Reid, William A. (2006). The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest. Reviewed by Ahmet Uludag, Arizona State University

Reid, William A. (2006). The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Pp. xxiii + 179         ISBN 1-59311-507-5 Reviewed by Ahmet Uludag Arizona State University June 6, 2007 Curriculum is often at the forefront of debates about K-12 schooling. Debates appear to be on ideal, efficient, federally mandated and centrally planned curriculum. Some of the questions hovering on curriculum debate are who mandates curriculum standards—federal government or states—what the curriculum standards are, who plans new school curricula, and the like. Issues such as why curriculum is not working, why curriculum does not result in higher success rates, and whether the curriculum has failed are debated daily. As a result, interest in curriculum is widespread. Literally, curriculum refers to a course or a set of courses. Its origins are deep in the chariot tracks of ancient Greece. Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere means "to run." Currently, consensus on the definition of curriculum is lacking. Depending on the social philosophical stance taken with respect to education and schooling, curriculum means many different things. For laymen, it means courses, textbooks, one's "major," or syllabi. For educators, it often means a plan. Curriculum has been thought of at various times as a blueprint for activities. The plan or the blueprint is an outline or a map that can be transformed or translated into meaningful learning activities for students in school and beyond. In The Pursuit of Curriculum, William A. Reid pursues the question of “what curriculum” is and “how we might think about it” (p. 1). Reid proposes the idea of the "pursuit" in curriculum construction, which ironically harkens back to the historic definition of curriculum and its roots in chariot racing.In this second edition of The Pursuit of Curriculum, Reid’s discussion of curriculum and liberal education is enriched with a foreword by O. L. Davis, Jr., Catherine Mae Parker Centennial Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at The University of Texas at Austin. The introduction, provided by Wesley Null, a curriculum theorist and educational historian at Baylor University, sets the scene for the rest of the book drawing strong connections among Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom, Joseph Schwab’s idea of the practical, and Reid’s favoring of the deliberative tradition among curriculum theories. In the postscript, Null draws connections between Reid’s arguments and contemporary American curriculum and public education. In The Pursuit, Reid views curriculum making as an act of pursuit in an attempt “to understand the nature of curriculum problems and discover ways of solving them." (p. 2) According to Reid’s definition, “To pursue means to be active, to engage with the world, to face its obstacles, and opportunities, to recognize these occasions when pragmatism is called for, or when ideals must not be sacrificed in its name.” (p. 1) With the notion of pursuit, Reid proposes that “curriculum is a possession of the society as a whole.” (p. 2) Like justice and democracy, curriculum requires a continuous widespread effort from different walks of life to discover ways to resolve problems through the act of deliberation. For curriculum workers, curriculum making should be a journey that includes many successes and failures in the process of planning, teaching, and learning while exploring new territories to map out and conquer. In this pursuit, an end is not the key consideration and not to be expected. However, it is clear that there are many destinations to be explored. Curriculum already draws the attention of not only educators but also many other influential groups. Reid realizes the diversity of interest in curriculum and notes that “If its pursuit is to be successful, it has to be the work of the many, not few.” (p. 2) Reid discusses four social philosophies influencing curriculum theory: the systematic, the radical, the existentialist, and the deliberative. Although he covers all four theories in considerable detail with respect to the roles of teachers, learners, schools, the curriculum, and the purpose of education, he focuses on deliberation and the deliberative perspective with frequent references to Schwab. Reid’s contention is that deliberation fits well with the notion of pursuit and has a long philosophical tradition among curriculum theorists. For Reid, curriculum making is not theoretical but rather practical. Reid notes that “the essence of a deliberative perspective lies in the proposition that curriculum problems are practical and that deliberation is the method of the practical.” (p. 77) For this reason, the deliberative perspective should be the preferred approach for curriculum theorists to follow. Reid notes that his “... main aim is to draw a map of how people think about the curriculum of schooling and in the course of that, to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions they occupy.” (p.3) This map of curriculum allows readers to make connections to their own educational system and challenges common understandings of curriculum as a theory-bound work of elite academics. Reid criticizes these positions in relation to the definition of curriculum, curriculum making, and the roles of educators. His critique covers the strengths and weaknesses by exemplifying paramount issues each position takes. His position is clear in the discussion of curriculum and social philosophies, and he reasonably holds and defends “a deliberative perspective.” In this perspective, “curriculum is seen not as a plan, cultural reproduction, or personal experience but as a practical art: the art of discovering curriculum problems, deliberating about them, and inventing solution to them.” (p. 16) The deliberative perspective suggested by Reid consists of a method of inquiry to address problems reasonably for the well-being of teacher, students, milieus, subject matter, and curriculum making with a concern for the common good. In The Pursuit, readers will face a challenge to rethink their understanding of curriculum, and they will pursue issues surrounding curriculum from a foundational perspective and a contemporary rhetorical perspective. Reid’s examples are relevant in order to see practical reflections of theoretical concepts in curriculum as a practice and curriculum as an institution. One particular contribution of The Pursuit is to highlight four groups of social philosophies throughout the book with clear distinctions providing readers with a general framework in which curriculum debates occur. Readers will also note that Reid provides an analysis of the positions of the four social philosophies in relation to "commonplaces" of curriculum with a focus on curriculum as a practice and an institution, noting the conflicts between the two. (p. 64) Another contribution of The Pursuit is to assert the importance of common good—public and civic interest in Reid’s words—rather than personal interests. In his postscript, Null compliments Reid for depicting a “philosophical vision for reconnecting curriculum workers to the public good.” (p. 161) Of course, in this vision, Reid places deliberation at the core to provide an alternative methodology to ensure that there is a way to understand curriculum problems based on reason rather than ideology. In his conclusion, Reid states that “policies in every sphere are promoted or attacked on the bases of the benefits they will bring to, or the damage they inflict on, this or that sectional interest.” (p.155) In this regard, Reid realizes the challenges that deliberation faces and notes that “the habit of deliberation in society generally is progressively being lost,” (p. 154) and calls on workers in curriculum to reverse this trend. Reid tries to show that the deliberative perspective is better suited than other social philosophies of curriculum in bringing the common good to education, curriculum, and schooling. This effort is invaluable in today’s increasingly commercialized education system. Another important contribution of Reid’s bookis the recognition that curriculum is an institution and a practice. With the deliberative perspective, Reid attempts to reconcile these two aspects of curriculum. He defines an institution as “a socially embedded idea defined by well-known structures.” (p. 25) Reid notes that some of these institutions are government ministries, banks, and post offices; and these institutions are socially embedded, and they have a national character. (p. 40) For Reid, curriculum became an institution through shifting over the course of history. In France, the institutional aspect of curriculum is visible because its institutional nature is recognized and accepted. Another example that Reid suggest is that Japan has an enviable curriculum but no one would attempt to contract the U.S. curriculum out to them for obvious reasons. Curriculum is an invaluable institution to nation states all over the globe, and it promotes national values, ideals, and policies. Reid succeeds in mapping out the foundations of what curriculum is and how people think about curriculum and curriculum making. Readers will notice that curriculum making is essentially practical. Reid clearly defines social philosophies that people tend to associate with. His description enables readers to question their understanding of curriculum and their roles. Reid also challenges our understanding of curriculum and cites many reasons to adopt the deliberative perspective. Null’s introduction and postscript reveal the background of the arguments in The Pursuit. For example, his introduction outlines the similarities and differences between the concepts of Aristotle’s practical wisdom and Schwab’s the practical in relation to their works Ethics and The Practical, respectively. Null’s postscript focuses on conveying his brief perspective on curriculum problems. Reid does not go into connecting Schwab to Aristotle as thoroughly as does Null. In The Pursuit, readers will find practical guidance for dealing with curriculum problems at the K-12 level with a deliberative perspective. However, these guidelines should be relevant to curriculum problems at other levels as well. American higher education is changing rapidly and is probably more open to special interest pressure because of the way universities and colleges operate and their strong ties to businesses. Reid presents the deliberative perspective as a viable alternative to other models of curriculum making: namely, procedure (systematic), reproduction (radical), and personal growth (existentialist). He notes that “the ideas to which the notion of 'deliberation' is a key are not finally resolvable because their subject matter is social process and social processes are always in a state of flux and development.” (p. 64) Reid’s suggestion in this quotation explains his adoption of the notion of pursuit but significant challenges surface for curriculum development from this constant change. One is that politicians and politics centered on powerful ideology are content with changes only when they are in their interest. As Reid suggests, ideologies are attractive to people because they are complete and conclusive. (p. 39) Finally, Reid’s work should be read with attention to how he maps curriculum problems and how he uses curriculum in different contexts. In the absence of an understanding of curriculum as an institution (like a bank) or a practice (like chemistry), readers will encounter difficulties in comprehending the framework in which Reid examines curriculum problems. About the Reviewer Ahmet Uludag is a PhD student in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Arizona State University. His research interests focus on language policy and its implications on English as a second or foreign language teaching programs.