Abstract
This article examines the critiques of Alexander Meiklejohn and Jacques Maritain, written in 1942 and 1943, on the inadequacies of Dewey's pragmatism and, in particular, its failure as a philosophy of education. Meiklejohn's and Maritain's arguments are compared with those made by Randolph Bourne in 1917 and Harold Rugg in 1932 and then their arguments are explored from the point of view of how each understands curriculum: what it is and why it is taught. The distinction between curriculum as function and curriculum as object is made. Contemporary high school curriculum is briefly observed from these two perspectives. Dewey's pedagogical theory is discussed and a union between Maritain's concept of the curriculum and Dewey's pedagogy is considered as a theoretical model current curriculum reformers should consider to both enliven and enrich the curriculum that students and teachers experience in the classroom.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
