Flinders, D. J. and Thornton, S. J. (Editors).
(2004). The Curriculum Studies Reader (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Pp. xiv + 355
$25.99 (Paperback) ISBN 0415945232
$95.00 (Hardback) ISBN 0415945224
Reviewed by Naomi Jeffery Petersen
Indiana University, South Bend
December 2, 2005
The first edition of The Curriculum Studies Reader,
edited by David Flinders and Stephen Thornton, was my
introduction to primary texts of curriculum theorists. It was a
revelation to me, a classroom teacher, beginning a late-career
change by pursuing a doctorate. Like many other practitioners, my
focus had been on the immediate usefulness and integrity of any
innovations. Theories learned in a master’s degree more
than a decade before had faded along with much familiarity with
peer-reviewed journals. Flinders and Thornton (1997) provided a
jump drive of original sources, letting me leapfrog through major
curriculum paradigms.
I recall looking up George Willis’s review of it
(http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev47.htm) and with a shock of
recognition I realized he was the author of another book I was
using. What a concept: These authors sounded like real people
having a dinner table conversation. And thus I began to
appreciate the dynamic and personal nature of curriculum
studies. New work builds and connects and changes and challenges
current wisdom, even secondary contributions such as book
reviews. In this dialectical spirit, the second edition of
Flinders and Thornton’s reader appears to have responded to
the observations and suggestions made by earlier reviewers such
as Willis.
I must agree with Willis that while “it is not the
anthology I would have made … it is comprehensive if not
complete”. For instance, the more exhaustive Curriculum
Planning: A Contemporary Approach (Parkay, Hass, &
Anctil, 2005) included essays by Bagley, Kilpatrick, and Hutchins
—clearly theoretical regarding the purpose of curriculum,
while Flinders and Thornton included only Bobbit—clearly
practical regarding its effects. Perhaps that is the charm of
the collection for orienting the clinical practitioner to the
theoretical knowledge base of the profession. It remains an ideal
text for graduate courses in curriculum that are so common: an
obligatory foundation before focusing exclusively on some
advanced certification. The selections are one-sitting reads.
There are no distracting questions or reflective prompts. And the
paperback is a very affordable price. The Parkay, Hass and Anctil
(2005) text is more than twice that; Ornstein and Hunkins’s
(2003) is more than triple. No doubt those are worth the price
difference, but for developing the autodidact, Flinders and
Thornton provide a more digestible and liberating product.
The structure of the book remains unchanged: It is organized
chronologically with a focus on the field of curriculum in
continuous development. It is not a history of education so much
as the life and times of an academic field in historical context.
It would therefore be a nice companion text to some more specific
historical studies, i.e., Zimmerman and Schunk’s (2001) or
Lageman (2000) or even Noddings (1995). Perhaps there is an
assumption that this reader will always be used in context of
coursework requiring other readings. A compatible resource for a
curriculum theory course is Ellis’ (2003) Exemplars of
Curriculum Theory, which provides current real world models
and applications without succumbing to rhetoric. For a seminar
intending to discuss controversial developments, choose
Ornstein’s (2004) Teaching and Schooling in America:
Pre- and Post September 11. For the purely convenient
soundbite, students might get something out of the biographical
sketches provided in Palmer’s (2001, 2002) two paperbacks,
also from Routledge, and coincidentally featuring Thornton on
Rugg and Flinders on Bereiter as well as Noddings. But in any
case, a collection of original texts such as this one is
essential for the well-read educator to appreciate the scope of
curriculum issues, and their thoughtful section introductions are
excellent orientations to the eras. It is truly a new edition,
for these are freshly drawn. Again, I agree with Willis’
assessment: the commentaries are “necessarily but all too
brief”.
To their credit, Flinders and Thornton simply offer a
collection of original works, providing background and overview
to each section, without assuming the reader’s purpose:
They do not add instructional prompts for the reader to apply the
ideas to current contexts. In this way they respect any
instructor who uses it as a text to do so with judgment; they
also respect any person reading it to be thoughtfully reflective.
The seminal works certainly speak for themselves. For the most
part the editors are mild and courtly introducing the parade of
truthsayers in hopes that a wise course of action will become
self-evident, but the second edition is not quite so neutral as
the first. Flinders and Thornton maintain a cautious formality of
optimism in the face of tragic current events, although there is
a thinly veiled dismay with current accountability reforms. In
fact, it is the limitation of options considered that fuels their
dismay.
Interestingly enough, Amazon.com has advertised this reader in
combination with Ralph Tyler (1949) Basic Principles of
Curriculum and Instruction, but he was not included in the
first edition. Now an excerpt headlines the second section,
’Curriculum at Education’s Center Stage’. The
new edition features a direct response to Tyler by Doll (1993)
but it is part of the last section with other postmodernists.
Sosniak’s (1994) essay on Bloom did not survive the
revision, but the aforementioned last section reflects the debate
regarding tests, which of course were the impetus for the
development of the cognitive taxonomy. Jackson’s The
Daily Grind remains, becoming the only post-60’s
contribution to this section.
Willis had pointed out that “Its value to educational
policy and practice is in helping those who make practical
decisions see the issues involved in the most comprehensive light
so that they may enhance their ability to thoughtfully weigh and
appropriately select the best possible courses of action from the
vast array of plausible alternatives.” He was highlighting
their objectivity, although this was skewed a bit by his own
reconstructionist and critical bent. In oblique terms he
suggested that if policymakers were to function with that
thoughtful weightiness, there might be a very different political
landscape indeed. He registered a mild concern “with
precisely how Flinders and Thornton describe- or, more
accurately, do not describe- the movement.” Whether in
response to his or others’ concerns, the third section of
the book is no longer ‘Pondering’ but now
‘Reconceptualizing the Curriculum’ and Pinar’s
(1978) work of the same name headlines. The last section retains
its focus on the most contemporary authors but its subtitle is no
longer Contemporary Issues and Continuing Debates but
Continuity and Change, more succinct and also more
suggestive of a natural progress instead of bickering.
Noddings’ (2003) The Aims of Education concludes the
section and the volume, which replaces Lieberman’s (1990)
Building a Bridge over Troubled Waters.
The collection is greatly improved by two essays that
highlight the culmination of different curricular traditions:
Mortimer Adler’s PaedaiaProposal (1982), and
the equally important criticism of it by Nel Noddings (1983). Of
course, Flinders and Thornton have long been affiliated with
Noddings, having organized a tribute to her at the Seattle AERA
meeting in 2001, and worked with her on several projects.
Thornton has an essay in her most recent work (Noddings, 2005),
and she wrote the foreword for his most recent work (Thornton,
2005). She provides the last word in this edition, with her
challenge to mathematics education and invitation to a caring
curriculum, providing a nice arc back to another sterling
addition to this edition: Jane Addams’ (1908) The Public
School and the Immigrant Child, a poignant reminder of our
current concern for those seeking refuge from foreign wars and
domestic weather.
Assembling this representative collection is no easy task, and
some hard decisions were clearly required in order to maintain
the manageable size. In fact, this edition is seven pages
shorter. Apple’s (1990) Is There a Curriculum Voice to
Reclaim? was in the last section of the first edition, but is
no longer. However, his (1986) Controlling the Work of
Teachers is now in an earlier section. Maybe this is a
promotion, suggesting that he had an earlier influence. Eisner
is again a multiple contributor, although down to two from his
previous. The changes in his titles reflect the changes in
popular focus. Gone are his Humanistic Trends and the
Curriculum Field (1978) and Who Decides What
Schools Teach? (1990), but now we find WhatDoes It
Mean To Say a School is Doing Well? (2001). He still provides
the Deweyian challenge to educational objectives (Eisner, 1967)
but this time situated to follow as counterpoint to
Popham’s (1972) take on objectives. In the spirit of
historical perspective, it would be logical to include a more
recent Popham work (2001) in the last section to demonstrate how
his criticism of current testing practices appears to place him
in the same contrarian camp as Eisner. No doubt the next edition
will include even more on the subject as the country shifts or
revolts under the data-driven mandate of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (USDOE OESE, 2002).
An editorial skill in welcome evidence is the reordering in
order to refine the presentation of influences. In the third
section, five essays were excised, three were reordered, and
three are new. Gone is Huebner’s (1975) Poetry and Power
(“Fellow educators—are we not lost?”)
while Pinar (1975), who edited the volume containing that essay,
now introduces the newly named section. This time,
Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
introduces rather than is introduced by Green (1971). Goodbye
Connelly and Ben-Peretz (1981, McCutcheon (1988), and Ravitch
(1981).
Rather than list all that were discarded from the final
section, it is a shorter list to mention which of the essays
survived the revision: only Silin’s (1995) on HIV/AIDS.
Jardine’s (1990) piece On the Integrated Curriculum and
the Recovery of the Earth has morphed into a joint piece with
LaGrante and Everest (2002), Meditations on Curriculum
Integration, Conceptual Violence, and the Ecologies of Community
and Place. For the first time, a collective author is
included: the American Association of University Women (1992)
contributed How Schools Shortchange Girls. This may signal
a trend, for there are many important sets of standards and
policies that have had great impact on curriculum, i.e., NCTM
(1989) and the preamble to the INTASC standards (1992).
Conspicuous omissions? Consider the absence of Bruner’s
(1966) spiral curriculum that dissolved rigid sequences of study.
Systems theory and social psychology also warrant at least a
brief mention, i.e., Deutsch’s (1949, 1973) concepts of
interdependence and conflict resolution and the subsequent
cooperative learning groups model (Johnson & Johnson’s
(1998). And still no Glasser (1969) control or choice theory and
the juggernaut of quality schools, nor a nod to Hirsch’s
(1983) cultural literacy franchise. Perhaps mention of
Kuhn’s (1970) concept of paradigmatic shifts would be a
good arc from the early and enduring passion for science. While
each of these is compatible with others writings already
included, each may be worthy of recognition in even the most
basic of introduction to original works in the field. But as said
before, keeping this volume manageable requires hard
decisions.
If there is a misstep in their role as connoisseurs of
curriculum theories, it is by including, in addition to the four
section introductions, one of their own writings, but perhaps
they are indeed the best writers on the subjects (Teaching for
Cultural Literacy and Gays and Lesbians in Social Studies
Curriculum). The editors’ other full-length works are
no less concerned with progressive approaches (Bowers &
Flinders, 1990; Flinders, 1991; Flinders & Mils, 1993;
Thornton, 2005). Speaking of progressivism, I recall that Willis
pointed out that in the first edition, Dewey’s My
Pedagogic Creed was attributed to a reprint date rather than
the original 1897. My quibble is different: Because this text is
available in full on multiple websites (i.e.,
http://www.dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm), perhaps the precious
pages of the reader could be instead devoted to some thing
fromExperience and Education (Dewey, 1938) which
articulates the curriculum decisions that express his philosophy.
However, lest you think this reviewer is disappointed in
The Curriculum Studies Reader, first or second edition,
let me close by affirming that this is a valuable resource,
well-conceived and executed. I continue to use it as a primary
text for graduate curriculum theory courses and to recommend it
for educators’ professional libraries. I don’t even
mind that not all the citations are complete. Let those grad
students find the original to figure out the pages for pristine
APA reference lists.
References
Addams, J. (1908). The public school and the
immigrant child.Journal of Proceedings and Addresses (National
Education Association). 99-102.
Adler, M. (1983). The Paideia proposal:
An educational manifesto. New York:
Collier.
American Association of University Women.
(1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW
Report. Washington DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
Apple, M. (1986). Teachers and texts.
New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (1990)Is there a curriculum
voice to reclaim? Phi Delta Kappan (71)
526-530.
Bowers, C.A. & Flinders, D. (1990).
An ecological approach to classroom patterns of language,
thought, and culture. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of
education. Harvard University Press.
Connelly, F., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1981).
Teachers, research, and curriculum development. In K. Littlewood
(Ed.) Curriculum decision making. Toronto: OISE
Press.
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education [OESE].(2002). No
Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, DC:
Author.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation
and competition. Human Relations, 2.
129-51.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of
conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and
education. New York: Harper.
Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern
perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Ellis, A. (2003). Exemplars of curriculum
theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Eisner, E. (1967). Educational objectives:
Help or hindrance? School Review, 75.
250-260.
Eisner, E. (1978). Humanistic trends and the
curriculum field. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10.
197-204.
Eisner, E.(1990). Who decides
what schools teach? Phi Delta Kappan, 71. 523-6.
Eisner, E. (2001).What Does It Mean To
Say a School is Doing Well? Phi Delta Kappan, 82.
367-72.
Flinders, D. (1991). Culturally
responsive teaching and supervision: A handbook for staff
development. New York : Teachers College
Press.
Flinders, D. & Mils, G. (Eds.).(1993).
Theories and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives
from the field. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Flinders, D. & Thornton, S. (Eds.)
(1997). The curriculum studies reader. London:
Routledge.
Glasser, W. (l969).Schools without
failure. New York: Harper & Row.
Greene, M. (1971).Curriculum and
consciousness. Teachers College Record, 73.
253-69.
Hirsch, E. (1983). Cultural literacy.
The American Scholar, 52 (2). 159-171.
Huebner, D. (1975) Poetry and power. In W.
Pinar Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium [INTASC]. (1992) Model standards for
beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state
dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved October 01, 2005 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/cor
estrd.pdf
Jardine, D. (1990). On the integrated
curriculum and the recovery of the earth. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision (5).
107-119.
Jardine, D., LaGrange, A., & Everest, B.
(2002). Meditations on curriculum integration, conceptual
violence, and the ecologies of community and place. In D.
Jardine, P. Clifford, and S Friesen, Back to the basics of
teaching and learning. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1998).
Learnng together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of
scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E. (2000). An elusive science:
The troubling history of educational research. Univeristy of
Chicago Press.
Lieberman, A. (1990). Building a bridge over
troubled waters. Phi Delta Kappan, 71. 531-1.
McCutcheon, G. (1988). Curriculum and the
work of teachers. in L. Bayer & M. Apple The
curriculum. Albany: SUNY Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM]. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: author
Noddings, N. (1983). The false promise of
Paideia: A critical review of the Paideia Proposal. Journal of
Thought, 18 (4). 81-91.
Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of
education. Bounder, CO: Westview.
Noddings, N. (2003) Happiness and
education.Cambridge University Press.
Noddings, N. (Ed.) (2005). Educating
citizens for global awareness. New Yokr: Teachers College
Press.
Ornstein, A. (2004). Teaching and
schooling in America: Pre- and post- September 11. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Ornstein, A. & Hunkins, F. (2003).
Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues
(4th ed.). Boston,: Allyn &
Bacon.
Palmer, J. (2001). Fifty modern thinkers
on education: From Piaget to the present day. New York:
Routledge.
Palmer, J. (2002). Fifty thinkers on
education: From Confucius to Dewey. New York:Routledge
Parkay, F., Hass, G., & Anctil, E.
(2005). Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach
(8th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Pinar, W. (1978). Curriculum theorizing:
The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Popham, W. J. (1972). An evaluation
guidebook: A set of practical guidelines for the educational
evaluator. Los Angeles: The Instructional Objectives
Exchange.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about
testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Ravitch(1981). Forgetting the questions: The
problem of educational reform. The American Scholar, 50
(3). 329-341.
Silin, J. (1995). Sex, Death, and the
Education of Children: Our Passion for Ignorance in the Age of
AIDS (The Politics of Identity and Education). Teachers
College Press.
Sosniak, L. (1994). The taxonomy,
curriculum, and their relations. In L. Anderson & L. Sosniak
(Eds.) (1994). Bloom’s Taxonomy: A forty-year
retrospective. University of Chicago Press.
Thornton, S. (2005). Teaching social
studies that matter: Curriculum for active learning. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of
curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago
Press.
Zimmerman, B. & Schunk, D. (2001).
Educational psychology: A century of contributions.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
About the Reviewer
Naomi Jeffery Petersen, Indiana University South Bend,
teaches curriculum and instruction as well as educational
research with an interest in psychometrics. Having completed
studies of adjunct involvement and student satisfaction, she is
currently validating an instrument to measure orientations to
teaching for mathematical proficiency. Theoretical interests
include the function of oblivion in relation to ethical action,
and teachable moments of civility in classroom cultures. She
welcomes collaboration.
Copyright is retained by the first or sole author,
who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.