CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 1

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT

Franklin Bobbitt and Ralph Tyler have been considered by many in the curriculum field

to be giants by their own right when it comes to the field of curriculum theory. Their

contributions to the field of curriculum theory helped lay the foundation for curriculum

instruction, curricular planning as it is now known today. Both men left their intellectual

footprints on virtually everything we know today as curriculum & instruction. Bobbitt was

initially concerned with revising and improving the curriculum and that it initially be

reconceived by educators followed by different fields.

Tylers monumental work entitled Basic Principles of Curriculum & Instruction, has

been considered to be by many the bible of curriculum & instruction design. It later came to

be known as the Tyler Rationale due to its detailed explanations given to viewing, analyzing and

interpreting the curriculum of an institution. In this essay I will attempt to delineate the more

salient aspects of Bobbitts body of work. I will also lay out the basic assumptions made in his

initial principles of his work that lack at times specificity and contain notable flaws in those very

same assumptions.

One of Bobbitts more notable published work and considered by many as the origin in

regards to C & I is The Curriculum (Kliebard, 1975; Giroux, Pena, Pinar, 1981). In this study

Bobbitt found the curriculum existing at that time as incomplete. His re-conception of the

curriculum was in part a response to the scientific notions of organization and measurement

which he felt lacked any real form of coherency (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 2004).

According to Bobbitt (1918): Only as we list the errors and shortcomings of the human

performance in each of the fields can we know what to include and to emphasize in the directed

curriculum of the schools (p. 52).

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 2

Franklin Bobbitt

Franklin Bobbitt was born in 1876 and was a university professor at the University of

Chicago. Prior to this Bobbitt was awarded his Ph.D. degree from Clark University in 1909.

What initially interested Bobbitt in the field of curriculum was due to his experience while

teaching a course entitled Curriculum (Kliebard, 1986). As a result, Bobbitts popularity grew

with the students and led him to eventually partake in the social efficiency movement. What

led to this outcome was Bobbitts preoccupation with increasing the efficiency of the classroom

and the school as a whole.

In a 1912 article entitled: The Elimination of Waste in Education Bobbitt insisted that

typical school plants were only being used fifty percent of the time. He felt it would be better to

have schools open on Saturdays, Sundays and even in summer. Another article indicative of

Bobbitts inclination towards the new movement inspired by social efficiency was itself

entitled: High School Costs. In it Bobbitt (1915) evaluated the efficiency of an English class

program whose yield was not commensurate with its costs. Bobbitt insisted on re-evaluating

underperforming English programs and opening up the school facility to the community at large.

In another article entitled: A City School as a Community Art and Musical Center,

Bobbitt insisted that schools should be open to accommodate the community as an arts and

leisure school instead. This was based on his idea after performing a scientific study of the

programs being offered and where the social community members interest lay in that it would

be more satisfactory for the school to convert into an art and musical centered school (Bobbitt,

1911). In 1915 Bobbitt published an article entitled: What the Schools Teach and Might

Teach, which indicated how schools ought to implement curriculum in their own programs

(Bobbitt, 1915).
CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 3

Bobbitt was not only concerned with social efficiency at this point, he was also

committed to the idea of wedding a schools curriculum to the outside world. Bobbitts special

gift was to see that the curriculum made sense if it were actually tied to jobs and industry in what

he called the adult world (Schubert, 1980). Bobbitts most influential and popular work The

Curriculum came to embody this line of thought and was fundamental in creating the idea of the

life adjustment which was fundamental to his theory of curriculum design. It was initially

created as an instructional manual for teacher training in curriculum theory and design.

In this work Bobbitt emphasizes three core concepts that were indicative of a well-

designed curriculum plan: Effectiveness, efficiency and economy. The central focus of this

book was that the curriculum itself should be able to prepare the students for the adult world

outside in what we now call industry. It was the task of the curriculum designer to study jobs

outside of academia and to ensure that their implementation of the curriculum at their school

would adequately reflect it. Bobbitt like Tyler felt that much of what had been written in the

curriculum field beforehand was suspect and at times nothing more than a guessing game by

those claiming to be curriculust.

He cites a good example of what task analysis could accomplish by looking at a study on

the grammatical mistakes made by school children (Charters, 1915). This kind of study was

indicative of the style he advocated, a more scientific oriented curriculum designed in a

systematic fashion that mirrored Tylers idea of task analysis. The fact that the authors of the

study used a task analysis (scientific method) in designing the grammatical curriculum of the

school was ultimately what Bobbitt had in mind (Bobbitt, 1918).

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 4

Bobbitt emphasized the concept of the directed curriculum in preparation for the

overall academic attainment of the student. He was concerned with the processes and errors in

other fields besides the field of education and used this information to make a more suitable

curriculum for its intended course or program. Bobbitt was not only an academic, but a school

planner as well. While teaching at the University of Chicago he undertook surveys of school

systems where he took a critical assessment of the schools operations and placed heavy emphasis

on its core curricula.

In 1914 he famously surveyed and evaluated the San Antonio Public Schools and in 1922

made an extensive examination of the Los Angeles Public Schools curriculum. Besides his

influential book The Curriculum he also published another famous work entitled: How to Make a

Curriculum (1924). In it and along with other previous publications Bobbitt develops further his

notions of curriculum theory via the principles elucidated by Fredrick Taylors work on the idea

of scientific management. Taylor had developed the concept of scientific management

predicated on the idea of the workplace on how it might relate to greater efficiency.

Taylor insisted the scientific management system he had developed was intended to guide

those in the industry towards a firm control of their factories division of labor with an eye

towards mass production, effectiveness, and efficiency (Taylor, 1911). Bobbitt studied Taylors

ideas on productivity and efficiency and applied them in a transformational way towards his idea

of curriculum theory. Some have suggested that Bobbitts concern with scientific management

stemmed from his obsessiveness with control (Apple, 2004). This control would be of the form

considered social by its very nature since his main objective was to systematize a curriculum

based on explicit objectives and goals.

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 5

According to Apple (2004), Bobbitts concern with social control stemmed from a pre-

occupation (as many curriculust of that era also concurred), that a segment of society with

existing social privilege, interests and knowledge be preserved at the expense of those who

lacked such capital. In developing his philosophical foundation for the school curriculum

Bobbitt developed the notion called large group consciousness. He felt that this very notion

would embody the idea of social integration. This community model would embody the

individual students belonging to his or her social economic group.

At first this idea was deemed by many to be indicative of progressivism and made

Bobbitts exposition of it in his popular work The Curriculum a frequent reference too by

educators of that period. What initially caught the attention of those educators was Bobbitts

(1918) passage:

How does one develop a genuine feeling of membership in a social group, whether large

or small? There seems to be but one method and that is, to think and feel and ACT with

the group as a part of it as it performs its activities and strives to attain its ends.

Individuals are fused into coherent small groups, discordant small groups are fused into

the large internally-cooperating group, when they act together for common ends, with

common vision and with united judgement (p. 131).

This sentiment was not singularly felt at that present time in America. The emerging

fields of sociology, psychology and education were emerging in their own rights and as a result

this intellectual sentiment was viewed as a norm during this progressive period in our American

history. The ideas at this time resonated with the idea that the curriculum that reaches the learner

the most efficiently and had the most lasting effect was a well-designed curriculum.
CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 6

This well designed curriculum would ideally be suited to match the background and

community that the student resided in. In other words the curriculum itself would be a more

representative guide for that particular student. Bobbitts attempt to bring to fruition this type of

curriculum resulted in three primary developmental stages that he felt would in effect create a

more personalized and tailored curriculum for the students (Bobbitt, 1918). The first stage

would be to analyze the total range of human abilities, habits, systems of knowledge that one

should possess.

The second stage would gather the data generated from the analysis in stage one and then

construct and bracket the related knowledge, skills, and abilities, based on the experiences the

individuals had and any other interactive experiences they would encounter during their

formative years. Finally, stage three would be to recognize the multiple objectives and goals that

exists and to strive and attain as many as possible. Bobbitt would go on to continue and expand

his ideas on the curriculum and social efficiency in the ensuing years with publications in 1924

and 1926 concerning methodological inquiries into curriculum design.

Critique of Bobbitts Theories on Curriculum

Albeit Bobbitt had good intentions in his quest to create and design effective curriculum

principles, his overarching aim at productive citizenship came abruptly short and seemed

incomplete in some aspects. His idea that the ends justify the means in regards to his

conception of what schooling ought to entail were not always realistic as Bobbitt (1926) notes:

The school is not an agency of social reform. It is not directly concerned with improving

society. Its responsibility is to help the growing individual continuously and consistently

to hold to the type of human living which is the best practical one for him.
CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 7

This should automatically result in an enormous improvement in society in general. But

this improvement is not a thing directly aimed at. It is only a by-product (p.45).

As Apple and other noted scholars have suggested, it was his tone and forcefulness of his

writing which gave one the feeling that he was ultimately conservative by character. An

additional yet troubling element to Bobbitts argument regarding curriculum design was his

insistence that a schools curriculum could only be effectively planned at the district or school

level. He felt that it would not be beneficial to involve the state or the nation in designing or

planning a curriculum for its district constituencies. Bobbitt felt that the larger the scope of the

curriculum, the less useful it would be in a school or particular classroom (Bobbitt, 1924).

It appears that even though Bobbitts intentions were for the betterment of the student it

would seem at worst to be untenable and at best to idealistic for his time. By not standardizing

the schools curriculum at the state or national level it would in essence deny a level of equity to

all students via the community stakeholders of that particular state. Bobbitt also did not take into

account that not all teachers are created alike. As experience has shown, there are poorly skilled

teachers as well as highly skilled teachers in every school and its associated districts.

By having a state standardized scripted curriculum, it in effect, stems poor performing

teachers from giving poorly scripted lesson plans not properly aligned with other schools

curriculums. Ultimately, having a standardized curriculum allows for equal opportunity for all

of the students. By doing this the students themselves will be compared to the same standards

via the same curriculum. If this were not the case then every school districts demand in regards

to curriculum, scope and sequence, and lesson plans would be unequal and benchmarks would

not essentially exist.

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 8

Bodes (1924) study found it to be incredulous that Bobbitt would have even considered

the idea of scientific methods as ultimately producing educational gains. In his paper Bode goes

on to state:

Bobbitts How to Make a Curriculum conveys the idea that the question of ideals is at

bottom just a question of scientific analysis The author seems to be unaware that in

the scheme the cart is placed before the horse. How such analysis are to be made unless

we know in advance which persons are good citizens, good parents, and true believers is

not clear. It is assumed that if we dug up the facts by means of scientific analysis, the

appropriate ideals will come to the surface too. But this simply means that science, like

patriotism, may be used as a cover for prejudice and as an obstacle to progress (p. 471).

Bodes analysis of Bobbitts ideas on curriculum resonate with his sharp insight into the

inner workings of the scientific management style and its incontrovertible link to curriculum

theory. It seems to Bode that Bobbitt is presuming that every student and teachers character is

good, noble and just. Bobbitts mistake it would seem is potentially genuinely simple in that he

is assuming the good and ethical in regards to public education.

Why? Because without this assumption the scientific analysis he was promoting would

be undermined if this were not to be the case. Its underlying foundation presumes that the cogs

of the school machinery operate efficiently and effortlessly without any breakdown in reaching

its goals and objectives in creating the school curriculum. It seems that the problem wasnt so

much with Bobbitts character of being rational, systematic or meticulous. Instead it was the fact

that he overlooked the psychological character of man.

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 9

Yet his no-nonsense style of thinking ultimately would have others perceive his system of

thought as having a wooden-like quality to it. As a result there were those who did not believe

Bobbitts conception of students (children) progressing in a scientific socially-based systematic

manner. This is why many in the scholarly community were not inclined to align with Bobbitts

educational objectives. This progressive sentiment is echoed via Melby (1935): This

philosophy assumes that education is growth. It assumes that we shall choose such bodies of

experience as will contribute to the growth of an individual child. It proceeds on the assumption

that the child is more important than the subject (p. 128).

One can sense in this passage the progressives diametrical conception of what education

ought to be in contrast to Bobbitts cooler and systematized way of looking at the student. For

the progressive, the majority of their focus centered on the child while Bobbitts centered on the

analysis and systematized way of looking at the curriculum and its application to the adult

world. This is primarily the reason why the progressive movement of the 1930s essentially

ignored most of the contributions made by Bobbitt in the previous decades.

This is another reason why the child-centered school and the activity movement make no

mention of Bobbitts contributions to the field of curriculum theory, it just did not mesh well

with their philosophical ideals regarding schools and in particular the educational curriculum.

Even the evidentialists of this period like Robert Maynard Hut believed that his methodology

was unsound. They could not support or buy into the notion of social analysis and its associated

scientific methodology. For the essentialists believed that if any method were to successfully

guide curriculum design it would be the school textbook and not a systemized study utilizing

scientific principles in assessing students needs in the classroom.

CURRICULUM THEORISTS: FRANKLIN BOBBITT 10

Finally, it seems like Bobbitts persistence in focusing solely on curriculum and scientific

procedures diverted him away from paying attention to outcomes. There is hardly any

mention regarding educational outcomes and their associated effects on the child or the

educational institution. As a result his obsessiveness with the intricacies associated with the

merging of the scientific method and curriculum design led him away from other conceptual

difficulties inherent in the dynamics of the classroom.

The teachers task to implement and measure outcomes based on individual pupils

capacity was missing in his curriculum design. Much of this can be attributable to Bobbitts

unique point of view and in particular his brand of curriculum based design decisions. Much of

the research indicates that Bobbitts ideas on curriculum design lacked a historical basis. Since

his curriculum design ideas were so unique it was evident that he never did spend considerable

time on other educational scholarly work.

Even though Bobbitt tried in vain to develop a quintessential vision of what curriculum

should look like he did not seem to realize that many of the objectives and goals he set for the

implementation of a rigorous curriculum-based design led many teachers instead to move away

from his vision of curriculum theory and into the party of the progressive movement.