The Roots of Centralized Curriculum: The Political and Social Concerns of Early Educational Supervisors and the Emergence of Curriculum Studies

The aim of this historical inquiry is to explore the fundamental efforts of early superintends in the emergence of the field of curriculum studies and the theory of centralized curriculum. The method of this enquiry is referring to first-hand references and works of early curriculum developers and supervisors.  The main focus of this historical research is on the conceptualizations and attempts of Franklin Bobbitt and Harold Rugg. Referring to the documents showed that the theory of centralized curriculum was explained as a systematic tool for narrowing schools’ authority and as a tool for inspecting and supervising. Several experts and executives followed this with different approaches. Harris proposed a supervisory approach based on developing textbooks, Babbitt clarified the idea of an activity curriculum that is based on standards, and Rugg immersed in compilation of textbooks and teachers’ guidebooks as a democratic method for improving the quality of education in schools and classrooms. The invaluable struggles of philosophers like John Dewey and Boyd Bud didn’t yield these attempts, and thoughts of supervisors such as Harris, Bobbitt and Charters became the mainstream of that age. These people, trusted in their scientific researches and supported by their executive authority, disseminated bureaucratic and supervisory point of view and propagated the necessity of a central and unified curriculum for school principals, teachers and even education experts. It seems that the birth of the field of curriculum studies was in fact the birth of the idea of a centralized or a national curriculum.