From Legends to Legacy 17- QUALITY AND DEEP CURRICULUM
“I never teach my pupils: I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can
learn.” Albert EinsteinMy first administrative job in education came in 1966 when I became Coordinator of
Instructional Services in the office of the Superintendent with the Santa Barbara County
Schools.... just barely 28 years old, I had a lot to learn and went to every workshop I could to
enhance my knowledge and skills in curriculum. I was fortunate to study at UCLA with the
likes of John Goodlad, Louise Tyler, James Popham, Robert Pace, Eva Baker, and Madeline
Hunter, along with many other scholars in the area of curriculum and instruction, including
Hilda Taba, Art Costa, Fenwick English, and Ned Flanders.
I heard Ralph Tyler (1949), when he was in his 80’s. He was (and still is) THE giant in
the field of curriculum because of his brain, and of course, his famous syllabus of curriculum
and instruction, published in 1949 and, the most famous syllabus of all time!
He thought that all curriculum should stem from four basic principles: a) what are the
school’s educational purposes? b) What educational experiences will likely attain these
purposes? c) How can they be organized? and, d) how can the learning be evaluated?
(Lessons learned from his pioneering work on the Eight Year Study between 1933 and 1941.)
Tyler thought that meaningful education occurred when there was a change in behavior of the
learner rather than mere memorization or regurgitation. He stimulated the subsequent
developments of portfolio assessment, behavioral objectives and the disciplined field of
education evaluation. Tyler’s work showed that school curriculum was not developed or
implemented in a vacuum.... it had to pass his three “screens’ as he called them: (a) The
nature of the learner (interests and needs); (b) The values and aims of society (democracy,
values and attitudes); (c) Knowledge of subject matter (what is worthy and usable knowledge
and how will we know it has been mastered?). It doesn’t get any better than that.... still
classic stuff and even more neglected in today’s top down education arena, dominated by text
book publishers (Durst, 2005), distant policymakers and think-tank scholars.
Scholarship about quality curriculum and learning came from the work of Benjamin
Bloom (Bloom et al., 1956; 1972; 1973; 1981). He and his colleagues did great work. Do
Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Domains ring a bell? Their work in the Cognitive
Domain was legendary. Bloom identified six ladders of learning, which all curricula should
incorporate.... knowledge; comprehension; application; analysis; synthesis; and,
evaluation...remember those? I sure do.... Bloom also saw education as a process to realize
human potential and that mastery of each level on the ladder depended more on pace, than
race. That is, pace of the learner rather than race through the curriculum. The educated
learner had mastered the first three...knowledge, comprehension and application, but it was
analysis, synthesis and evaluation that distinguished the true or deep learner...one who could
evaluate and synthesize basic ideas and come out with new inventions and approaches.
Incidentally most “fill in the bubble” tests only measure the lower rungs on the ladder because
it is too costly to examine the higher levels or even performance of the knowledge gained
through essays, exhibits or artifacts. The higher rungs on the ladder are exactly what we
want students and our school leaders to reach, not just know information, but use it to
improve schools and society. I have been impressed with the work of Fenwick English,
particularly his emphasis on a deep and well aligned curriculum, again emphasizing depth,
over pace and race in learning subject matter content and skills, and ensuring that the