Building a Defensible Curriculum Base

Educators seem to have a strong desire to relive historical mistakes. During the 1960s, industrial arts innovators divided into three fairly distinct camps. One group could be characterized as the technology camp and was championed by DeVore (1966) and others. Another group was the industry group which was championed by the Ohio State IACP staff (Towers, 1966). A third group was the child-centered group championed by Maley (1973). These people and their followers spent an inordinate amount of time debating the content base for industrial arts and criticizing the other camps' position. However valuable this discourse was, the vast majority of the field was unmoved. Most programs continued to focus their efforts on the skills involved in woodworking, metalworking, and drafting, (Dugger, 1980). It took the Jacksons Mill Project (Hales and Snyder, n.d.) to cause curriculum innovators to realize that a central focus was necessary if industrial arts programs were to change. For a period of time, the Jackson's Mill curriculum consensus held and significant program improvement occurred. Today, technology educators are again beginning to divide into camps over curriculum structure issues and to dissipate the focus of the field. There are number of reasons for this split. Some people feel they must make their ‘unique’ personal contribution to the field. Other leaders are convinced that conditions in their state require a special focus for their state's technology program. Still other people feel that any curriculum structure over five years old is obsolete. These different positions are dangerous if technology education is to become recognized as a vital area of study for all youth. Instead of everyone going their own way, the leaders of the field must recognize that all subject areas have a fairly stable curriculum structure under which dynamic content fits. For example, science does not change its chemistry, physics, biology, curriculum structure every five years. This action does not cause curriculum stagnation because the content under each of these headings is open for constant review and change.