Response to Martin and Posner

I recall that my original purpose in preparing the article appearing in Curriculum Theory Network to was to stimulate discussion at a symposium at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at least two years ago. What I tried to do in the paper was to outline what I think to be the basic components of something we might call a curriculum theory. I am very glad that Posner and Martin took time to criticize certain dimensions of the paper because their comments will stimulate my thinking and cause me to be more careful of my phrasing in the future. Let me take the criticisms individually. I am unsympathetic to Martin's contention that a curriculum and a curriculum system would operate external to schools. Throughout most of the history of education during which the concept of curriculum has been productively used, curriculum has been associated with schools. It is true that the word curriculum is a very old word, but curriculum as a problem of professional education had its most serious origins in the last decade of the nineteenth century and developed mostly during the present century. Martin puts a great deal of emphasis upon the search for the question in curriculum. In my judgment, there is no search involved here. It is axiomatic to me that the question of what ought to be taught in the school must be answered. I would not argue very much whether taught or studied should be the verb in the question. The answer to the question is, however, essential. Presumably, out of teaching and studying learning will emerge. The goals and culture content selected for a curriculum are predictive of what may be learned, but ordinarily teaching will take place between the time of planning a curriculum and the time when pupils learn.