“ I shall have three points. The first is this :” the theory-practice criticism is a non-issue. “The second point :” Nonetheless, I wish there was more emphasis upon educational practice. “The third point, which constitutes the main body of my thesis :” I call for the synoptic , an expansive, integrating view that represents the expertise of the curriculum generalist. [[that was for those Schwab aficionados in the audience who recognize his opening to “The Practical: A Language for Curriculum.”]]

***************

Is “the field, if not quite ‘moribund,' presently suffering from a lack of relevance and coherence”? As I re-read Schwab's essays, I recognize recent instances of all he describes: the retreat to the sidelines by some, repetition of familiar knowledge by others, and flights from the field by still others. Often, I fear that the curriculum field is “withering ” [[note pun]] or whatever term you wish to use; Schwab and Huebner said moribund; one curriculum textbook even maintained, through two editions, that Schwab called the field “morbid,” an interesting twist, indeed (although this changed, fortunately, in the third edition). I'm just pleased that we can agree that there is an established field of “general curriculum” with certain common ideas, a distinguishable past and, we hope, a future full of possibilities. The existence of “general curriculum as a field of study” has not always been assumed. As an annotated bibliographer, I have spent my career trying to determine if there is core knowledge, albeit contested, in general curriculum, i.e., common understandings that typically designate a field of study (for example, Schwab's The Practical trilogy). Moribund? I'm just pleased that we believe a field exists. So, what's its condition?

To begin, I wish not to make too much out of the “all theory/no practice” darts thrown at the post-modernists/Reconceptualists, those I refer to as the Bergamo Theorists. Do they represent “mistaken reliance on theory,” or a flight to “the exotic and fashionable”? Where is their k-12 school practice, that “state devoutly wished” that seems to justify one's existence in the field of curriculum? I was asked by Bill Pinar to examine the history of Bergamo conferences in what became an appendix for his 1999 collection, Contemporary Curriculum Discourses . I'm sorry to dredge up old work. But if you had spent a summer trying to organize into categories 25 years of conference presentations, 2915 title cards, in order to ascertain some patterns, you too would look for opportunities to finagle this research into any Division B conversation.

There were few examples of k-12 curriculum development at the Bergamo conferences; in fact, only 16% of the presentations. Yet, 57% of the sessions described curriculum development in the area of teacher education (broadly conceived); curriculum theorists were experimenting, tinkering and tweaking their institution's teacher education programs. Clearly, the venue for “the practical” has expanded greatly. Practice is not merely k-12 curriculum development but, also, higher education program development—in a setting most accessible to professional educators, namely—teacher education programs. Was Bergamo a retreat from practice during its first 25 years? I think not.

II

This is not absolution, however. I've sat through curriculum sessions where I could discern no implications for education. Is this curriculum's flight, or the willing suspension of relevance? bordering on the self-indulgent? I realize that my comments are dreadfully value-laden, but I maintain that “program development” is the ultimate responsibility of the curriculum generalist. We chose to be in an applied social science—namely, education, and “program development” goes with that choice. If I had wanted to be in the humanities or social sciences, I would have or I would now take measures to become a professor in any of those areas. And I do enjoy working in the humanities, as a music historian. But musicology is merely a passion and not my profession. My professional responsibility is to education and general curriculum; educational programming is the primary way to fulfill this responsibility. I guess I'm calling for “programmatic agency” similar to our calls for social agency and social action. However, as I note, the venue is no longer just k-12. What some university scholars dismiss as service, I view as our opportunities. Program development arises from program evaluation (namely, NCATE and various commission on higher education reviews), and settings include teacher education programs, post-secondary education projects, museum and community events. Further, my allegiance to general curriculum recognizes that development is the natural link to theory (an example of Schwab's polyfocal conspectus). While the “all theory/no practice” dart is a non-issue, I wish a responsibility for educational programming was felt by all.

III

My final point attends to whether “curriculum presently suffers from a lack of coherence?” I believe it does. I have been using the term general curriculum instead of the Division B's terminology, curriculum studies. But I conceive the field as general curriculum which, by definition, differentiates our work from the non-generalist, those in English, social studies, math education and other established fields. So, I am always left with questions of what distinguishes a general curriculum person from those in defined subject specialties. My only answer is “the quest for the synoptic,” a general, comprehensive view that leads to synthesis, coherence, and insight. I'm not talking about textbooks where the term synoptic merely refers to comprehensiveness.

The synoptic perspective leads to vistas that would not have otherwise been seen, for example Herb Kliebard's configuration in The Struggle for the American Curriculum . On a lesser scale, the synoptic is what I seek with the Eight Year Study, albeit at this point unsuccessfully. But I attempt to address this project in ways other than the typical pinpoint descriptions. The past years I have visited 48 archival sites throughout the United States trying to examine this historical project from a grand perspective. If I were in the field of math education, I could have wrapped up the Eight Year Study in six months. But the synoptic represents my defining professional characteristic, i.e., my expertise, as a curriculum generalist.

“Coherence arising from the synoptic; this is a responsibility if not an obligation for general curriculum.” To support my point, please read the final chapter of the recently released Curriculum Books: The First 100 Years by Bill Schubert and his colleagues, in what is certainly one of the most massive synoptic projects of our field. This comprehensive analysis based on curriculum work of the 20 th century “was not done for fun.” Schubert accepted his responsibility as a curriculum generalist, and the final chapter's insight and thoughtfulness could only have arisen from a synoptic perspective. This work allows others (specialist and generalist alike) to conceive new ways of knowing and understanding the field of curriculum and its importance and significance for all areas of education.

I began with a nod to Schwab; I conclude with thanks to him for writing remarkable essays and thanks to Susan Talbert for organizing this symposium. Schwab's moribund quip, a great one-liner, serves as an invitation for all to re-read, to return in what I call biblio-revenance , to those profound books that have defined our field of general curriculum. Moreover, his timeless critique challenges us to re-examine practices and values that we embrace today and, I hope, forces us to engage in dialogue that confronts and synthesizes thoughts and beliefs for tomorrow.