1. Curriculum has numerous definitions, which can be slightly confusing. In its broadest sense, the
word is used to refer to all courses offered at a school. This is particularly true of schools at the
university level, where the diversity of classes might be an attractive point to a potential student.
A curriculum may also refer to a defined and prescribed course of studies, which students must
fulfill in order to pass a certain level of education. For example, an elementary school might
discuss how its curriculum, or its entire sum of lessons and teachings, is designed to improve
national testing scores or help students learn the basics. An individual teacher might also refer to
his or her individual course of classes, referring to all the subjects that will be taught during a
school year.
On the other hand, a high school might refer to a curriculum as the courses required in order to
receive one’s diploma. They might also refer to it in exactly the same way as the elementary
school, and use the word to mean both individual courses needed to pass, and the overall offering
of courses, which help prepare a student for life after high school.
Traditional and Modern
Traditional curriculum- a linear approach to curriculum design in which the teacher talks and
the student listens. This approach is heavily content driven, presenting the facts and expecting
students to retain the info.
Progressive curriculum- a non-linear approach to curriculum in which the instructor may
incorporate group activities, cooperative learning, manipulatives, technology etc. in order to
enhance the educational experience.
Comparison of Progressive to Traditional Curriculum. The traditional curriculum was set
in a manner that the students had to memories facts as well as formulas that were never ending.
This academic curriculum was dreary as well as remote based on the view point of the youthful
interests. The students were exposed to a situation of listening to recitations only. Lead
discussions were a nightmare in the traditional curriculum. There was an austere type of life in
the entire classroom. The rules as well as the regulations governing the conducts of the students
were established in unilateral manner by the teachers. The misconduct of the students was met by
severely harsh punishments. Contrary to the traditional curriculum unflattering
sketch, progressive curriculum was accompanied a practical type of education that was even
more pleasant as well as interesting to the students. This type of curriculum was in a position
to offer an education that was centered to the interests of the child. This is in contrast to the
traditional type of curriculum that was practically grounded on authority based on ponderous text
books as well as a very stern teacher. The condition of the traditional curriculum made the
students less willful. The students also resembled some obstreperous creatures in need of a kind
of taming. The students were also naturally curios as well as creative. They exhibited worthwhile
interest of a very wide range. The interests qualified for honor by humane pedagogy as well as
a broader curriculum. The concept of educating the whole child has important implication in the

2. steady expansion of the scope of the curriculum in the schools. This was especially evident at the
early part of the 20th century ( ). There was the multiplication of the opportunities in the field
of music, recreation, art as well as drama. Junior high schools were meant for the purpose of the
education of the students in their early adolescent stages. The justification for this is the unique
requirements associated with this age. On the other hand there were high schools reserved for the
older teens. This was based on the requirements for the “tracks” as well as study programs such
as the vocational training, commercial education, academic as well as the general knowledge.
Progressive curriculum also offered for the growth in the students’ extracurricular activities
during each of the levels in school life including teams as ...
Progressive versus Traditional Education
Nearly all Progressives knew what they opposed and thus identified themselves by what
they were not. Traditional education was the enemy. Students were required to
memorize endless facts and formulas from a dreary academic curriculum remote from
their own youthful interests. Most teachers defined good pedagogy as drill and practice;
their job was to hear recitations, not lead discussions. Classroom life was austere.
Teachers established unilaterally the rules and regulations, and they punished
misconduct harshly. Administrators deferred to school boards often enmeshed in
factionalism and political patronage.
In contrast to that unflattering sketch of traditional education, Progressives juxtaposed
their vision of a more pleasant and practical education. They often said that education
should be "child centered" rather than grounded on the authority of a ponderous
textbook or a stern teacher. Children were not willful, obstreperous creatures that had to
be tamed; they were by nature curious and creative, with a wide range of worthwhile
interests. A broader curriculum and a humane pedagogy would honor those interests.
Education of the "whole child" steadily expanded the scope of the school curriculum
during the first half of the twentieth century. For the very young, opportunities
multiplied for music, art, drama, and recreation. For the early adolescent, there
were JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS for the unique needs of that stage of life. For older teens,
the HIGH SCHOOL offered more "tracks," or programs of study such as vocational,
commercial, academic, and general. At all levels of schooling there was growth in
extracurricular activities as clubs and teams proliferated. Another area of rapid

3. expansion was health care and social services for the physical and emotional needs of
the whole child.
Instructional methods and materials also changed. Progressives envisioned teachers as
facilitators who should encourage student participation and activity through discussions
and group projects. Learning could be fun: games, field trips, and films blurred the lines
between work and PLAY. Teachers should be kind and patient, not strict and aloof. The
good classroom would be a democratic community where rules were fair, everyone had a
say, and all felt comfortable and successful. As a result, fewer students would fail or
drop out, an important consideration in light of soaring school enrollments throughout
the first two thirds of the twentieth century. The enlarged and diverse student body
would get more from education and like it better, the Progressives believed.
Aside from burgeoning enrollments, why did those ideas and practices take hold in the
very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Progressive educators addressed
three of the most important developments in American life. First, a broader curriculum
could match the shifting needs of employers in an age when the demand for semiskilled
and clerical labor surged. With more students in new vocational and commercial tracks,
the fit between graduates' preparation and the needs of the labor market improved.
Second, the massive and unprecedented immigration from Europe filled urban schools
with students who seemed to need nonacademic training more than Shakespeare or
trigonometry in order to become loyal, virtuous, and productive citizens. Third,
Progressive education drew strength from more expansive notions of the scope of
governmental intervention, which included fostering the well-being of children.
Heightened concern for the vulnerabilities of youth spurred successful crusades
forCHILD LABOR laws, JUVENILE COURTS, public playgrounds, mothers' pensions, and
other methods to rescue youth from the perils of life in a rapidly changing society. The
Progressives' advocacy of a kinder and broader schooling matched the spirit and scale of
child-saving interventions elsewhere in America.
Most Progressives also saw themselves as scientific. In the 1880s and 1890s they
deplored the haphazard management of many urban schools. Elected officials often
based decisions on partisan considerations; many policies were either wasteful or

4. corrupt. Progressives urged the appointment of well-trained managers to oversee the
rapidly expanding schools. Expertise, rationality, standardization, and predictability
were the traits valued in a good administrator. Not every school system by the early
twentieth century was a sleek bureaucracy, but that was the ideal within the profession,
notwithstanding the preference of many for local control and freedom from state
regulations.
A similar quest for certainty marked the Progressives' support of INTELLIGENCE TESTING.
Measuring the innate mental abilities of youngsters seemed a rigorous and fair way to
assign students to particular courses and tracks. Grouping children by ability seemed
more democratic to the Progressives than holding all children to the same standards.
Within a decade of the first large-scale use of IQ tests in World War I, school districts
throughout the nation used them. Not every Progressive championed IQ tests, to be
sure, but even the skeptics favored "child study," detailed and continuous scrutiny of the
social, emotional, and intellectual growth of the young.