The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain and What It Should Not (1928)

[409] Coming from the "Land of Sanctuary", and the primatial American See, I have the privilege to speak to-day to those ex partibus infidelium, I wish to draw a clear line between my teaching and preaching, though both functions are mine, and I will differentiate these from my practice, which is a variety of sublimated hedonism for there is real gaiety in Catholic life. I know you subscribe to it and these sessions make for it as well as for an exchange of thought.

The Reverend President of the Parish School Section of the National Catholic Educational Association expended a great deal of energy, some little postage and a vast amount of patience in getting me to write this paper. After the work devoted to gathering together the information that I have incorporated in these pages, I do not know nor can I definitely decide whether Dr. Lawlor is a friend or an enemy.

The subject typed on a sheet of paper looks very simple and easy of treatment. A little study and the consulting of a few references makes the subject assume a certain amount of difficulty. Further labor and delving into the subject-matter causes one to hesitate at attempting to write anything definite on the matter. Knowing the Christian charity and boundless patience of our Catholic teachers from first-hand experience, and probably feeling a little rash and unduly bold, I am going to devote some moments of your precious time to sentencing you to listen to what I have to say about the subject assigned.

"The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain [410] And What It Should Not." If there is any subject in the educational field more written about, any subject more discussed and about which there is more difference I would like to be informed about the same. A rational consideration of the subject forces one to lay down certain restrictions and limited bounds to the present discussion. Really for your benefit and my own peace of mind, I think that I shall partially decapitate the subject and make the limits of this paper deal solely with the content of the curriculum. This will leave virgin soil for the paper of the Reverend Superintendent whose solemn duty it is to follow me with his discussion.

Philosophy teaches that there is an underlying purpose to all things that exist. It will not be a waste of time to digress for a little while and look at the purpose of the curriculum of the elementary school.

Historically, the evolution of our present-day curriculum presents more than a passing interest. A brief and hurried retrospect will not prove uninteresting. Reference here is confined to the elementary school in our own country, though we must always bear in mind that there were well-established European backgrounds for a number of our school activities.

From the curriculum of the so-called religious and properly termed private school of our Colonial period to that of the present-day curriculum, there has been a healthy and well-developed growth. A number of the fundamental characteristics remain the same, though the viewpoint has been considerably altered. The outstanding features of the Colonial curriculum were Reading, Writing, Spelling, Arithmetic and Religion. All schools in those days taught the four R's. In fact the bulk of the work was undertaken in order that the child would be able to cultivate an intelligent knowledge of religious beliefs and doctrines.

The establishment of our Democracy placed a new view on the horizon of school work. With the democratic idea, came the resulting conviction that all who were destined to be members of a free state should be equipped to fulfill their duties and obligations in an intelligent manner. Thus we find a continuous growth in curriculum subject-matter. This has resulted in the very complex [411] curriculum that one finds on hand at the present time. Today we find three divisions of subject-matter in our curriculum plans, drill subjects, content subjects and expression subjects. [1]

DRILL SUBJECTS

Reading
Writing
Spelling
Language
Arithmetic

CONTENT SUBJECTS

Religion
History
Geography
Literature
Civics
Nature Study
Health Work
Agriculture

EXPRESSION SUBJECTS

Kindergarten Work
Music
Drawing
Manual & Domestic Arts
Physical Training

The curriculum reflects life and this is one of the chief reasons why we have a loaded curriculum at the present time. In the Colonial days, life was simple and so was the curriculum. Reading and writing were the fundamentals in those days. It was about 1789 that the first substantial addition was made in school work. Arithmetic became a basic subject. This was due to the growth of commercial life. After the War of 1812, a tremendous change came with the industrial revolution [sic] and the establishment of factory life. Geography demanded attention and in 1826, it was allotted its place in the school curriculum. It was also after the War of 1812 that history claimed its place as a school subject. Massachusetts made history mandatory in 1827. Music was introduced between 1830-1840. After the Civil War physical education came into vogue. Drawing and manual training were introduced into school work as a result of the various expositions which were held in the last century. Nature Study grew up within the schools themselves. In all of these subjects there has been a vast amount of development and this has resulted in the loaded curriculum that presents itself to the educators of the present day. The problem is indeed mountainous and yet it must be attacked if progress is to be made. Many and varied are the attempts which have been made and even now are in process. The elaborate work of men like Charters, Bobbitt, Bonser and Rugg evidence the seriousness of the task. It is not within [412] the realm of this paper to treat the labors of these scientific investigators.

An important note must be sounded here. There is so much diversity of opinion as to what should be part of the elementary school curriculum, and different conditions existing in various sections of our broad country, that the discussion in this paper necessitates my confining my remarks about curriculum content to that portion of the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", South of the Mason and Dixon Line with which I am intimately acquainted.

Will it not be profitable to state the principles which underlie Catholic education? These are:

1. Intellectual education must not be separated from moral and religious training. To impart knowledge or to develop mental efficiency without building up moral character is not only contrary to psychological law, but is also fatal to both the individual and society.

2. Religion should be an essential part of education; for on it morality is based; with the Catholic Church the maxim prevails: "No religion, no morality; no morality, no government"; hence religious instruction should form not merely an adjunct to teaching in other subjects, but should be the center about which these are grouped and the spirit by which they are permeated. [2]

In these principles we have the Magna Charta of the Catholic School; they give us the distinguishing mark which separates the Catholic school from all other schools; adherence to these principles is the means by which the Catholic school stands out as superior to all others.

These principles of Catholic philosophy of education furnish the basis and foundation on which the curriculum of the Catholic school must be builded [sic] and moulded [sic]. In this light one may define the aim of Catholic education, and, after all it is this aim that will function strongest in the make-up of the curriculum of the Catholic elementary school.

Strange as it may seem, this is not the simplest thing to do, especially when one goes browsing into Catholic educational fields [413] to seek what others have written about the matter. Dr. Johnson of the Catholic University, in commenting on this says: "At present (this was written in 1925) there seems to be a lack of anything like a definite consciousness amongst us on this score. (The general aim of Catholic education put in such terms as may contribute to a better understanding of the function of the Catholic elementary school)." [3]

And for this one time at least, the good Doctor gives us the answer to our difficulty. He speaks again, "We might say then that the aim of the Catholic elementary school is to provide the child with those experiences which are calculated to develop in him such knowledge, appreciations and habits as will yield a character equal to the contingencies of fundamental Christian living in American democratic society." [4] After a painstaking examination of this definition, surely all of us interested in the great and grave work of Catholic education, will agree that here we have in concrete form, a well thought out, logical, strong and plain statement of the aim of the Catholic elementary school. Applying our Catholic philosophy of education to the interpretation of this aim, we establish definitely the work that is to be accomplished. With these thoughts before us, let us begin our work.

Everywhere one hears the demand for a complete education of the child, hence the variety of items that have from time to time bedecked the curriculum of the elementary school. A cursory glance at some of the things which have engaged the attention of some educators in the past few years will demonstrate how far afield they have wandered. Basket weaving, purposing; tooth-brush drills; aesthetic dancing; construction of bird houses; soap carving; chinning the bar; making beds and biscuits; first aid; these and many others have strutted their time upon the educational stage of the elementary school. The meaning of a complete education has been lost sight of entirely. The result has been that many curricula have served not to enlighten but to befuddle the minds of the children. "Tinkeritis" has been the [414] disease that has affected so many of our present-day Pestalozzis [Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) was a Swiss pedagogue and education reformer] who, in their own minds have settled the question of the curriculum content of the elementary school.

As a result, the 4 R's of yesterday have a batch of step-children. Amateurish experts by cross breeding or hand pollination or something of the kind have succeeded in making ten R's where only three or four grew before. Reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic of tender memories are now in a pitiful minority.

Included among the R's of a newer and happier education they have found the following:

Rhythm
Right
'Rong
recreation
Remedial Measures for the Handicapped
Readiness
Resourcefulness

Is it any wonder then that the R's of the elementary school have fallen upon the sere and yellow leaf? What is to be hoped for against competition like that? Will a pupil read when he might indulge in Rhythm, Right or 'Rong? Can a pupil 'Rite when Remedial Measures for the Handicapped offer exciting speculation? Will he do 'Rithmetic when he may choose Readiness or Resourcefulness? And so on and so on according to the proponents of the newer and happier education. But let us on to more serious things.

Again let me remind you, these comments and statements are not universal in character. They aim simply at being thought-provoking. Our suggestions are to be confined to that terrestrial portion of our country that lies along the banks of the Chesapeake and the Potomac.

To say that religion is the foundational and primary unit in our curriculum scarcely seems necessary. To repeat this is just as foolish as attempting to "paint the lily". Religion in our scheme occupies the position laid down in the principles of Catholic education which have already been enunciated.

With religion established as the center of our curriculum, one may pass on to the other subjects that are to be embraced, bearing [415] in mind the fact that religion must be the active principle that energizes all of the others.

"Most present-day educators agree on certain basic subjects that are to be included in the elementary school curriculum. Elementary education has developed in response to certain fundamental and obvious social needs." "When people live together and work together in certain large groups, the arts of communication and especially the language arts become of very great importance. The development of oral language was one of the first steps in human progress. It not only made group life possible, it also enabled each generation to profit by the experiences of its predecessor, and so paved the way for succeeding generations." [5]

An examination of the foregoing statements gives us a lead in developing our thesis. Every one realizes that while oral language has its importance, at the same time it has its limitations. The spoken word is important, but as such it has no permanence. The realization of this led to the invention of writing. Some have termed it the greatest event in human progress. It made possible the accurate preservation of the experiences of various generations. The acquiring by succeeding generations of these facts collected and preserved in writing, gave rise to the teaching of reading. No one hesitates for a single instant to include these fundamental operations in every elementary school curriculum since they are the essential tools by which all knowledge is acquired.

As I have already stated, the Eighteenth Century, with its industrial revolution and the growth of democracy, was the cause of the introduction of arithmetic as a basic subject in the make-up of the curriculum. The very nature of our present-day existence, its complex nature, the obligations and duties which everyone is bound to assume, demands the presence of reading, writing and arithmetic as prima facie essential parts of any plan that looks to the instruction of human beings. It is almost childish to take up your time with discussing this, still one must be thorough when called on to appear before an assemblage of this type.

[416] The next step is to speak of the growth of the curriculum from these humble but all-important origins. In our scheme of education, the next subjects are geography, literature and history and this is the chronological order in which these subjects made their appearance. Geography was introduced soon after the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Literature owes its growth to the development of the school "readers." History came in about the middle of the Nineteenth Century. These subjects serve to broaden the horizon of the child. Geography carries them beyond their own local neighborhood and makes them acquainted with their country as a whole, as well as other countries of the world. Literature opens up the field of great minds. History broadens the time-horizon just as geography broadens the space-horizon. It reveals to the child some appreciation of his position in the political world of which he is an integral part.

Thus far I have spoken of units of curriculum as we find it to-day. These also are found in the elementary school for the past seventy-five years. We might say that these units are the legacy which we have received from early school practice.

Health education is a part of our elementary curriculum. This subject made its premier shortly after the Civil War. However, one might demand its presence in the school in virtue of that old principle, mens sana in corpore sano. At the present day, this subject has received most prominent consideration, due no doubt to the development of scientific emphasis on physiology and hygiene. Is not the presence of the school clinics, the school nurse and the school dentist ample proof of this?

Civics too, has found a place in our midst. I mean that aspect of civics which concerns itself with the manner in which cities and towns manage their affairs and especially with the concrete problems of community life in which every citizen should have a vital interest.

Nature study has a place too. I have already said that this is one of the auricular subjects that grew up in the school itself.

Music, art, drawing and physical training find a place in the curriculum of the elementary school of the Maryland "Free State." We must predicate here that their place while important, [417] is supplementary and accessory rather than central or fundamental. This should not cause us to underestimate these subjects, because they do much to enrich and vitalize the work of the elementary school.

One further thought and I am finished. A perusal of some of the Courses of Study of our Catholic elementary schools, will evidence the presence of subjects other than those that I have mentioned. Again let me reiterate the fact that this paper deals with our own little but all-important Archdiocese. You will find for example, agriculture and sciences listed as elementary school subjects. (Here I have to watch my step, if the Reverend Superintendent of Toledo is present). For us, agriculture has no part in our curriculum, possibly due to the fact that we have not a very large rural population. One author in speaking about the presence of natural sciences among the elementary school subjects, says: "Generally speaking, however, the effort to teach the natural sciences in the elementary schools has not been thoroughly successful — in part because teachers have not been trained for the work and in part because of the lack of well-organized materials." [6] This may or may not explain the absence of this subject in our elementary school curriculum.

I am finished. The subject is a difficult one and if this treatment does not appeal to certain individuals, I would suggest that they attack the problem for themselves, with my sincere wishes for better results. God giveth the increase.

DISCUSSION

REV. LEON A. MCNEILL: Discussion of Dr. Barrett's excellent paper may be a solemn duty, but it is also somewhat of a pleasant task. The Rev. Doctor prudently limited his subject to the content of the elementary school curriculum, and furthermore confined his remarks to the Archdiocese of Baltimore with whose schools he is intimately acquainted. Among the commendable features of Dr. Barrett's paper, we may mention the following: his historical sketch of the development of the curriculum, his insistence on Catholic principles which must underlie and permeate a curriculum suitable for our schools, and finally his scoring of the modern tendency to overcrowd the curriculum with irrelevant material.

All will agree that Dr. Barrett has accomplished his avowed purpose of [418] provoking thought. In this brief discussion, we shall comment on a few points suggested by his paper. To determine the content of the elementary curriculum, and to define its materials and activities in such form that the teacher may present them in learning units to her pupils, is no easy task. To draw up a curriculum in even one field of elementary education demands a sound philosophy of education, an understandinng [sic] of the relation of the subject at hand to the other branches of the elementary curriculum, an acquaintance with the reliable findings of scholars and with the rich experience of educators, serious study and dependable experiment in selecting and testing curricular materials, and finally, the ability to break up the matter into units so that the teacher can use them effectively in the classroom.

The body of our discussion will contain two points: first, that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic; and second, that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.

I. We need a thoroughly Catholic curriculum for our schools. Our curriculum must be based upon Catholic philosophy of education, a philosophy essentially different from that of the so-called neutral schools. As Dr. Barrett so well insists, intellectual and moral education belong together, and religion should be, not merely a separate branch of formal instruction and training, but the very center for all the branches of the curriculum. It necessarily follows that the curriculum of the public schools is not suitable for Catholic schools, nor can the mere addition of religion transform a secular curriculum into a Catholic curriculum. It is well known to all of us that secular courses of study, outlining the curriculum of the public schools, are being followed in hundreds of our parochial schools throughout the United States. This may be due to any number of circumstances, e. g., to lack of a Catholic course of study, to a false conception of Catholic education, or to State requirements; but, whatever the cause, let us agree in defining the only goal with which we can ultimately be satisfied: i. e., a thoroughly Catholic curriculum in every Catholic school and an equally Catholic and genuinely useful course of study for every teacher in a Catholic school.

II. The curriculum of the Catholic elementary school must be scientifically constructed. We can no longer afford to dally with haphazard methods of selecting the materials which will be given to the little ones in our schools. The day when a lone superintendent sat down before a number of imported courses of study and assembled a paste-pot and scissors curriculum is past. The day when one curriculum served all schools alike, in big city and in rural hamlet, in established East and in pioneering West, is past. The day when a curriculum was looked upon as a permanent thing, to endure unchanged from year to year and from decade to decade, is also past. Under this heading of the scientific construction of the curriculum, we should like to emphasize especially four [419] points: 1. Constructing a curriculum must be a cooperative task on which superintendent, supervisors, and teachers work together according to a well-organized plan. 2. Curriculum builders must utilize the worthwhile contributions of scholars and the rich experience of educators at large. 3. The curriculum must be adapted to the needs of the particular group of children for whom it is intended. 4. Although based upon philosophy and permeated with principle, it must be built up by experiment and tested thoroughly in actual practice.

This closes the body of our discussion, in which we have stated and briefly commented upon two propositions: that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic, and that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.

We shall now append a number of pertinent conclusions which are the result of some months of study; conclusions which we should be only too glad to support with objective data which cannot be given within the limits of this paper:

1. It is encouraging to note the progress made by certain dioceses in the earnest construction of Catholic curricula and courses of study.

2. Catholic educators must give a larger share of attention to the construction of curricula and to the preparation of courses of study, if they are to attain the only goal with which they can in conscience be satisfied.

3. Catholic educators should cooperate in isolating and solving the more general problems of the curriculum, pooling the results of their educational research, experiment, thought, and practice, and making them available for educators at large.

4. A national committee should make an intensive study of Catholic curricula and courses of study and suggest feasible next steps in this important field of educational endeavor.

---

Footnotes:

1. Cubberly, Introduction to Study of Education.

2. Monroe, A Cyclopedia of Education.

3. Paper read at Superintendents' Section of the N. C. E. A, April, 1925.

4. Ibid.

5. The Classroom Teacher, Vol. 1, pg. 9.

6. Wm. C. Bagley in Classroom Teacher, vol. 1, page 15.

---

Source: Fr. John I. Barrett, "The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain and What It Should Not," The National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 35, no. 1 (November 1928): 409–419.