such as choosing a spouse, buying a car, or selecting
a president.
In order to repair these deficiencies of theory as a basis for curriculum
planning, Schwab offers the "eclectic" as an approach to curriculum planning.
Theory brings certain features of a phenomenon into focus, helping the cur
riculumplanner to understand better that aspect of the situation. For exam
ple, Piagetian theory helps the planner understand the student's cognitive
development. Curriculum planners trained in the "eclectic arts" not only can
use theory to view phenomena, they also know which aspects of the phenom
enon each theory obscures or blurs. For example, Piagetian theory obscures
the social psychology and sociology of classrooms. Finally, the eclectic arts
allow the curriculum planner to use various theories in combination "without
paying the full pnce of their incompleteness and partiality."30
In order to avoid the "tunnel vision" associated with any theory,
Schwab recommends not only a deliberative method for curriculum plan
ning but also suggests the participants in this process. According to Schwab,
at least one representative of each of the four "commonplaces" of education
must be included, i.e., the learner, the teacher, the subject matter, and the
milieu. (Note the similarity with Tyler's three "sources.") In addition to rep
resentation of each of these four commonplaces, a fifth perspective, that of
the curriculum specialist (trained in the practical and eclectic arts), must be
present.
31
Schwab's approach to curriculum planning accepts some assumptions of
the Tyler Rationale and rejects others. Curriculum planning for both Schwab
and for Tyler is a technical matter requiring expert knowledge. The represen
tatives of each of the four commonplaces are to be experts in each common
place. For example, the representative of "the learner" is to be a psychologist,
not a student. Furthennore, the curriculum specialist is to be a trained expert
in the arts of the practical and of the eclectic (as Schwab defines them).
Furthermore, Schwab's indictment of theory-driven curriculum develop
ment would lead to a general condemnation of any predetermined framework
to be used as a starting point. Because theories and ideologies are both belief
systems that reduce the educational planner's ability to discern the complexi
ties of a particular situation and to consider alternatives, they must be
avoided. Thus, Schwab, too, requires a nonideological posture for curriculum
development.
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
Although technical in its reliance on experts, Schwab's approach rejects
the constraints inherent in the dear separation of means and ends, insisting in
stead on a more flexible, varied, and iterative planning process. Deliberation is
not characterized by specified procedural steps carried out in prescribed order.
The Descriptive Question
The problem with the Tyler Rationale, according to some writers, is that
it does not describe what curriculum developers actually do when they plan a
curriculum. Of course, none of the procedural models were intended to de
scribe the actual work ofpractitioners. Nevertheless, the difficulties in imple
menting the Tyler Rationale suggest possible inherent weaknesses in its basic
approach. Perhaps a more useable approach to curriculum planning can de
rive from an empirical investigation of curriculum development projects, par
ticularly studies of notably successful ones.
Walker
Decker Walker's naturalistic model is based on this premise.
J2
This model
consists of three elements: "the curriculum's platfonn, its design, and the delib
eration associated with it."JJ
The platfonn is "the system of beliefs and values that the curriculum de
veloper brings to his task and ... guides the development of the curriculum.
... The word platfonn is meant to suggest both a political platfonn and some
thing to stand on."34
Platfonns consist of "conceptions," "theories," and "aims." Beliefs about
what is learnable and teachable (such as "creativity can be taught") and, more
generally, about what is possible, are conceptions. Beliefs about what is true
are theories; for example, a belief that "motivation to learn is primarily based
on the individual's history of successes and failures." Beliefs about "what is ed
ucationally desirable" are "aims"; for example, "we should teach children to
learn how to learn." In addition to these three carefully conceptualized and
explicit types of planks in a curriculum's platfonn, two others are significant.
"Images" of good teaching, of good examples, and of good procedures to fol
low, though not explicit, often are influential in curriculum decisions. For ex
ample, exemplary literary works, physics problems, and teaching techniques
often underlie curricular choices.
35
In contrast with Tyler and Taba, Walker, like Schwab, prefers to view a
curriculum not as an object or as materials but as the events made possible by
the use of materials. It follows, then, that a curriculum's design can be speci
fied by "the series of decisions that produce it ... [that is] by the choices that
enter into its creation."J6
n ..
86
GEORGE]. POSNER
The process by which design decisions are made is "deliberation," a con
cept borrowed directly from Schwab. Deliberation, for Walker, consists of
''formulating decision points, devising alternative choices at these decision points,
considering arguments for and against suggested decision points and ... alter
natives, and finally, choosing the most defensible alternative... .'1)7 Alternatives
are compared in terms of their consistency with the curriculum's platform,
and, when necessary, additional sources of infonnation (or "data") are sought.
When planners resolve difficult decisions stemming from contradictions
in the platform, they may preserve and accumulate these "precedents" for
later situations, much as the courts use prior decisions as a basis for present
decisions by simply citing precedent. Walker refers to "the body of prece
dents 'evolved from the platform" as "policy."l8 He thus distinguishes the
principles accepted from the start (i.e., the platform) from those that evolve
from the application of the platform to design decisions.
DELIBERATION
PLATFORM
Figure 5.1. A schematic diagram of the main components of the naturalistic
model.
l9
Walker's model, like Schwab's, is less linear than Tyler's or Taba's and rel
egates objectives to a less central position in the curriculum development
process. Objectives constitute only one type of one component (i.e., aims) of
Walker's platform. There is, thus, no clear separation of ends and means.
Walker's platfonn includes beliefs about both. Although he does not specifi-
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
cally mention ideological beliefs as possible planks in a platform, he does not
preclude them. But, like Schwab, Walker's model leaves unquestioned the as
sumption regarding the primary role of experts. Surprisingly, Walker never
raises the issue of the discrepancy between the platfonns of the project direc
tor, on the one hand, and of the teachers or students who ultimately must ne
gotiate the meaning of the curriculum, on the other hand.
As Walker himself points out:
While Schwab's view of curriculum making [and Walker's model which is
based on it] is less linear and comprehensive and more flexible and dialectical
than the Tyler rationale, the same kinds of questions that Tyler asks need to be
addressed at some point in deliberation. We still need to ask what our purposes
are and how we might achieve them; we still need to find out if we have done so
in our particular setting. Schwab himself recognizes this, and so the dominance
of the Tyler Rationale in thinking about curriculum making seems to be un
shaken.
40
The Conceptual Question
Tyler begins his book by denying that his Rationale is "a manual for cur
riculum construction"; it does not describe "the steps to be taken ... to build
a curriculum."41 Instead, he regards his Rationale as one "conception of the
elements and relationships involved in an effective curriculum."42 In fact, he
concludes his book with an often overlooked statement:
The purpose of the rationale is to give a view of the elements that are involved in
a program of instruction and their necessary interrelations. The program may be
improved by attacks beginning at any point, providing the resulting modifications
are followed through the related elements until eventually all aspects of the cur
riculum have been studied and revised.
41
Therefore, although often regarded as a linear procedural model, the
Tyler Rationale is most appropriately viewed as a conceptual model. Just as
Taba elaborated the Tyler Rationale into a detailed procedural model, Good
lad and Johnson have used Tyl,er's work as a point of departure for their own
conceptual o d e l s .
Good/ad
John Goodlad, one of Tyler's students in a course using the Rationale as a
syllabus, adopts virtually every aspect of Tyler's model in his own conceptual
model.
44
He shares Tyler's concern with providing an account of rationality in
88
89
GEORGE J. POSNER
curriculum planning, attributing "human frailty" to any departures-from the
strict means-ends logic.
However, Goodlad's major contribution to curriculum models is his elab
oration of the Tyler Rationale, describing three levels of curriculum planning.
The instructional level is closest to the learner. Curriculum planning at this
level involves selecting the "organizing centers for leaming'""s (the stimuli to
which the student responds), and deriving the precise educational objectives
from the institution's educational aims.
The level above the instructional level Goodlad terms institutional. Cur
riculum planning here involves formulating general educational objectives
and selecting illustrative learning opportunities.
The highest level Goodlad terms societal. Curriculum planning at this
level is done by the "institution's sanctioning body,"46 such as a school board.
This body is responsible for formulating educational aims in order to attain a
set of selected values.
Since Goodlad first proposed the three levels, his model has been sub
stantially elaborated by extending them to include the state and federal lev
elS.
47
The notion of levels contributes significantly to curriculum planning
models by providing a technical production perspective on the question: Who
should decide what in curriculum planning? This seemingly political and eth
ical question is thus answered as a technical question, that is, Who has access
to the appropriate "data sources,,?48
Johnson
Mauritz Johnson's conceptual model evolved over a ten-year period
from 1967 to 1977. His early (and most often cited) version in 1967 stipu
lated a definition of curriculum as "a structured series of intended learning
outcomes," and carefully distinguished between often confused concepts,
including curriculum development and instructional systems, platforms and
theories, sources of curriculum and criteria for curriculum selection, curric
ular and instrumental content, curriculum evaluation and instructional eval
uation, and education and training.
49
But he recognized that his 1967 model
was incomplete: It did not provide for goal setting, instructional planning,
evaluation, situational (or frame) factors, or managerial aspects. Johnson's
1977 P-I-E model (Le., planning, implementation, and evaluation) provided
this needed elaboration.
so
Although highly complex, it can be reduced to
the basic claim that rational planning involves a planning, an implementa
tion, and an evaluation aspect (the "linear technical" dimension), each of
which can, in turn, be planned, implemented, and evaluated (the manager
ial dimension). Thus, one can plan, implement, and evaluate a given plan
ning process, a given approach to implementation, and a given evaluation
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
strategy. Furthermore, all of these activities are governed by a set of natural,
temporal, physical, economic, cultural, organizational, and personal "frame
factors" that act as resources and restrictions on both curriculum and in
struction.
51
The basic P-I-E model, when applied to curriculum and instruction, re
sults in five elements: goal setting, curriculum selection, curriculum structur
ing, instructional planning, and technical evaluation. The comparability of
Johnson, Goodlad, Tyler, and Taba is clear.
TABLES.l
Johnson Smodel compared with two other analyses ofcurriculum andcurriculum
development. J2
Elements Questions Steps
Johnson (1977) Tyler (1950) Taba (1962)
Goal setting What educational Diagnosing needs
purposes?
Fonnulating specific
Curriculum objectives
selection Selecting content
Organizing content
Curriculum Checking balance
structuring and sequence
What educational Selecting learning
experience? experiences
Instructional How to organize Organizing learning
planning educational experienceS
experiences?
Technical How to determine Detennining what and
evaluation whether purposes how to evaluate
are attained?
Not only do Johnson's concepts correlate closely with Tyler's ques
tions, Goodlad's data sources, and Taba's steps, but at a deeper level John
son shares all the major assumptions of the technical production models.
Johnson argues that the theoretical (i.e., understanding) and the ideologi
cal (Le., advocacy) "exist in ... conceptually distinct worlds."n Further, he
claims that technology may be influenced by theory and research, but not
by ideology. Like Tyler, Johnson disavows Taba's linear planning approach,
but assumes a means-end logic underlying rational planning. Furthermore,
like Goodlad, Johnson's concept of curriculum as "intended learning out
comes" makes clear his assumption of learning as the primary purpose of
schooling.
90
01
GEORGEJ. POSNER
A Critical Perspective
The works of Tyler, Taba, Walker, Schwab, Johnson, and Goodlad repre
sent the dominant thinking in the curriculum field regarding curriculum
planning. Although dissent is found among these works regarding specific as
pects of the technical production perspective, I have argued that they share
many assumptions. The same point regarding family resemblances and family
squabbles might be made for another perspective that has emerged as a re
sponse to the dominant viewpoint. As might be expected, this perspective,
termed critical, takes issue with each of the basic assumptions of the dominant
view. This perspective is best understood by examining how it responds to
each of the three questions posed by the dominant viewpoint. For this analy
sis, I focus on Paulo Freire's work.
Freire
Paulo Freire's criticism of schooling practices is captured by his analysis
of the banking metaphor.
Education ... becomes an art of depositing, in which the students are the de
positories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher
issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive,
memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the
scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and
storing the deposits.54
The view of curriculum planning that follows from the banking concept
of schooling is "that the educator's role is to regulate the way the world 'en
ters into' the students."ss The curriculum planner's task is "to organize a
process ... to 'fill' the students by making deposits of information which he
considers to constitute true knowledge."s6 (Emphasis added.) Thus, Freire is
drawing attention to the dominant perspectives's assumption that those with
special knowledge make decisions for and about those without that knowl
edge. This criticism echoes the view of Tyler's critics who claim that his Ra
tionale embodies a "factory" metaphor in which the student is merely the raw
material to be fashioned by the "school-factory" into a "product drawn to the
specifications of social convention."S7 The critical perspective then, asks us to
question the authority of experts in curriculum planning and urges a more de
mocratic relationship between teacher and student.
As an alternative to the curriculum-planning models associated with the
technical-production perspective, Freire describes the "emancipatory" ap-
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
proach. Briefly stated, the approach emphasizes "critical reflection" on one's
own "concrete situation."s8 In contrast with the banking method, Freire's
"problem-posing"S9 method requires "dialogue"60 in which teacher and stu
dent are "critical coinvestigators."6J They both .
develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with
which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a sta
tic reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation.
62
This "critical consciousness"63 is developed in a series of steps. First, a
team of educators helps the people in a particular place to develop "generative
themes"64 (e.g., culture, underdevelopment, alcoholism) that represent their
view of reality. From this set of themes, a group of professional educators and
nonprofessional local volunteers, through "dialogue," cooperatively identify
themes to be used for the curriculum and develop instructional materials for
each of them. Then the materials are used in "culture circIes"6s as the focus of
discussions. The materials, including readings, tape-recorded interviews,
photographs, and role plays, are designed to reflect characteristics of people's
lives and, thus, to stimulate critical reflection about their lives. Ultimately this
process leads to "praxis," action based on "critical reflection,"66 the goal of
Freire's pedagogy.
Although Freire's approach does, in fact, answer the procedural question
with a step-by-step approach to curriculum planning, it conflicts with most of
the basic assumptions of the technical production model. This approach takes
issue with the authority of "experts" in curriculum planning decisions. "Dia
logue" requires "critical reflection" by both teacher and student as "coinvesti
gators."67 The problem-posing approach also requires dialogue with the
"students" for the formulation of the generative themes to be used in the cur
riculum; "[t]his view of education starts with the conviction that it cannot pre
sent its own program but must search for this program dialogically with the
people."68
The "ideological pretense of the value-free curriculum decision"69 is
abandoned. Abandoning this pretense also undermines the assumption that
curriculum development involves purely technical decisions. Thus; curricu
lum planning is not viewed as a technical matter, but instead as a political and
ideological matter. The purpose of the process is for the people "to come to
feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and views of the
world explicitly and implicitly manifest in their own suggestions and those of
their comrades. "70 Similarly, the end product is not a learning outcome but
critical reflection and action upon reality. Of course, learning outcomes, such
as ability to reflect critically, are desirable. But political action by the
93,
92
GEORGE J. POSNER
oppressed aimed at their own liberation is the ultimate purpose. To reduce
this approach to a set of intended learning outcomes would be to miss its
point of political activism.
It is important to note that Freire is at once providing (1) a descriptive ac
count of the way teaching and, by implication, curriculum planning is con
ducted, through the use of the banking metaphor; (2) a procedural model by
which curriculum should be planned, that is, through the use of generative
themes; and (3) a conceptual analysis of the fundamental of education
and their relationships, through an analysis of key concepts including oppres
sion, liberation, critical reflection, dialogue, problem-posing, praxis, human
ization, the theme, codification, object/subject, among others.
Many other scholars approach curriculum planning from a critical per
spective. They ask descriptive and conceptual questions which implicitly at
tempt to undermine the assumptions on which the technical production
perspective rests:
1. What knowledge does the curriculum count as legitimate, and what
does it not count?71
2. To what extent does the curriculum organization presuppose and serve
to "legitimate a rigid hierarchy between teacher and taught?"n
3. How does the curriculum enable the school to achieve its primary pur
poses of social reproduction and hegemony?73
4. Who has the greatest access to high-status and high-prestige knowl
edge?
5. Who defines what counts as legitimate knowledge?74
6. Whose interests does this definition serve?75
7. How do the dominant forms of evaluation serve to legitimize curricu
lum knowledge?76
8. To what extent is the schools' sorting function more significant than
its educative function?
9. What are the features of the schools' hidden or implicit curriculum,
and to what extent does this aspect of schooling mediate teaching the
official curriculum?
Underlying these questions is a view that "power, knowledge, ideology,
and schooling are linked in ever-changing patterns of cotnplexity."n These
questions implicitly criticize the view that schools and their curricula can,
should, or do provide students with experiences objectively derived from pr
even primarily justified by a set of learning objectives and that the primary
purpose of schooling is to facilitate learning in individuals. For those critical
theorists concerned primarily with the hidden curriculum, the official cur
riculum is largely trivial in its significance when compared with implicit mes-
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
sages in the schools' rules and norms of behavior. To other critical theorists
the official curriculum is significant not because of its explicit learning objec.
tives, but because of the knowledge it legitimizes and delegitimizes, the ef
fects of this process, and the manner in which it distributes this knowledge
differently to different classes of students.
Thus, a critical perspective, although it attempts to provide answers to
the procedural, descriptive, and conceptual questions, focuses on another
question, a quesiton that takes issue with a fundamental assumption of the
technical production perspective: If all curriculum decisions are inherently
ideological and political, and therefore an objectively based means-end ratio
nality is itself an ideological pretense, then what is the mode of curricuhun ra
tionality?
Itkological Questions
Writers taking the strict technical production perspective attempt to pro
duce ideologically neutral models. Johnson, for example, using ideas from
Scheffler, draws a sharp distinction between definitions of curriculum (to
gether with the models on which they are based) which are "programmatic
(doctrinal)" and those which are "analytic" or explanatory/s He is clearly im
patient with confusions of this sort that have plagued the curriculum field.
according to Johnson, various curriculum writers use their
curriculwn planning models as ideological "platforms" rather than as descrip
tions or explanations.
79
These platforms have exhorted educators to offer ex
periences "having a maximum of lifelikeness for the learner, "so "to develop
individuals along lines consonant with our ideal of the authentic human
being, "SI and. to discipline "children and youth in group ways of thinking and
acting,"S2 to mention just three notable examples.
These ideological positions are to be avoided and even condemned, ac
cording to writers from the technical production perspective. They claim that
it is up to the school, not curriculum theorists, to decide what purposes the
school curriculum should adopt. Recall that Tyler's first question is followed
by a set of technical procedures that any school can use to decide on its pur
poses. Thus, the rationality of curriculum planning from the technical pro
duction perspective is not based on a particular purpose, ideology, or
doctrine, but on deciding that purpose objectively and systematically and then
by using effective and efficient means for accomplishing it. Therefore, this
perspective considers ideological questions to be a procedural step in curricu
lum planning, not questions to be answered definitively for all curriculum
planning.
Critical theorists, however, disagree. Freire regards the development ofa
critical consciousness to be the only defensible pedagogical purpose. Giroux
94
95
GEORGE J. POSNER
agrees with Herbert Marcuse that curriculum planning must be committed to
"the emancipation of sensibility, reason and imagination, in all spheres of sub
jectivity and objectivity."83 Each critical theorist has his or her own ideology.
. Each agrees that the dominant perspective's pretense of neutrality serves to
divert criticism of the dominant ideology.
Conclusion
The problem with studying a topic by answering a series of questions
should now be apparent. The questions one asks and what one accepts as a le
gitimate answer channel the investigation. We have seen how this happens in
curriculum models. Different models can be seen as answers to different
questions or as different notions of legitimate answers.
Each of the two perspectives examined has made a contribution. The
technical production perspective has provided a view of rationality in curricu
lum planing and has outlined what techniques a curriculum planner needs to
master. The critical perspective raises our consciousness regarding the as
sumptions underlying our work in curriculum. By giving us ground to stand
on outside the dominant approach, it has enabled us to examine critically the
technical production perspective, to identify its blind spots, and to understand
its political and social implications.
Study of curriculum models thus provides two necessary and comple
mentary elements: curriculum development technique and a curriculum con
science. Knowing how to develop a curriculum is what I tenn technique. Being
able to identify the assumptions underlying curriculum discussion, that is, un
derstanding what is being taken for granted, is what I term a curriculum con
science. A curriculum planner without the former is incompetent ("but what
can you do?") and without the latter is ungrounded ("merely a technician"). A
"complete" curriculum planning model is not what the field needs. The field
needs curriculum planners not only able to use various models but also aware
of the implications of their use.
Notes
1. Ralph W. Tyler, BllSic Principles ofCurriculum and Instruction (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1949).
2. Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcoun,
Brace & World, 1962).
3. Decker Walker, "A Naturalistic Model for Curriculum Development," School Re
view (November 1971):51-65.
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
4. Mauritz Johnson, "Definitions and Models in Curriculum Theory," Educational
Theory 17, 1 (April 1967):127-40. Also reprinted in Bellack and Kliebard, 3-19.
5. John I. Goodlad and Maurice N. Richter, Jr., "Decisions and Levels of Decision
Making: Process and Data-Sources," in Arno A. Bellack and Herbert M.
Kliebard, eds., Curriculum and Evaluation (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1977),
506-16.
6. See similar arguments by Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner, Curriculum Devel
opment: Theory into Practice, 2d ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1980); William H.
Schuben, Curriculum: Perspective, Perdigm, and Possibility (New York: Macmillan,
1986); and Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis, Curriculum and Aims (New York:
Teachers College Press, 1986).
7. Tyler, op. cit.
8. Note, however, that Tyler himself disagrees with this interpretation. I discuss this
matter further in a subsequent section. .
9. See Kliebard's chapter 2 herein for a thorough treatment of recent curriculum his
tory.
10. Franklin Bobbitt, The Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918); and
Franklin Bobbitt, How to Make a Curriculum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1924).
11. w: James Popham and Eva L. Baker, Systematic Instructing (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970).
12. George J. Posner and Alan N. Rudnizsky, Course Design: A Guide to Curriculum
Developmentfor Teachers, 3d ed. (New York: Longmen, 1987).
13. Douglas Barnes, Practical Curriculum Study (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1982).
14. Elliot w: Eisner, The Educational Imagination (New York: Macmillan, 1985).
15. This distinction is attributable to MauritzJohnson, not Tyler, who avoided defin
itions in his book. See Mauritz Johnson, Intentionality in Education: A Conceptual
Model ofCurricu/or and Instructional P/onning and Evaluation (Albany, N.Y.: Center
for Curriculum Research and Services, 1977), pp. 47-48.
16. Goodlad, op. cit.
17. Taba, op cit.
18. Ibid., p. 10.
19. Ibid,. pp. 462-66.
20. Ibid., p. 463.
21. Ibid., p. 479.
22. Ibid., p. 480.
23. Ibid., p. 12.
24. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
96
97
GEORGEJ. POSNER
25. Joseph J. Schwab, The Practical: A Language fir Curriculum (Washington, D.C.:
Naitonal Education Association, 1970). A shorter version was published in School
Review 78 (November 1969):1-24, and reprinted in several anthologies, including
Bellack and KIiebard, op. cit., pp. 26-44.
26. Ibid., p. 36.
27. Ibid., pp. 21-23.
28. Ibid., pp. 25-26.
29. Ibid., p. 28.
30. Ibid., p. 12. Joseph J. Schwab, "The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum,"
School Review 79 (1973):501-22.
31. Ibid.
32. Walker, op. cit'.
33. Ibid., p. 22.
34. Ibid., p. 52.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., p. 53.
37. Ibid., p. 54.
38. Ibid., pp. 57-58.
39. Ibid., p. 58.
40. Walker and Soltis, op. cit., p. 51.
41. Tyler, op. cit., p. 1.
42. Ibid., p. 1.
43. Ibid., p. 128.
44. Goodlad and Richter, op. cit.
45. Ibid., p. 510.
46. Ibid., p. 510.
47. See, for example, Michael w: Kirst and Decker F. Walker, "An Analysis of Cur
riculum Policy Making," Review ofEducational Research, 41,5 (1971):479-509. Also
reprinted in Bellack and KIiebard, op. cit., pp. 538--68.
48. Goodlad and Richter, op. cit., p. 506.
49. Johnson, 1967,op.cit.
50. Johnson, 1977, op. cit.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., p. 34.
53. Ibid., p. 9. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press,
1970).
MODELS OF CURRICULUM PLANNING
54. Ibid., p. 58.
55. Ibid., p. 62.
56. Ibid., pp. 62--63.
57. Herbert M. KIiebard, "Bureaucracy and Curriculum Theory," in Bellack and
KIiebard, op. cit., p. 613.
58. Freire, op. cit., p. 52.
59. Ibid., p. 66.
60. Ibid., p. 76,
61. Ibid., p. 97,
62. Ibid., p. 7.
63. Ibid., p. 54,
64. Ibid., p. 86,
65. Ibid., p. 113.
66. Ibid., pp. 52-53.
67. Ibid., p. 68.
. 68. Ibid., p. 118.
69. Henry A. Giroux, "Toward aNew Sociology of Curriculum," in Henry A. Giroux,
Anthony N. Penna, and William F. Pinar, eds., Curriculum and Instruction (Berke
ley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1981), p. 106.
70. Freire, op. cit., p. 118.
71. Michael F. D. Young, "An Approach to the Study of Curricula as Socially Orga
nized Knowledge," in Michael F. D. Young, ed., Knowledge and Control (London:
Collier-Macmillan, 1971). Also in Bellack and KIiebard, op. cit., pp. 254-85;
Giroux, op. cit., p. 104.
72. Young, op. cit., p. 36.
73. Ibid.; Giroux, op. cit.
74. Young, op. cit.
75. Giroux, op. cit.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid., p. 194.
78. Johnson, 1967, op. cit., pp. 4-5.
79. Ibid., p. 5.
80. Harold O. Rugg, ed., The Foundations ofCurriculum-Malcing, 26th Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education (part m(Bloomington, Ind.: Public
School Publishing Co., 1972), p. 18.
81. Robert S. Zais, Curriculum: Principles and Foundations (New York: Harper and Row,
1976), p. 239.
98 99
GEORGE]. POSNER
82. B. Othane! Smith, William O. Stanley, and]. Harlan Shores, Fundamentals a/Cur
riculum Development, rev. ed. (Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Co., 1957),
p.3.
83. Giroux, op. cit., p. 106.
SIX
Multicultural Curricula:
""Whose Knowledge?" and Beyond
Susan E. Noffke
A
t the 1991 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, a
paper presentation by Violet Harris on, "Helen Whiting and the Educa
tion of Colored Children 1930-1960: Emancipatory Pedagogy in Action" in
cluded a rich description of an important educator, interesting in several
ways.' First, there was a clear use of African and African American culture in
the works that Helen 'Whiting developed. Having read about current efforts
at an African and African American Infusion P r o j e c ~ and about Afrocen
trism,3 I was struck by the similarity, at least at the level of addressing the cur
rent controversy, over whose knowledge ought to be in the curriculum. I had
earlier come across work from the 1930s
4
which seemed to be focused on de
veloping curricula from a Native American perspective. I wondered how
widespread such "multicultural" efforts were.
Two other aspects to Helen 'Whiting's work were also salient. Perhaps
because of the gross inequities in funding for schools for Mrican American
children during the 1930s, or perhaps as a result of the influence of such pro
gressive era educational work as the project method, unit teacJ1ing, or the
idea of building curriculum from the world of the child, the work Harris
100 101