Planning the elementary curriculum: A case for localism

Abstract

Throughout this century national influences beyond the control of local school authorities have shaped elementary school curricula. From time to time individual school districts produced leaders who created new programs for peculiar local needs. More commonly, local school officials served as middle men, accommodating curricula developed at the national level to their own districts' needs. Nationalization of elementary school curricula has been covert. Actual decision-making power, and hence the illusion of policy making, remain vested in local curriculum committees. But because such committees lack expertise in curriculum development, they frequently have looked to external, typically national sources for guidance. This practice results in many nominally autonomous curriculum groups making decisions based on their consultations with a limited number of national authorities. Since many local districts seek guidance from the same sources, it is not surprising that a survey cited by Sliepcevich reported only minimal differences in elementary school course content in local districts investigated.' Though evidence suggests the existence of a national curriculum, characteristics of that operating curriculum at any time may seem inconsistent with positions espoused by national curriculum leaders. New ideas require time to percolate through the system, to accommodate themselves to various professional worlds within atomized local school districts. Indeed, local school districts' failure to implement curricula hot at curriculum innovation centers continually frustrates national leaders in the field. Local school districts' recent disinclination to adopt curricula developed according to the discipline-centered approach exemplifies this phenomenon.