







































  
 

"Turning of the Wheel:" A Perennialist's Answer to 1970s Curricular Debates 

 
Jayson Evaniuck 

Eastern New Mexico University 

 

Abstract 

This paper utilizes archival sources and 

publications to underscore Harry S. Broudy's 

responses to 1970s curricular shifting providing 

a window into Curriculum Reconceptualist 

debates of the 1970s whilst offering Broudy, 

Smith, Burnett's (1964) curriculum study as an 

informative curriculum precursor. Ultimately, 

the author argues the Democracy and Excellence 

in American Secondary Education offers a 

valuable antecedent to numerous curriculum 

debates of the era. 

During the 1970s, significant curricular 

shifts transpired, polarizing the curriculum field. 

Multiculturalism, student choice, and values 

clarification emerged from the 1960s and gained 

momentum in the early 1970s. In the 1970s, a 

diverse group of reconceptualist thinkers called 

for a paradigm shift away from traditional 

curriculum theory frameworks and humanizing 

the curriculum field. Amid such changes within 

curriculum theory emerged a back-to-basics 

movement responding to multiculturalism and 

student choice. The changes within the 1970s 

challenged Harry Broudy's own humanist 

approach to curriculum. Broudy directly 

addressed such concerns while providing a 

humanistic way forward during the eras 

contested debates despite communicating 

sentiments of academic irrelevance. 

  

Background 

While exploring Harry S. Broudy's 

articulations on teacher education in-depth 

within his archival papers, an observable trend 

amongst the mid-1970s correspondences related 

to curriculum trends was discerned and worthy of 

succinct treatment such as this. Harry Broudy 

was a prominent educational philosopher of the 

second half of the twentieth century. He wrote 

extensively on general education, aesthetics 

education, and teacher education. Broudy's 

educational philosophy fits in the realm of an 

educational perennialist similar to Robert 

Maynard Hutchins; however, Broudy’s approach 

was quite different than Hutchins. Both thinkers 

contended for cultivating the intellect with 

disciplined study of classics or exemplars of 

human thought through a rigorous general 

education program. A significant divergence was 

the style of Broudy's writing and his professional 

associations. Harry Broudy maintained close 

associations with pragmatists and even 

behavioralists throughout his career despite 

vastly different epistemological assumptions. 

Such associations were evidenced by Broudy 

giving the invited John Dewey Lecture for the 

John Dewey Society in 1981 and serving as 

editor of The Educational Forum from 1964-

1973. While Robert Hutchins chose to attack 

vocational schooling and pragmatism in 

education directly, as a philosopher, Harry 

Broudy generally avoided blatant attacks in favor 

of cogent arguments for his Aristotelian 

perception of the ideal (Broudy 1959). 

Additionally, Broudy offered a more 

concessionary tenor in is critiques of John 

Dewey's pragmatism than Hutchins (Broudy 

1971).  

Harry Broudy achieved substantial 

notoriety in aesthetics education and educational 

philosophy, he provided significant contributions 

to curriculum theory as well. Within works such 

as Building a Philosophy of Education (1954), he 

articulated the viability of a "third view" of the 

curriculum in the midst of the "subject-centered" 

versus "problem-centered" debates dominating 

the era. Broudy's "third view," based on his 

classical realist approach, advocated for a 

systematic study of the disciplines with a 



 
 

12 
 

concentration on problem-solving as well as 

aesthetic creativity. Bellack (1956) initially 

referred to Broudy's conception of curriculum as 

a broad fields approach. Kliebard (2004) 

identified the broad fields approach of the era as 

enhancing unity of the curriculum by correlating 

subjects traditionally taught independently (p. 

247). Broudy's "third view" of curriculum 

received full theoretical treatment in the 1964 

publication of Democracy and Excellence in 

American Secondary Education: A Study in 

Curriculum Theory written with coauthors 

Bunny Othanel Smith and Joe Burnett. Unlike 

many "subject-centered" curriculum theorists, 

Broudy, Smith, and Burnett (1964) attempted to 

systematically address the social and 

psychological demands inherent within 

curriculum theory. Pinar et al. (1995) indicated 

the book was focused on the disciplines rather 

than a more child-centered focus on 

socialization. Diverging from many pragmatists 

"problem-centered" theorists, Broudy and 

colleagues argued for a common curriculum 

framework emphasizing self-cultivation through 

a systematic study of exemplars of thought 

within the disciplines.  

Shortly after Harry Broudy retired from 

the University of Illinois in 1974 and during his 

lengthy service as professor emeritus, numerous 

letters underscored his unease with 1970s 

curricular shifts. In a somewhat unexpected 

tenor, the typically unassailable Broudy 

conveyed feelings of professional 

inconsequentiality related to his curricular 

critiques during the era. The late 1960s and 1970s 

presented numerous shifts in curricular foci 

among theoreticians and schooling practitioners. 

Such shifts were evidenced in new curricula and 

approaches at the practitioner level, an increase 

in student choice was demonstrated by 

multiculturalism, values clarification, open 

classrooms, and increased elective offerings at 

the secondary levels (Abramowitz & Macari 

1972; Gay 1975; Boss 1972; Greenberg & Roush 

1970; Kohl 1969; Raths, Harmin, & Simon 

1966). Particularly amongst theoreticians, 

multiculturalism and curriculum 

reconceptualism gained momentum during the 

era. The late 1970s also spawned a back-to-basics 

movement in response to the new curricular 

approaches prompting an entire 1978 issue of 

Educational Leadership aptly titled "The Three 

R's: What Works." This back-to-basics approach 

favored core subject areas of mathematics, 

English, subject-centered social studies, and 

science, prompting powerful concerns and 

justifications for arts education among aesthetics 

education specialists (Broudy 1979; Eisner 

1981). Such shifts in curriculum studies form the 

backdrop of why Harry Broudy found himself on 

the outside looking in during the 1970s and early 

1980s. The paper moves from general to specific, 

exploring Harry Broudy's concerns with 1970s 

curriculum studies while analyzing his curricular 

answers preceding the era. Debates among 

theorists over the reconceptualist movement 

within curriculum theory receive treatment as a 

case study to contextualize this fascinating era. 

 

Harry Broudy's Critiques of Curriculum 

Theory 

By 1977, the Association for Supervision 

and Curriculum Development (ASCD) had long 

been a parent organization for theorists and 

practitioners of curriculum. The organization had 

a loyal following of notable curriculum theorists 

as well as school administrators and teachers. 

Since 1943, the ASCD remarkably brought 

together theorists as well as educational 

practitioners. Amid curricular shifts within the 

ASCD, Harry S. Broudy's opening statement of 

his 1977 invited address at the annual conference 

succinctly communicated concerns within 

curriculum studies and his feeling out of touch 

with curricular trends. 

  

It has been some time since I had the 

privilege of addressing an ASCD 

audience, perhaps because my views on 

education have remained on the dull 

side, responding with caution to 

innovations that have generated wave 



 
 

13 
 

after wave of excitement, each of about 

five years duration. There have been at 

least three such flood tides in the past 15 

years; the pursuit of academic 

excellence for the elites in the first five; 

relating compassionately to the 

disadvantaged in the second five; and 

basics for everyone in the third. 

However, we have learned that 

curricula, texts, the minds of teachers, 

and the methods of teaching, let alone 

real, albeit often subconscious 

expectations of the public, do not change 

so fast. (Broudy 1977a, p. 134)  

 

The address generated enough interest for 

reprinting within four different sources. Oddly 

enough, Harry Broudy turned down a request 

from ERIC Clearinghouse, stating, "I very much 

doubt that the demand for the article 'How Basic 

is Aesthetic Education…' warrants reprinting" 

(Jun. 1, 1977). Within the brief letter and the 

address, Broudy suggested that his ideas were not 

generating popularity. The Real World of Public 

Schools, written in 1972, corroborated and 

deepened Broudy's reminders that innovations 

and trends among education theorists and 

policymakers are often not reflected in the public 

view of education and classroom instruction. The 

book offered numerous charges and cautions 

against curriculum thinkers and educationalists' 

propensity to be out of touch with schooling. 

Although much of the book aimed at explaining 

schooling and the education system amidst 

attacks, Broudy's cautions in The Real World of 

Public Schools situated his overall concerns 

within the field of curriculum theory in the 

1970s. At root for Broudy's critiques was a newer 

school of humanism in the curriculum away from 

the confines of the formal study of the disciplines 

towards a curriculum encouraging choice, 

freedom, and student impulse. He stated, 

 

Whatever the school can do to remove the 

obstacles from impulse, the neohumanists 

argue, it should do forthwith. Hence the 

emphasis on cryptotherapy of various 

kinds, ranging from role playing to 

staging of happenings in which 

everything is improvised…Indeed, if 

wisdom means anything, it is the ability 

to distinguish good from bad hang-ups; 

necessary from unnecessary inhibitions. 

The humanist tradition is no more and no 

less the search for that wisdom; giving up 

the search in favor of mere impulse is a 

rejection of that tradition. (Broudy 1972, 

p. 173) 

 

The 1972 publication signaled a beginning of 

future divergences Harry Broudy later articulated 

toward 1970s curricular trends.   

Numerous letters with correspondences 

between 1975 and 1978 denoted Harry Broudy's 

concern with curricular shifting, particularly, 

several 1975 correspondences with an ASCD 

editor Louise Berman. The letters occurred 

amidst tumult within ASCD membership. 

Debates were transpiring regarding the role of 

curriculum promoting activism and increased 

free choice in student learning (Pinar et al. 2008). 

During the era, ASCD published numerous social 

and political papers and chapters advocating 

activism and increased student choice in 

learning. In responding to Berman's request for 

review of a paper, he stated: "…No doubt, 

advancing age has dulled my sensibilities; but I 

confess that I could not make much out of the 

potpourri of phenomenology, existentialism, and 

counter-culturist jargon. I trust that the ASCD 

readership is more "with" this kind of writing 

than I am" (Jan. 16, 1975). While the sourcing 

details and specific curricular concerns Harry 

Broudy was addressing are absent in the letter 

exchange, the sarcasm denoted real concerns he 

saw within the field of curriculum theory. Within 

another letter to Louise Berman, Broudy 

provided further evidence of his growing 

disconnect with curricular trends of the 1970s by 

providing a troubling appraisal of his role as a 

reviewer for ASCD. 

  



 
 

14 
 

As you are aware, my own views on the 

curriculum are so dissonant with those 

expressed in the book, that I have 

refrained from commenting on the last 

few papers you sent me. If it will make 

you and the Committee more 

comfortable, my name can be removed 

quietly from the Committee. I have tried 

to be of service to ASCD, but apparently 

I am no longer in tune with the drummers 

to which it marches. (Oct. 16, 1975) 

 

While these two letters indeed demonstrate 

disconnects Harry Broudy articulated during the 

1970s and the elevated tensions within ASCD 

during the era, the letters do not communicate 

specific areas of dissonance between curriculum 

ideas of the era and his own.  

Harry Broudy's ideas on curriculum 

theory and his classical realist philosophical 

undergirding are found within both editions of 

Building a Philosophy of Education (1954; 

1961). The theoretical dimensions were 

systematized into curricular theory within 

Democracy and Excellence in American 

Secondary Education: A Study in Curriculum 

Theory (Broudy, Smith, & Burnett 1964). 

Though Ornstein and Hunkins (2013), Kliebard 

(2004), and Bellack (1955) characterized 

Broudy's curricular ideas as a broad-fields 

approach, Broudy and colleagues opposed the 

broad-fields designation on the grounds that 

academic battlegrounds are provoked by labels 

(Broudy, Smith, & Burnett 1964). As detected 

within Harry Broudy’s archival papers, after 

Harry Broudy gave an address or lecture, he 

received written inquiries from fellow 

professors, superintendents, principals, and 

teachers regarding sources where particular ideas 

were addressed. When the inquiries were 

curricular, Harry Broudy consistently 

recommended the 1964 publication of 

Democracy and Excellence. Broudy and 

colleagues organized their secondary curriculum 

into five broad categories: (1) symbolics of 

information (English, foreign languages, and 

mathematics); (2) basic sciences (general 

science, biology, physics, and chemistry); (3) 

developmental studies (evolution of the cosmos, 

of social institutions, and of human culture); (4) 

aesthetic exemplars (art, music, drama, and 

literature); and (5) molar problems addressing 

societal problems which borrow from multiple 

disciplines to systematically address (Broudy, 

Smith, & Burnett 1964, p. 247). The more 

specific dissonance areas between Harry 

Broudy’s curriculum theory and late 1970s 

curriculum reconceptualism will be explored 

further after contextualizing the late 1970 and 

early 1980s lively curricular debates between 

curriculum "traditionalists" and 

"reconceptualists." 

  

Curricular Debates of the Era 

The context within curriculum theory in 

the later 1970s and early 1980s is indispensable 

for understanding the content behind Harry 

Broudy's critiques and statements of 

"unpopularity." Within ASCD, factions 

developed among membership based on 

numerous theoretical shifts. Most notably, a call 

for a reconceptualization of curriculum away 

from the conventional Ralph Tyler apparatus 

dominant in the curriculum field from 1950-

1970. The reconceptualists critiqued the 

prevailing traditional Ralph Tyler curricular 

framework as technocratic and narrow. 

Reconceptualism shares a sense of social 

activism with early progressive 

reconstructionists such as George Counts and 

Harold Rugg (Ornstein & Hunkins 2013); 

however, the movement drew theoretical 

inspiration from German and French thinkers 

such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jergen 

Habermas, Martin Heidegger, and Michel 

Foucault among others. Unlike their progressive 

predecessors, the reconceptualism field was not 

connected to the practical school curriculum; 

rather, the movement aimed at informing theory 

rather than curriculum practitioners (Schubert et 

al. 2002). Such a detachment between theory and 

schooling further compounded growing divisions 



 
 

15 
 

within ASCD. While the reconceptualists were 

theoretically diverse, adherents shared a unifying 

call for humanizing the curriculum field away 

from behaviorist, technocratic, and positivist 

frames. Reconceptualists viewed notable 

curriculum theorist Joseph Schwab's (1969) 

opening sentence of "The Practical: A Language 

for Curriculum" as a clarion call for needed 

curricular reform. Schwab (1969) stated, "The 

field of curriculum is moribund. It is unable by 

its present methods and principles to continue its 

work and contribute significantly to the 

advancement of education" (p. 1). Joseph 

Schwab sought to move the field of curriculum 

theory from positivist frames towards its 

humanistic roots while advocating for theoretical 

understanding aimed at educational practice and 

action (Null 2011). The late 1970s and early 

1980s witnessed substantial debates between 

notable thinkers underscoring this growing 

chasm. Highlighting such shifts' momenta, the 

1981 ASCD hosted a debate between Ralph 

Tyler and reconceptualist leader William Pinar at 

the annual meeting (Pinar et al. 2008).  

Reverberations within ASCD also 

infiltrated the American Educational Research 

Association (AERA) and its flagship publication 

Educational Researcher. In 1978, AERA invited 

reconceptualist William Pinar and traditionalist 

John McNeil, to provide the "state of the art" 

invited addresses to the curriculum studies 

division with Maxine Greene (1979a) as a 

respondent (Pinar et al. 2008). Shortly thereafter, 

Daniel and Laurel Tanner wrote a critique of the 

reconceptualism movement titled "Emancipation 

from Research: The Reconceptualist 

Prescription," though the critique was heavily 

directed at William Pinar. Tanner and Tanner 

(1979) argued that the movement lacked a 

unifying academic identity and an identifiable 

theory within their paper. Instead, they identified 

reconceptualism as a doctrine of radical critique 

and spillover of 1960s protest movements rather 

than curriculum theory. Further, they vehemently 

disagreed with the reconceptualist contention 

schools are deliberately repressive to children. 

Also, they posited strong accusations of 

reconceptualist theory disconnected from 

schooling. Just two journal issues later in 1979, 

both William Pinar and Maxine Greene 

responded to Daniel and Laurel Tanner in 

separate letters. Pinar's (1979) concern with the 

Tanners' critique was that it left no room to 

initiate an academic conversation or provide a 

way forward. He further charged the Tanners' 

misunderstanding of his writing illustrated a 

chasm between traditional and reconceptualist 

views of the curriculum. Pinar decried the 

Tanners' implication of reconceptualist work 

emancipation from research. Instead, he 

harkened the importance of humanities 

informing research. In the letter, William Pinar 

agreed with the diversity of perspectives without 

unity while justifying the necessity of unity of 

thought and conversations toward shifting the 

paradigm from traditional curriculum 

conceptions. In the same issue, Maxine Greene 

(1979) lamented how her rebuttal at the 1978 

conference was misused by Tanner and Tanner 

(1979) to impugn William Pinar and the 

reconceptualism movement and retreat within 

their position without a call for dialog. 

Additionally, Greene (1979) criticized the 

Tanners' use of German philosopher Jurgen 

Habermas in a reductionist theoretical approach.  

The disputes continued into the 1979 

AERA meeting as Phillip W. Jackson presented 

a "state of the field" invited address to the 

curriculum studies division titled, "Curriculum 

and Its Discontents" (Jackson 1980a). In the 

address, Jackson (1980a) presented a two-fold 

critique. First, he aimed at previous invited 

speakers' (Dwayne Huebner, William Pinar) 

propensity for deathly metaphors to describe the 

field of curriculum and the source of the 

metaphor, Joseph Schwab. He then criticized the 

content of the three noted "discontents" without 

linking specific ideas with individuals. Jackson 

identified seven recurring themes among 

"discontents" or reconceptualists: (1) "The Tyler 

rationale is out-of-date"; (2) Our present ways of 

addressing schools and schooling fall short of the 



 
 

16 
 

complexity and dignity of the human condition; 

(3) Technologists, test makers, textbook 

publishers, and school administrators control 

curriculum; (4) A loss of humanistic values and 

goals in schools; (5) "Curriculum workers have 

little to offer teachers…"; (6) "The aesthetic, 

ethical, and spiritual dimensions of the 

educational experience are being ignored"; and 

(7) "Our schools are damaging to many students, 

particularly to children of the poor and oppressed 

minorities" (Jackson 1980a, p. 167). Phillip 

Jackson conceded that most of the themes 

presented worthwhile problems for 

consideration. His concerns with the 

"discontents" approach to these issues were on 

several grounds. Jackson affirmed 

reconceptualist concerns with "narrow-minded 

empiricism," yet disapproved the shifting 

scholarly allegiance of the reconceptualist away 

from mainstream social science and toward "left 

of center" Marxist, Freudian, and existential 

thought. He concluded with a final concern, 

echoing Harry Broudy's (1977b) earlier criticism 

regarding the "partially digested" knowledge and 

weighty German theoretical positions employed 

topically by the reconceptualists (Jackson 1980a, 

p. 168).  

 Both William Pinar and Maxine Greene 

responded to the address, followed by a short 

rebuttal from Phillip Jackson within the same 

issue of Curriculum Theory. Maxine Green 

(1980) used close readings of numerous literary 

and philosophical sources in refuting Jackson. 

She ultimately argued that Jackson, in decrying 

the illness metaphor, failed to address the 

actuality the metaphor underscored. She then 

proceeded to justify the importance and validity 

of the reconceptualist scholarly shift occurring 

within the curriculum field. She argued that the 

"Tyler rationale" had shortcomings to address, 

namely too many links with behaviorism. Greene 

(1980) further suggested that the reconceptualist 

approach allowed students to pursue individual 

meaning-making while making sense of a 

changing and troubling world. William Pinar 

(1980) reiterated a similar refrain to his 1979 

letter advocating the need for conversation 

around the issues arguing Jackson's critique. In 

the paper, he again addressed Daniel and Laurel 

Tanner's previous critique before specifically 

responding to Phillip Jackson. William Pinar 

(1980) lamented Jackson's lack of a counterclaim 

regarding his alarms with the moribund 

metaphor. He again invited a conversation 

through dialogical encounters rather than 

monologue-focused counterattacks. 

   

Harry Broudy's Divergence 

Two sources provide a more specific 

divergence between such curriculum ideas and 

Harry Broudy's own. The first source is a book 

review of William Pinar's (1975) edited book, 

Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists, 

which voiced numerous ideas on 

reconceptualizing the curriculum away from the 

traditional Tyler approach. The authors varied 

substantially, borrowing from child-centered 

progressives, social reconstructionists, 

phenomenologists, and existentialists within 

philosophy and Marxist approaches to the 

curriculum (Pinar 1975). Amongst theoretic 

diversity, the reconceptualist movement's 

unifying theme was opposition to the Tyler 

approach, seen as a narrowly prescribed 

curriculum often utilized for corporate and 

bureaucratic influences. Instead, the curriculum 

needed humanization leading to increased 

student freedom, rights, and social activism 

(Pinar 1975). An additional reconceptualism of 

curriculum emphasized a phenomenological and 

autobiographical concept, the verb form of 

curriculum currere, implying a curricular role as 

conceiving one's educational experience (Pinar et 

al. 2008). Broudy's (1977b) review, published in 

Teachers College Record, criticized the 

reconceptualist curriculum movement for 

vilifying the schooling experience as a 

dehumanizing agency responsible for promoting 

students' oppression and repression. Similar 

critiques later were communicated by Tanner and 

Tanner (1979) and Jackson (1980a). He also 

criticized reconceptualist thinkers' tendency to 



 
 

17 
 

invoke Marxian social theory in their educational 

critiques with a limited demonstration of the 

entire underlying theory. Broudy raised similar 

concerns with the topical entreating of 

existentialist philosophy among numerous 

authors, a critique later employed by Jackson 

(1980a). Harry Broudy's (1977b) review is an 

early critique of the emerging reconceptualist 

movement predating the noteworthy ASCD and 

AERA debates in 1979 and 1980. 

Since the book review came before the 

ASCD and AERA debates, a rebuttal would have 

been most insightful during this embryonic stage 

before academic battle positions were firmly 

entrenched, especially in light of Broudy sharing 

a humanist educational orientation of many 

reconceptualist thinkers. Harry Broudy referred 

to the reconceptualists and the emerging 1960s 

and 1970s humanism as "neo humanism" and 

distinct from the more traditional Humanism or 

Humanitas Harry Broudy advocated (Broudy 

1972; Evaniuck 2020). Both William Pinar and 

Maxine Greene provided a valid concern 

regarding previous critiques of reconceptualism 

lacking an invitation for discussion, perhaps 

owing to the lack of common ground between the 

two camps. Based on similar commitments 

among varying conceptions of humanism in 

education among Broudy, Pinar, and Greene, 

such a discussion on humanistic grounds would 

have been fascinating and perhaps would have 

resembled the academic dialog William Pinar 

and Maxine Greene called for in both letters at 

the height of the debates (Greene 1979; Pinar 

1979; 1980).  

A second source provides personalized 

insights into Harry Broudy's divergence with the 

era's curricular shifts—a letter to a former 

doctoral student and close colleague in 

educational philosophy, Mary Anne Raywid. The 

esteemed colleague shared some ideological 

points with reconceptualist curriculum thinkers, 

as evidenced by Broudy referencing his 1977 

review of Pinar's (1975) Curriculum 

Reconceptualists within his letter to her. Broudy 

wondered why she would enjoy academic 

discourse at the annual Philosophy of Education 

Society meetings in light of her divergent 

interests. 

  

I continue to wonder why our visits at 

PES are as you say "high points," a 

wonder that is underlined by your lucid 

statements of interests. You seem to have 

much more in common with those you 

mention who also share your 

commitments to conceptualism in 

philosophy and the New Left in sympathy 

than with a confirmed neo-Aristotelian. 

(May 5, 1978)  

 

The tone suggests the clear divides that 

galvanized scholars during the era and reiterated 

Harry Broudy's alienation for his lack of support 

for the era's curriculum thinkers. Towards the 

end of the letter, Broudy corroborated specific 

philosophical concerns with curriculum 

reformers of the era noted in the book review 

while maintaining an extended olive branch over 

their apparent philosophical differences. The 

letter exchanges such as this between Raywid 

and Broudy demonstrated deep respect and 

robust scholarly discourse amongst philosophical 

differences in education. Such discourse is 

refreshing amid current specialized, entrenched, 

and often polarizing academic times. Later in the 

letter, Broudy provided an optimistic outlook 

amidst concerns stating, "Perhaps it is one of the 

small benefits of us perrenialists that we know 

that the wheel will turn and return to just about 

where it was before" (May 5, 1978). Perhaps with 

such a reminder, Harry Broudy also was 

encouraging himself regarding his own deeply 

held commitments and over 40 years of 

educational work, midst feelings of waning 

academic and philosophical support within the 

academy. 

  

Broudy and Colleagues Curriculum 

The 1970s and 1980s debates exacerbated 

polarization within the field of curriculum 

studies. On one end were reconceptualist 



 
 

18 
 

influenced thinkers arguing for the curriculum's 

humanization, charging that the Tyler rationale 

was narrow, behaviorist, and positivist oriented. 

Hlebowitsh (1997) cautioned against such a 

dichotomy in curriculum studies based on 

ideological construction and entrenched battle 

lines. Further, Hlebowitch (1992) also warned 

against impugning Ralph Tyler's curriculum as 

behavioristic and narrow demonstrating the 

contrary. Entirely unpacking such ideological 

polarization still persistent today is beyond this 

paper's scope. In three dimensions, the author 

believes that Harry Broudy, Othaniel Smith, and 

Joe Burnett's curriculum directly addressed 

concerns raised by 1970s debates over ten years 

prior. Broudy, Smith, and Burnett (1964) offered 

a differing humanistic way forward than the 

reconceptualists loud calls for humanizing the 

curriculum. Also, the authors directly addressed 

Joseph Schwab's noted calls for curriculum 

theory informing praxis. Third, Broudy and 

colleagues curriculum study provided needed 

moral dimensions noted as lacking within 

curriculum studies (Null 2011).   

In 1964, Broudy, Smith, and Burnett 

responded to several early 1960s concerns with 

their study, Democracy and Excellence in the 

American Secondary Education. First, they 

argued growing vocational focus as well as 

tracking within secondary schooling weakened 

the liberal arts or general education offered in 

American secondary schools for all students 

regardless of socioeconomic background. The 

authors were also concerned with Sputnik 

influenced curricular foci of the time detached 

from critical valuative dimensions noting 

concerns such as behaviorism, technocratic 

approaches, spiritual scarcity, and narrow 

curriculum interests. The authors defined 

valuative principles as attitudes, norms, and rules 

of human conduct, focusing on the inculcation of 

the examined life. Broudy, Smith, and Burnett. 

(1964) argued that valuative principles are 

needed in the curriculum, "If the curriculum is to 

be designed to make individuals as intelligent 

about their social conduct as about their behavior 

toward the material world, the content of the 

educational program must consist in part of 

valuative principles and concepts" (p. 150). A 

fascinating letter further illuminates Harry 

Broudy's argument for value principles 

informing education. In 1968 while serving as a 

resident scholar at Stanford University's Center 

for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 

Broudy responded to transcripts of a lecture 

given at the center by a fellow Advanced Study 

resident scholar, Phillip J. Stone. Stone was a 

Harvard Psychologist and an early leader in 

artificial intelligence and computerized content 

analysis. While Broudy addressed numerous 

dimensions related to organized school learning 

and electronic devices, his inquiry into valuative 

schemes is particularly insightful toward 

valuative principles in schooling. 

 

On what "principle" shall we urge our 

pupils to make their decisions in the light 

of information, rather than the basis of 

nonrational factors? And of the diverse 

nonrational factors[,] which is to be 

preferred? These questions may seem 

trivial to the adult, especially to the adult 

whose value schema has already been 

formed and reflected upon, but they are of 

primary concern to the school – if it ever 

takes seriously the notion of changing 

value norms. (May 20, 1968)     

 

Broudy's argument here echoed a recurring 

concept in Democracy and Excellence in the 

American Secondary Education. Schools and a 

curriculum must take seriously moral 

development of students' moral grids toward 

informed decision-making. Valuative 

development, the authors argue, is indispensable 

for participation in democratic life.  

The authors justified and further 

developed the concepts applying the examples to 

a classroom discussion on Andrew Jackson's 

presidency. Initial student arguments were made 

in the classroom for a "strong" or "weak" 

presidency based on the strength of getting his 



 
 

19 
 

programs through and opinions denoting 

perceived weakness due to Jackson's decisions 

made upon circumstance rather than principle. 

The authors demonstrated that valuative criteria 

must be established in advance for the class to 

evaluate such judgments due to inherent 

valuative differences on topics. Broudy, Smith, 

and Burnett (1964) further distinguished 

normative values as prescriptive (procedural), 

regulatory (behavioral rules), and moral 

(connected to virtue). Notably, the normative 

moral values undergird Broudy and colleagues' 

curriculum. The emphasis on moral valuative 

schemes is not indoctrination, opposing 

behaviorism, and conditioning of the student. 

The school's role in normative moral values is to 

encourage wisdom in students, "The school 

cannot teach choices and decisions, but it can 

teach the facts, the value definitions, and the 

valuative principles on which right and wise 

decisions are made" (p. 152). Ultimately, such a 

curricular program would enhance civic virtue 

and address the democratic purposes of 

schooling. The authors identified that virtue 

encouraged by schooling in the past was 

commonly connected with "minor morals" such 

as etiquette, manners, and social graces. The 

emphasis undergirding the curriculum to Broudy, 

Smith, and Burnett (1964) should instead 

emphasize substantive moral ideals such as 

freedom, equality, justice, honesty, charity, 

fairness, and brotherhood.  

While these moral dimensions of Broudy, 

Smith, and Burnett (1964) curriculum are 

theoretical, the authors demonstrated feasibility 

with school examples. Further, their curriculum 

theory informed practice in section three of the 

book culminating in a chapter devoted to laying 

out "A Program of Studies." Perhaps the most 

tangible way the authors applied valuative 

principles is through advocating and justifying 

the study of exemplars of human thought and 

action. Exemplars help refine student tastes and 

affections since great works of science, art, 

literature, and thought represent the human race's 

aspirations. As implicitly covered in 1964 and 

later explicitly developed in works such as The 

Uses of Schooling in 1988, Harry Broudy argued 

that formal study of the arts creates image stores 

and conceptual frames facilitating meaning and 

engendering moral judgments through aesthetic 

association. It is within Broudy, Smith, and 

Burnett (1964) study of exemplars where 

coursework devoted to exemplary human 

thought and artistic contributions empowers 

valuative or moral development in students. 

Later Broudy (1967) stated, "Just as the history 

of science furnishes the great exemplars of our 

intellectual achievement, so the history of the arts 

furnishes great exemplars of value commitments 

of the great epochs of the past" (p. 119). This 

impressionistic approach to art education is not 

without critiques. Tanner (1971) as well as 

Tanner and Tanner (1995) posed concerns over 

Broudy and colleagues’ emphasis on aesthetic 

exemplar analysis at the expense of creative 

expression in the arts. The critique was a 

common one throughout Harry Broudy’s career, 

even one identified by close music and art 

colleagues (Colwell 1992). Ultimately, the 

authors demonstrated the need for moral 

principles informing curriculum theory and the 

practical implications of the curriculum's 

valuative and normative dimensions. An 

emphasis on moral commitments in education is 

categorically not too distant from the moral 

agency Maxine Green (1978) likewise 

advocated. In addition, valuative commitments is 

not out of touch with what Phillip Jackson, 

Robert Boostrom, and David Hansen (1993) 

observed implicitly within schools in the late 

1980s and early 1990s.    

A substantive challenge postulated by 

Tanner and Tanner (1995) of the Broudy, Smith, 

Burnett (1964) curriculum is divorcing content 

and process or “knowing” and “doing.” Tanner 

and Tanner argue that as adolescence 

performance is diminished, appreciation also 

decreases through denial of the act of doing, 

making, or creating (p. 210). At the heart of the 

critique were differing epistemological 

assumptions between a pragmatist and classical 



 
 

20 
 

realist conception of knowledge between both 

sets of authors. While Broudy deals with the 

philosophical essence of the critique in other 

works (Broudy 1954; 1970), at a practical level 

Broudy, Smith, and Burnett (1964) contended 

pragmatisms emphasis on “doing” as an 

instrument of learning leads to the devaluing and 

ultimate neglect of language as the instrument of 

learning (p. 22).  

The 1970s was a critical period within 

curriculum studies. The era witnessed a 

continuance of age-old subject-centered versus 

problem-centered debates while new debates 

such as back to basics versus student choice, 

theoretical versus practical, and humanistic 

versus traditional curricular ideas arose to the 

forefront. Preceding the eras debates, Broudy, 

Smith, and Burnett (1964) Democracy and 

Excellence in American Secondary Education 

directly addressed the curricular areas of 

contention in the 1970s and early 1980s. The 

authors provided a traditional humanist way 

forward without opposing the Tyler apparatus. 

Additionally, subtitled, A Study in Curriculum 

Theory, the authors intentionally reconciled 

theory with schooling feasibility. Lastly, the 

study provided a content area approach to 

prepare students for civic engagement in 

significant societal problems.  

 

Conclusion  

Though it is tempting to consider the 

work of Harry Broudy, Othanel Smith, and 

Burnett (1964) in a replicative fashion, 

curriculum theory gets formulated out of the 

problems, philosophies, and psychological 

developments within their respective era. A more 

insightful and fitting approach for evaluating 

historic curriculum theory work today is drawing 

upon insights to guide current curriculum 

thought. With such a frame Harry Broudy, B. 

Othanel Smith, and Joe Burnett's curriculum 

work has much to offer twenty-first century 

thought in three areas. First, we find an enduring 

argument for valuative and moral dimensions 

within the curriculum. Goodlad (1990) made the 

case that the profession of teaching requires 

normative presuppositions to promote 

"preparation for full participation in the human 

conversation" (p. 28). Clark (1990) stated "What 

educators and parents fear most about bad 

teaching and celebrate most about good teaching 

are manifestations of fundamental moral virtues" 

(p. 263). Though a teacher is an independent 

agent, the curriculum should play a role in 

encouraging such teaching. Broudy, Smith, and 

Burnett (1964) offered a conception of values 

education opposing indoctrination on the one 

hand and unbridled student-choice and 

clarification on another through exploration of 

exemplars in arts and thought. Second, a broad 

fields curricular approach was prominent among 

theorists in the 1950s and 1960s and 

demonstrated the ability to bridge ever-present 

gaps between subject and student-centered 

curriculum (Short 1986). Revisiting broad fields 

approaches such as Broudy, Smith, and Burnett 

(1964) offers a "disciplined" alternative to the 

concerning current trend of behavioristic 

teaching practices connected to standardized 

testing within current subject-centered iterations. 

Finally, in a time of increasing content insulation, 

hyperspecialization, and imperial agendas within 

schools (Davis 2005), Broudy, Smith, and 

Burnett's (1964) conception of curriculum 

provides a framework to analyze the best of 

human thought from numerous perspectives 

whilst exploring problems from multiple 

disciplines and the ability of exemplars to 

crosscut human thought and inform valuative 

frames.  

 The paradigm shifts within curriculum 

studies in the 1970s and the subsequent debates 

demonstrated differing philosophical 

assumptions and viewpoints of humanism. This 

differing view of humanism is at the heart of 

Harry Broudy's divergence with reconceptualism 

and other 1970s curricular shifts. Early in the 

1970s, Broudy addressed the difference stating, 

 

How relevant then is education? It is 

relevant at its deepest level only insofar 



 
 

21 
 

as the exfoliation of the human potential 

– for humanity – is its goal. In this the 

new humanists are obviously right. They 

are wrong only in believing that crudity, 

raw feeling, and raw aspirations are the 

touchstones of true humanity. On the 

contrary, it is the refined versions of these 

feelings and aspirations that are proper 

yardsticks for relevance. (Broudy 1972, 

198) 

 

In support of his traditional humanistic 

curriculum, Broudy and Colleagues offered a 

curriculum study addressing many of the seminal 

curriculum debates of the 1970s before their rise 

to the forefront.   

 

References 

Abramowitz, M. W. & Macari, C. 1972. Values 

Clarification in Junior High School. 

Educational Leadership 27(7):621-626 

Bellack, A. A. 1956. Selection and Organization 

of Curriculum Content: An Analysis. In Arno 

A. Belleck (Ed.), What shall the high schools 

teach? 1956 Yearbook of the National 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development. National Association for 

Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Boss, R. 1972. Portland's Personalized Education 

Program. Educational Leadership 29(5):405-

407. 

Broudy, H. S. 1954. Building a philosophy of 

education. Prentice Hall. 

Broudy, H.S., 1959. Realism in American 

Education. School and Society 87:11-14. 

Broudy, H. S. 1967. Art, Science, and New 

Values. The Phi Delta Kappan 49(3):115-

119. 

Broudy, H. S. 1968, May 20. Letter to Philip J. 

Stone. Box 2, file folder S, Harry S. Broudy 

Papers, University of Illinois Archives, 

University of Illinois. 

Broudy, H.S., 1970. On knowing with. In 

Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of 

the Philosophy of Education Society:89-104. 

Broudy, H.S., 1971. Democratic values and 

educational goals. Teachers College Record 

72(5):113-152. 

Broudy, H. S. 1972. The Real World of the Public 

Schools. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.  

Broudy, H. S. 1975, Jan. 16. Letter to Louise 

Berman. Box 5, file folder B, Harry S. 

Broudy Papers, University of Illinois 

Archives, University of Illinois. 

Broudy, H. S. 1975, Oct. 16. Letter to Louise 

Berman. Box 5, file folder B, Harry S. 

Broudy Papers, University of Illinois 

Archives, University of Illinois. 

Broudy, H. S. 1977a. How Basic Is Aesthetic 

Education? or Is' Rt the Fourth R? 

Educational Leadership 35:55-66. 

Broudy, H. S. 1977b. Curriculum theorizing: The 

reconceptualists, ed. by Pinar, W. (Review 

of). Teachers College Record 77(4):639-641.  

Broudy, H. S. 1977, Jun. 1. Letter to Mrs. Clarice 

H. Watson. Box 6, file folder W, Harry S. 

Broudy Papers, University of Illinois 

Archives, University of Illinois. 

Broudy, H. S. 1978,May 5. Letter to Mary Anne 

Raywid. Box 6, file folder R, Harry S. 

Broudy Papers, University of Illinois 

Archives, University of Illinois. 

Broudy, H. S. 1979. Arts Education: Necessary 

of Just Nice?. The Phi Delta Kappan 

60(5):347-350. 

Broudy, H. S. 1988. The Uses of Schooling. New 

York: Routledge. 

Broudy, H. S., Smith, B. O., & Burnett, J. R. 

1964. Democracy and Excellence in 

American Secondary Education: A Study in 

Curriculum Theory. Rand McNally  

Clark, C. M. 1990. The Teacher and the Taught: 

Moral Transactions in the Classroom. In The 

moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 251-265). 

Ed. Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. 

A. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Colwell, R., 1992. Goodness and greatness: 

Broudy on music education. Journal of 

Aesthetic Education, 26(4):37-48. 

Davis, O. L. 2005. Editorial: Imperial 

Delusions and Some Possible 



 
 

22 
 

Consequences for the School Curriculum. 

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 

20(4):264-270.  

Eisner, E. 1981. The Role of Arts in Cognition 

and Curriculum. The Phi Delta Kappan 

63(1): 48-52.  

Evaniuck, J. 2020. Excellence without snobs and 

equality without slobs: Harry S. Broudy's 

Theory of General Education. Journal of 

Philosophy and History of Education 70: 33-

47. 

Gay, G. 1975. Organizing and Designing 

Culturally Pluralistic Curriculum. 

Educational Leadership 33(3):176-183. 

Goodlad, J. I.. 1990. The Occupation of Teaching 

in Schools. In The moral dimensions of 

teaching (pp. 3–34). Ed Goodlad, J. I., Soder, 

R., & Sirotnik, K. A. Jossey-Bass Publishers.  

Greenberg, J. D. & Roush, R. E. 1970. A Visit to 

the 'School Without Walls': Two 

Impressions. Phi Delta Kappan 51(9):480-

484. 

Greene, M. 1978. Landscapes of Learning. 

Teachers College Press. 

Greene, M. 1979 'Letters'. Educational 

Researcher 8(9):25–25. doi: 

10.3102/0013189X008009025. 

Greene, M. 1980. Response to Philip 

Jackson. Curriculum Inquiry 10(2):172-175. 

doi: 10.1080/03626784.1980.11075212 

Hlebowitsh, P. 1992. Amid behavioural and 

behaviouristic objectives: reappraising 

appraisals of the Tyler Rationale. Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 24(6):533-547. 

Hlebowitsh, P. S. 1997. OP-ED The search for 

the curriculum field. Journal of Curriculum 

Studies, 29(5):507-512. 

Jackson, P. W. 1980a. Curriculum and Its 

Discontents. Curriculum Inquiry 10(2):159-

172. doi: 10.1080/03626784.1980.11075211 

Jackson, P. W. 1980b. Response to Maxine 

Greene. Curriculum Inquiry 10(2):175-177. 

doi: 10.1080/03626784.1980.11075213 

Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. 

T. 1993. The Moral Life of Schools. Jossey-

Bass Publishers. 

Kliebard, H. 2004. The Struggle for the American 

Curriculum: 1893-1958 (3rd ed). Routledge.  

Kohl, H. R. 1969. The Open Classroom. Random 

House Incorporated. 

Null, W. 2011. Curriculum: From theory to 

practice. Rowman & Littlefield. 

Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F. P. 2013. 

Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and 

Issues (6th ed). Pearson. 

Pinar, W. (Ed.). 1975. Curriculum theorizing: 

The reconceptualists. McCutchan Publishing 

Corporation. 

Pinar, W. F. 1979. 'Letters'. Educational 

Researcher 8(9):6, 24. 

doi:10.3102/0013189X008009006 

Pinar, W. F. 1980. Reply to my 

Critics. Curriculum Inquiry 10(2):199-205. 

doi: 10.1080/03626784.1980.11075216 

Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & 

Taubman, P. M. 2008. Understanding 

curriculum: An introduction to the study of 

historical and contemporary curriculum 

discourses (Vol. 17). Peter Lang. 

Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. 1966. 

Values and Teaching. Charles E. Merrill 

Publishing Company. 

Schubert, W.H., Schubert, A.L.L., Thomas, T.P. 

and Carroll, W.M., 2002. Curriculum books: 

The first hundred years. P. Lang. 

Schwab, J. 1969. The Practical: A Language for 

Curriculum. School Review 78:1-24. 

Short, E. 1986. A Historical Look at Curriculum 

Design. Theory into Practice 25(1):3-9. 

Tanner, D., 1971. Secondary curriculum: Theory 

and development. Macmillan. 

Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. N. 1979. Emancipation 

from research: The reconceptualist 

prescription. Educational Researcher 8(6):8-

12. 

Tanner, D. and Tanner, L.N., 1995. Curriculum 

development: Theory into practice (3rd ed): 

Prentice-Hall. 
 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075212
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075211
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075213
https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075216

