The Article
In this article for Education Week, David Labaree, professor in the Department of Teacher Education, examines curriculum reform in this century and seeks to understand why it has had "remarkably little effect on the character of teaching and learning in American classrooms."

Discussion
Despite any number of efforts at reform, the curriculum looks much the same as the one in place during the early part of this century. "As before," Labaree writes, "the curriculum continues to revolve around traditional academic subjects — which we cut off from practical everyday knowledge, teach in relative isolation from one another, differentiate by ability, sequence by age, ground in textbooks, and deliver in a teacher-centered classroom. So much effort and so little result." In explaining this lack of result, Labaree first points out that curriculum means different things at different levels. The rhetorical curriculum contains ideas put forward by educational leaders, policymakers and professors about what the curriculum should be. The formal curriculum is written curriculum policies put in place by school districts. The curriculum-in-use is the content that teachers actually teach in individual classrooms, and the received curriculum is the content that students actually learn in these classrooms. Reform has had the greatest impact at the rhetorical level, which is the most remote from teaching and learning. Labaree then cites a number of factors that undermine efforts to reform the curriculum. Among the reasons is conflict over the goals of education, the emphasis on the accumulation of grades, credits and degrees, the belief among influential people that the current course of study works reasonably well, and the weak link between teaching and learning. Labaree concludes by pointing out that the recent effort to set curriculum standards may not prove more effective than previous initiatives because it would only address a few of the numerous impediments to curriculum reform. "The history of reform during the 20th century thus leaves us with a sobering conclusion: The American educational system seems likely to continue resisting efforts to transform the curriculum."

What It Means To You
True curriculum reform is a tough task. How well does the curriculum in place in your district or school match up with the curriculum-in-use teachers actually teach in their classrooms? And what about the received curriculum? Are students ultimately learning what your curriculum had intended?

For More Information
Labaree, D.F. (1999, May 19) The chronic failure of curriculum reform: With recurring waves of rhetoric and glacial change in practice, little that is truly new has trickled down to students. But why? Education Week, pp. 42-44. You can also find the article at http://www.edweek.org/ew/1999/36labar.h18.

< back to 1999 ed-Research Reports