Toward a Curriculum Theory

MlUCH confusion exists as to curriculum theory is. Part of this con fusion grows out of the all too common assumption among many educators that there is a curriculum theory. There is no one curriculum theory: there are a multi plicity of curriculum theories some very explicit, some implied all of which have their disciples. In addition, there is no one curriculum theory that is better than all of the others. A school district or a department of a school may have developed a curriculum theory which was reached through consensus, im position, or a variety of means, which seems to be right for them. But this must be made clear: curriculum theory is laden with the normative. Even after a curriculum theory is asserted, the underlying assumptions are still there whether recognized or not. In addition, curriculum theory is con fused with learning theory and instructional theory, even administrative theory; and ad mittedly, although these are not mutually exclusive theoretical categories, each has distinctive characteristics. What, then, are the major character istics of curriculum theory? First, curriculum theory has an ontological bias; its ultimate concern is with the what or why of any educational enter prise. The primary concern is with neither teaching nor learning but with knowledge itself, whether process or product knowledge. Second, curriculum theory deals with alternative intellectual structures for orga nizing knowledge. In fact, each alternative structure assumes an answer to the question: What knowledge is of most worth? Third, curriculum theory moves to ward the universal and the abstract. Cur riculum theory is macrocosmic, more or less, to the microcosmic curriculum taught in each individual classroom. For example, a teacher who lets a textbook, a curriculum guide, a unit plan, or a workbook determine the cur riculum in his or her classroom is substi tuting for a larger, more comprehensive curriculum construct whether or not it is admitted or recognized. Curriculum theory becomes a more viable concern of state de partments of education, school districts, cur riculum councils and a less viable concern as one moves to the practical and the opera tional. This does not mean, however, that theory becomes less important for the class roomteacher, but curriculum theory loses its distinctiveness where a teacher is forced by the immediacy of the situation to be con cerned with methodology, motivation, and content concomitantly. Curriculum theory can be further clari fied by briefly hitting some of the major curricular structures. These constructs can