The Education System Must Be Redesigned

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the progressive era had catapulted curriculum theory into a field of scientific inquiry. Its structure had been differentiated and the curriculum content had been expanded. All changes were created to meet the demands of a newly industrialized and urbanized civilization, and as a result “scientific management” became the guide for the development and implementation of the new curriculum.

Franklin Bobbitt, one of the 19th century front-runners of scientific curriculum, stated that if the scientific procedures utilized in factories could increase productivity and efficiency, the same procedures could be used to improve curriculum (Flinders & Thornton, p. 8). Bobbitt believed that curriculum was an integral part of preparing students for their future roles in the new industrial society, and viewed curriculum from the perspective of social needs rather than just a set of studies. He also stated that traditional subjects were unnecessary and should be replaced by subjects that would maximize ability and social utility. To create specific curriculum objectives Bobbitt drew directly from life experience, observed the experts from different fields, and focused his attention on specialization and efficiency. His goal was to create a curriculum that was relevant to the individual’s status in the society. He viewed schools as factories in which the raw materials (children) are to be shaped and molded into products to meet the demands of society. Bobbitt believed that the individual needed to be educated according to his capabilities, and determined each student’s professional social strata by giving them different tests, including an IQ evaluation. In their embryonic stage, departme...

... middle of paper ...

...wo theorists of Bobbitt and Dewey.

Educators realize that to meet the demands of the 21st century the structure of the education system must be redesigned and it is essential that children’s interest be at the center of that reformation. The government falls short of its educational goals because it neglects to seek the truth of how our education system really stands—by speaking with the people who are in it. To leave the children’s voice and their freedom of learning out of the equation is the same as building a school with no students in it. The one sided decision about the fate of education and the thick wall between Washington and our schools leaves no opportunity for meaningful compromise. Only when that wall is broken, can we begin to rebuild the educational system as we know it today.