COMMENTS: CONTRASTING CONFLICTING CURRICULA1

Comments: Contrasting Conflicting Curricula

EDUC 5303 Cultural Foundations Section KS56
Dr. Samuel Maldonado
November 22, 2015
Carolyn Elizabeth Barrette

COMMENTS: CONTRASTING CONFLICTING CURRICULA2

Comments: Contrasting Conflicting Curricula
Dr. Joel H. Springs informative 2010 textbook chapter concerning textbook and
curriculum selection/development and the four major global models of curriculum and
instruction (Spring, 2010, p. 224) encourage deeper examination. Springs Human Capital,
Progressive Education, Religious Education, and Indigenous Education World Models,
particularly when considered alongside Herbert M. Kliebards summary, Four Types of
Curricula, have impacts upon both traditional and special populations that is significant indeed.
Dr. Kliebard names and describes four types of curricula, each program of study designed

Social efficiency: to prepare students for the workforce;

Humanism: to introduce students to the cultural traditions of society;
Social meliorism: to advance social improvement and change;
Developmentalism: to be cultivated around the psychological development of the
child (Spring12_ppt_ch09, Slide 8).
Spring notes that Kliebards social efficiency curriculum has the greatest influence in

American schools (Spring, 2010, p. 239). Given the ever-increasing focus on educating to
optimize student efficacy in United States contributions to the global economy, the human capital
model, Springs derivative of the social efficiency curriculum, has been much discussed [and
adopted] regarding American educational goals[of] either economic development or economic
equity (Spring, 2010, pp. 242, 243). Kliebards social meliorism curriculum is reflected in
Springs progressive education model and emphasizes education for social change and justice
and assumes that instruction will involve active learning (Spring, 2010, p. 242). These first two
models are a part of the Western educational tradition (Spring, 2010, p. 243) whereas both the
religious and indigenous education models emphasize the study/practice of their specific
traditions and spirituality (in line with Kleibards humanism curriculum goals). Spring

COMMENTS: CONTRASTING CONFLICTING CURRICULA3

summarizes that the goals and methods of religious [and indigenous] education are often in
conflict with human capital and progressive models (Spring, 2010, p. 243).
The distinct variations between these models are particularly relevant when considering
which one(s) to implement to most successfully address needs of the equally distinct variety of
student populations (English Language Learners, special education, gifted and talented,
struggling readers, for example). The struggles [between curricula] are an inevitable part of a
system of education designed to reach all members of the public (Spring, 2010, p. 244). They
are struggles worth persisting with and persevering through; the impacts are far-reaching,
individually and societally. In a recent paper, In Plato's Shadow: Curriculum Differentiation
and the Comprehensive American High School, Drs. Suzanne Rice1 and Kipton D. Smilie2
noted
the persistence of curriculum differentiation matters because it is a means by
which different groups of students are given access to different kinds of
knowledge. Not all knowledge is equally valued, and access to certain kinds of
this educational good has implications for young persons well-being that extend
well beyond their formal schooling (Rice & Smilie, 2014, p. 231).

1 Associate Professor of Curriculum and Teaching, University of Kansas

2 Assistant Professor of Education, Missouri Western State University

COMMENTS: CONTRASTING CONFLICTING CURRICULA4

References
Rice, S., & Smilie, K. D. (2014). In Plato's Shadow: Curriculum Differentiation and the
Comprehensive American High School. Educational Studies, 50(3), 231-245.
doi:10.1080/00131946.2014.907165
Spring12_ppt_ch09 [PPT]. (n.d.). Houston: University of St. Thomas.
Spring, J. H. (2010). American education (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.