Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 1

Philosophy of Curriculum

Kendall W. Roper

University of Kansas

Author Note

Kendall W. Roper, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, KU

Kendall Roper is now an online student in this department’s masters program

This paper was written as an assignment for said program.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kendall

Roper, online student, University of Kansas, Meridian, ID 83646. Contact: kwroper@ku.edu

PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 2

Abstract

This paper explores the works of past curriculum theorists and reflects on my beliefs while

providing a loose framework of my philosophy of curriculum.

Keywords​: curriculum, theory, practice

PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 3

Philosophy of Curriculum

“To study postmodernism (or any of the other “posts”) for curricular implications means

to question much of what we have heretofore considered natural or normal. Such fundamental

questioning, of course, is frightening; we worry about the collapse of stability, of the order we

have known, of the values we hold dear.” (Doll 1993). This nailed it on the head as to how I feel

when contemplating my own philosophy of curriculum. I see a broken system in chaos that is in

desperate need of an overhaul. However, I also fear that too much of an overcorrect could be

equally detrimental to education in general. After studying the works of many theorists

throughout this course, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with parts of each of them. It

seems that all of them sound good in theory yet all have their faults when put into practice as a

foundation of curriculum. In reflecting on my own ever-changing educational philosophies, I

discovered much about myself as a teacher and a critic. It became apparent to me that my

philosophy of curriculum is to simplify the focus and details while diversifying the ways we

operate by using a variety as aspects from theorists over the past century.

As I stated in my last response paper, I really admire the vision of Peter Hlebowitsh

which called for a multi-dimensional core focus. Although I saw Doll’s 4 R’s of richness,

recursion, relations, and rigor (Doll 1993) as a more promising framework for the future of

schools because of its concrete simplicity, I feel that my curricular philosophy aligns mostly with

Hlebowitsh because it allows me to pick and choose from theories that best fit my current

students, school culture, and community standards in order to create, practice, and fine tune a

working curriculum.
PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 4

Toward the beginning of this course, I found myself relating mostly with Ralph Tyler and

Jerome Bruner’s theories. Having a clear set of standards and objectives scientifically laid out in

a way that was clearcut and foolproof seemed ideal to me. I felt like all parties involved could

come in knowing the expectations, track the progress made toward such expectations, and leave

having a known mastery of the expectations in an easily reportable format. However, Elliot

Eisner’s argument against this practice stating "The outcomes of instruction are far more

numerous and complex for educational objectives to encompass" (Flinders and Thornton 2017)

said it best as to why this theory has faults among other sound reasons. Therefore, I feel like my

philosophy is a conglomerate of the following ideals.

I believe that all stakeholders involved in a student’s education should not feel in the

dark or having to guess what it is that the student is being taught or assessed on. All parties

involved should come in knowing the expectations, able to track the progress made toward such

expectations, and leave having a known mastery of the expectations in an easily reportable

format. However, I don’t believe that the accountability to the public should drive curriculum to

the extreme. Wayne Au’s research finding of “The dominant theme found in qualitative research

regarding high-stakes testing and curriculum is that of content alignment” (Flinders and

Thornton 2017) reinforces this idea and my dislike for standardized testing as a by-product of

overly prioritized objectives.

I believe that the standards and objectives should be designed to prepare students for life

beyond high school rather than just a body of knowledge that they receive. I believe that students

should feel empowered to make a change for the better in the world. I believe that teachers

should facilitate learning rather than fill kids’ heads with facts. To summarize, I concur with
PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 5

Jerome Bruner that teachers should help students “learn how to learn” (Flinders and Thornton

2017).

I believe in collaboration, but also in the genuine belief that one has in an idea. I believe

that Montessori has a piece of it right where students should be able to learn at their own pace in

a creative way, but also with Popham that it should able to be measured in a sophisticated

manner. I believe that Noddings was correct that “giving all of our children the ​same ​education,

especially when that “sameness” is defined in a model of intellectual excellence, cannot equalize

the quality of education” (Flinders and Thornton 2017).

Finally, I believe that each of these theories could have a benefit to a classroom when

implemented the right way by the right teacher. Yet, if the teacher doesn’t believe in the

curriculum that he or she is implementing then it will not work. The teacher knows the kids the

best and is trying to do right by them. They have to be fully on board for any model to work

well. I’ve had my fair share of failures in implementing ideas of others. It sounded great in my

head or on paper as well as looked great in other teachers’ classrooms. However, if I didn’t fully

understand it, commit to it, stick with it, or even like it then it didn’t go well. I really tried to

implement standards-based grading in my classes and I’m still experimenting. I’ve seen the

positives of clear communications with students and parents as well as the negatives with the

absence of creativity in the rubric to account for non-standards learning which I found equally

important. Even when I failed, the kids knew that I was trying my best to give them the best

education possible. They sometimes learned despite of the curriculum because I cared about

them. They may have not learned everything I intended, but useful education occurred.
PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 6

I don’t feel like there is an answer to a perfect curriculum that exists yet. Even if there

were, I don’t feel that it would be the best for all students or all schools. I feel teachers who have

a metacognitive approach to curriculum and theories that preceded them while placing the care

of the students as his or her top priority is the best framework an educational system can have. It

wouldn’t help prepare students for such a diverse world if we tried to narrow down a curriculum

to a one-size-fits all vision. It would kill the creativity of teachers and possibly students. There

may be a better, more scientific way to approach curriculum without also going overboard, but

there is also a beauty in the art of teaching where lives are changed for the better without a

recognizable formula to replicate. This needs to be acknowledged and respected. It is great to

learn from the successes and failures of others but, at the end of the day, a curriculum needs to

have a sense of ownership by the teacher(s) or else it will not benefit the students as designed.
PHILOSOPHY OF CURRICULUM 7

References

Doll, W. (1993). Curriculum Possibilities in a “Post”-Future. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 8(4), 277-292.

Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (2017). ​The curriculum studies reader​ (5th ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.