What do you think?
Rate this book
Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns, 2nd Edition
The Second Edition of Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns by Michael Stephen Schiro presents a clear, unbiased, and rigorous description of the major curriculum philosophies that have influenced educators and schooling over the last century. The author analyzes four educational visions―Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centered, and Social Reconstruction―to enable readers to reflect on their own educational beliefs and more productively interact with educators who might hold different beliefs.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
36 people are currently reading
57 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 31, 2013
this book repeats itself. this book repeats itself. did I mention that this book repeats itself?
February 2, 2018
Yes, Schiro absolutely repeats himself, but most academic texts in education do! What he did well was make four major ideologies accessible for the reader. Granted, he suggested more problems with Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency than the other two, but the other two are more emerging in society. Personally, I enjoyed taking the quiz and seeing what I valued; it would be useful for teams of teachers and to possibly transform the way schools interact with students. I worked at a school previously that had "student-focused" in its vision statement, yet all of the practices lined up with Social Efficiency, which Schiro convincingly explains is not student-focused at all!
I do think he was a bit idealistic, especially with Social Reconstruction. In the ideologies, he does not mention the issues teachers face when dealing with parents/guardians. Considering he was a math teacher, I imagine he had less opinionated discussions in the classroom and, as a result, dealt with parents less (he's lucky).
I would recommend this book to people interested in curriculum, but also anyone applying for a job in education. I cannot believe I went this long without knowing the terminology!
I do think he was a bit idealistic, especially with Social Reconstruction. In the ideologies, he does not mention the issues teachers face when dealing with parents/guardians. Considering he was a math teacher, I imagine he had less opinionated discussions in the classroom and, as a result, dealt with parents less (he's lucky).
I would recommend this book to people interested in curriculum, but also anyone applying for a job in education. I cannot believe I went this long without knowing the terminology!
Read
September 3, 2016An interesting chapter on Learner Centred Ideology, which I find myself half agreeing with, and half despairing at. A good account though.
April 2, 2019
Well, what can I say? As a textbook, it is extremely repetitive. Instead of doing the assigned readings in one sitting (when I ended up becoming quite upset at the monotony of it all...) I decided to read ten pages a day. Of course, this "stretched" approach is not for everyone, but I did find that the constant focus on a few narrow points help me remember them.
In other words, the darn thing is so repetitive, that you can't get lost, even if you ingest the books one page at the time with screaming children around you. As I said, might not work for everybody but hey, worked well enough for me.
I don't know if anyone will ever ask "should I read this?" unless they have to (in which case, yeah you probably should...) but if one wonders, well, you will gain a better understanding of four key ideologies underlying curriculum : learner centered, social reconstruction, social efficiency and scholar academic. The focus of the book is the American school system. There, the book really fulfills adequately its mission: I could talk your ear off about any of those ideology right now. Don't go on a long drive with me and ask questions about curriculum is what I am saying.
If you are a new teacher, you might wonder: "but where are those educators that Schiro describes?" Well the answer is simple, they don't exist. At least, not around me. Schiro created models, archetype so to speak, of educators fully and 100% committed to one ideology. This is fine for demonstration purpose, but lacks authenticity.
It is tough to engage with curriculum making, but it is useful. This book was tough to like, but useful.
In other words, the darn thing is so repetitive, that you can't get lost, even if you ingest the books one page at the time with screaming children around you. As I said, might not work for everybody but hey, worked well enough for me.
I don't know if anyone will ever ask "should I read this?" unless they have to (in which case, yeah you probably should...) but if one wonders, well, you will gain a better understanding of four key ideologies underlying curriculum : learner centered, social reconstruction, social efficiency and scholar academic. The focus of the book is the American school system. There, the book really fulfills adequately its mission: I could talk your ear off about any of those ideology right now. Don't go on a long drive with me and ask questions about curriculum is what I am saying.
If you are a new teacher, you might wonder: "but where are those educators that Schiro describes?" Well the answer is simple, they don't exist. At least, not around me. Schiro created models, archetype so to speak, of educators fully and 100% committed to one ideology. This is fine for demonstration purpose, but lacks authenticity.
It is tough to engage with curriculum making, but it is useful. This book was tough to like, but useful.
December 14, 2024
Succinct analysis of the four major curricular theories
October 28, 2017
A book to stimulate thought — and disagreement
At the recent MoodleMoot in Sydney there were a number of presentations which used Schiro’s ideas on the four types of curriculum as grounds for the use of particular features of the Moodle Learning Management System. The four types were called Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centred and Social Reconstruction. They were described briefly as concentrating on teaching the established disciplines, concentrating on preparing students to take their place in society, concentrating on developing the natural growth of the child, and concentrating on developing students activism and ability to reform society. My first reaction was that this hardly seemed like an exhaustive list of possible aims, and there didn’t seem to be any single organizing principle for the list. Why four types, rather than five or six or sixty? And why these four, why not pick others - say overt and hidden curriculum, or vocational and religious education, etc. So I thought I’d read his book to find out...
The short answer, I discovered, as to why these four and not other possibilities is that Schiro is basing his typology on four influential streams of curriculum concerns in the history of US debates - so, this division is not logically motivated, but due to the particular concerns that have repeatedly surfaced in his own country. Fair enough - it is hardly a rare thing for writers on education to assume that their parochial debates are of universal significance! Or, for US writers in general, for that matter!
However, what I did find problematic was that after the briefest nod to the thinkers whose ideas he was summarizing, that the remainder of the book consisted of assertions about what each of these four “ideal types” said about various aspects of education — assessment, aims, teaching styles, etc. The book is full of tables which purport to display the answers each approach gives to different questions. But these are not actual answers from actual people in these traditions but rather Schiro’s speculations about what the answers would be, given the characterization he has developed for each “ideal type”.
This is where the book is thought provoking - clearly delineating and fixing in one’s mind a prototypical image of each approach provides a help in thinking through curriculum ideas. But it is also the source of weakness - each tradition is reduced to a straw man. The scholar academic tradition has as its central aim the reproduction and preservation of the academic discipline structure of the universities. The Learner Centred curriculum is concerned purely with the here and now of the student’s current interests and preoccupations. The Social Reconstruction curriculum is concerned with indoctrinating children. The Social Efficiency curriculum simply aims at the reproduction of society as it is.
I doubt that any actual curriculum thinker would accept these characterizations as adequate descriptions of their own thought.
So much of this book is spent elaborating upon Schiro’s “ideal types” that there is no time spent on discussion of real ideas by actual people in real contexts. Of course, this would be messy and complicated and there are many other books which do concern themselves with such things — but I feel that this book has gone too far in its oversimplification.
In the world today, there are real decisions to be made about real curriculum issues which have real consequences for children. I don’t think that the approach of this book, which reduces curriculum development to choice between ideologies has much to offer as a guide to dealing with these issues.
At the recent MoodleMoot in Sydney there were a number of presentations which used Schiro’s ideas on the four types of curriculum as grounds for the use of particular features of the Moodle Learning Management System. The four types were called Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centred and Social Reconstruction. They were described briefly as concentrating on teaching the established disciplines, concentrating on preparing students to take their place in society, concentrating on developing the natural growth of the child, and concentrating on developing students activism and ability to reform society. My first reaction was that this hardly seemed like an exhaustive list of possible aims, and there didn’t seem to be any single organizing principle for the list. Why four types, rather than five or six or sixty? And why these four, why not pick others - say overt and hidden curriculum, or vocational and religious education, etc. So I thought I’d read his book to find out...
The short answer, I discovered, as to why these four and not other possibilities is that Schiro is basing his typology on four influential streams of curriculum concerns in the history of US debates - so, this division is not logically motivated, but due to the particular concerns that have repeatedly surfaced in his own country. Fair enough - it is hardly a rare thing for writers on education to assume that their parochial debates are of universal significance! Or, for US writers in general, for that matter!
However, what I did find problematic was that after the briefest nod to the thinkers whose ideas he was summarizing, that the remainder of the book consisted of assertions about what each of these four “ideal types” said about various aspects of education — assessment, aims, teaching styles, etc. The book is full of tables which purport to display the answers each approach gives to different questions. But these are not actual answers from actual people in these traditions but rather Schiro’s speculations about what the answers would be, given the characterization he has developed for each “ideal type”.
This is where the book is thought provoking - clearly delineating and fixing in one’s mind a prototypical image of each approach provides a help in thinking through curriculum ideas. But it is also the source of weakness - each tradition is reduced to a straw man. The scholar academic tradition has as its central aim the reproduction and preservation of the academic discipline structure of the universities. The Learner Centred curriculum is concerned purely with the here and now of the student’s current interests and preoccupations. The Social Reconstruction curriculum is concerned with indoctrinating children. The Social Efficiency curriculum simply aims at the reproduction of society as it is.
I doubt that any actual curriculum thinker would accept these characterizations as adequate descriptions of their own thought.
So much of this book is spent elaborating upon Schiro’s “ideal types” that there is no time spent on discussion of real ideas by actual people in real contexts. Of course, this would be messy and complicated and there are many other books which do concern themselves with such things — but I feel that this book has gone too far in its oversimplification.
In the world today, there are real decisions to be made about real curriculum issues which have real consequences for children. I don’t think that the approach of this book, which reduces curriculum development to choice between ideologies has much to offer as a guide to dealing with these issues.
April 30, 2022
I used this book as a secondary text when teaching Philosophical Foundations of Education to undergraduates. Thus, adopting the "Principle of Focus," I was able to overcome what might appear to be a "repetitive" presentation of the material. In my view, it is the case that the author (at times) incorporates the technique of "repetition" for the purpose of further developing the ideas in light of their initial introduction - in the manner of an ever-deepening, quasi-hermeneutic-style of analysis/interpretation.
That stated...
This is an excellent book for both undergraduate and 'graduate' students of education and curriculum studies (yes, even graduate education students). In fact, it is one of the better books I have read detailing the four main `ideologies' of curricula, namely, the Essentialist, the Social Efficiency, the Progressive, and the Social Reconstruction models of curriculum.
The back of the book contains the following quotation:
"A clear, unbiased, and rigorous description of the major curriculum philosophies that have influenced educators and schooling over the last century." It is all of this...
(1) It is written to appeal to students and practitioners unfamiliar with these philosophically conceived ideas. Although it is a thorough study of the ideologies, it is devoid of dense, academic jargon; the idiom is clear, direct, and accessible (all technical terminology is thoroughly explained). E.g., students and practitioners having difficulty with the convoluted writings of contemporary scholars of curriculum, will find this book a welcome change.
(2) It adopts a `historicist' approach to the presentation of its subject-matter, which means that the author defines and analyzes the various `ideologies' in light of their contextual emergence and importance. This book is not simply presenting `facts' for memorization; the positions `live,' as it were, as historical realities!
(3) It provides the rigorous foundational knowledge needed in order for students to truly grasp the writings of contemporary philosophers of education and curriculum studies, e.g., when juxtaposing these `ideologies' a student sees more clearly `why' it is that proponents of the `scholar academic ideology' are opposed to the `child-centered ideology.' This allows the student to situate the views of Adler and Dewey within a legitimate historical context, emerging as a product of a particular ideological world-view, of which education and curriculum are inextricably a part.
If you're seeking to become a curriculum planner, evaluator, advocate, developer, or burgeoning theorist, I highly recommend that you read this book.
NB: As I have stated in other reviews - if you are a student or practitioner seeking serious philosophical analyses of curriculum theory and the philosophy of "Curriculum Studies," pursue the seminal works of both Willam Pinar and William Schubert.
Dr. James M. Magrini
College of Dupage
Philosophy and Religious Studies
That stated...
This is an excellent book for both undergraduate and 'graduate' students of education and curriculum studies (yes, even graduate education students). In fact, it is one of the better books I have read detailing the four main `ideologies' of curricula, namely, the Essentialist, the Social Efficiency, the Progressive, and the Social Reconstruction models of curriculum.
The back of the book contains the following quotation:
"A clear, unbiased, and rigorous description of the major curriculum philosophies that have influenced educators and schooling over the last century." It is all of this...
(1) It is written to appeal to students and practitioners unfamiliar with these philosophically conceived ideas. Although it is a thorough study of the ideologies, it is devoid of dense, academic jargon; the idiom is clear, direct, and accessible (all technical terminology is thoroughly explained). E.g., students and practitioners having difficulty with the convoluted writings of contemporary scholars of curriculum, will find this book a welcome change.
(2) It adopts a `historicist' approach to the presentation of its subject-matter, which means that the author defines and analyzes the various `ideologies' in light of their contextual emergence and importance. This book is not simply presenting `facts' for memorization; the positions `live,' as it were, as historical realities!
(3) It provides the rigorous foundational knowledge needed in order for students to truly grasp the writings of contemporary philosophers of education and curriculum studies, e.g., when juxtaposing these `ideologies' a student sees more clearly `why' it is that proponents of the `scholar academic ideology' are opposed to the `child-centered ideology.' This allows the student to situate the views of Adler and Dewey within a legitimate historical context, emerging as a product of a particular ideological world-view, of which education and curriculum are inextricably a part.
If you're seeking to become a curriculum planner, evaluator, advocate, developer, or burgeoning theorist, I highly recommend that you read this book.
NB: As I have stated in other reviews - if you are a student or practitioner seeking serious philosophical analyses of curriculum theory and the philosophy of "Curriculum Studies," pursue the seminal works of both Willam Pinar and William Schubert.
Dr. James M. Magrini
College of Dupage
Philosophy and Religious Studies
January 1, 2019
This book was very insightful and provided a lot of valuable information about the Scholar Academic, Social Efficiency, Learner Centered, and Social Reconstruction curriculum ideologies. While the book was very helpful in preparing me for my graduate assessments, there were many moments of redundancy. The book could have been shortened and been just as effective.
April 2, 2020
Solid information but a bit biased.
July 12, 2020
Helpful for understanding the 4 ideologies and great for research papers.
July 11, 2021
It was for class
August 8, 2018
Definitely repetitive, although I found the overview of the four key curricular theories very helpful as a basis for my master's research.
October 22, 2023
This text was recommended as the primary text for a degree I'm doing in medical education.
I have to say I'd thus far been far from the greatest fan of the pedagogy I've been learning through this degree for a variety of reasons. I've found it a mixture of dull, obvious, impractical, artificial, unscientific, unnecessarily verbose, pretentious, and, perhaps worst of all, useless in actually improving your teaching.
Needless to say, I wasn't exactly looking forward to my last module. However, when I read the first chapter of Schiro's book, I was instantly gripped. I instantly bought it and read it cover to cover, something I've never actually done for and prescribed text since Of Mice and Men in GCSE English.
Not only was this book useful, but it was also extremely interesting to read and very readable. None of the unnecessary obfuscation of the likes of Dewey. A mixture of history, politics, pedagogy, and psychology.
I can see from some of the reviews of the older version of the book that a couple of people are complaining that they think the book is biased. That's not the impression I got as someone who's an outsider to these debates over different curriculum ideologies. I suspect the people who think the book is biased are card-carrying enthusiastic subscribers to one of these ideologies, think the ideology they subscribe to is the one true way, and believe subscribers to other ideologies are heathens trying to destroy the minds of our children.
I have to say I'd thus far been far from the greatest fan of the pedagogy I've been learning through this degree for a variety of reasons. I've found it a mixture of dull, obvious, impractical, artificial, unscientific, unnecessarily verbose, pretentious, and, perhaps worst of all, useless in actually improving your teaching.
Needless to say, I wasn't exactly looking forward to my last module. However, when I read the first chapter of Schiro's book, I was instantly gripped. I instantly bought it and read it cover to cover, something I've never actually done for and prescribed text since Of Mice and Men in GCSE English.
Not only was this book useful, but it was also extremely interesting to read and very readable. None of the unnecessary obfuscation of the likes of Dewey. A mixture of history, politics, pedagogy, and psychology.
I can see from some of the reviews of the older version of the book that a couple of people are complaining that they think the book is biased. That's not the impression I got as someone who's an outsider to these debates over different curriculum ideologies. I suspect the people who think the book is biased are card-carrying enthusiastic subscribers to one of these ideologies, think the ideology they subscribe to is the one true way, and believe subscribers to other ideologies are heathens trying to destroy the minds of our children.
May 1, 2016
REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION!
This book has a lot of trouble "getting to the point." I think I actually read one or two chapters all the way through. For the rest of the chapters, I skimmed it and looked for the information I needed to complete my instruction's study guide. Doing that, I got a lot of good information from the book, which is why I bumped the rating up to a 2. I did not read the last two chapters at all.
This book has a lot of trouble "getting to the point." I think I actually read one or two chapters all the way through. For the rest of the chapters, I skimmed it and looked for the information I needed to complete my instruction's study guide. Doing that, I got a lot of good information from the book, which is why I bumped the rating up to a 2. I did not read the last two chapters at all.
December 13, 2016
Excellent overview of the varying curriculum theories that have been used in US school systems.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews