The Tyler Rationale

Looking back in my schooling, I see many instances of the Tyler rationale. As students, we were taught. We never explored subject areas not being taught, we never learned about what interested us as students, unless it constantly happens to be part of the curriculum, we were graded on scales and given sheets of paper explaining what we should be accomplishing in each unit. Like the article describes, major ideas were broken down into units, and because of this, the main point was lost. For example, when studying novels in class, we broke down each chapter and analyzed it individually to make it easier to understand. However, this means we did not learn the significance of the chapter to the rest of the book, plot, or meaning. As the article said, there were also behavioural outcomes expected of us as students. Again like the article, we were given no choice in what we wanted to learn. In high school, we were forced to read a Shakespeare play, something that already disinterested me, but we did not even get to choose a play it was chosen for us. I recently learned the teacher did not even get to choose the play or book; it was written in the curriculum. Today, I can not recall the plot of the play, because I cared about it so little, but I can recall the books I read during free read that same year because I got to read which books interested me.  

The major limitation of the Tyler rationale is how planned the curriculum is. In this traditionalist curriculum, imagine the curriculum as a blanket. The blanket is thrown over and encompasses all students. Because the blanket was already made when thrown and is being used by every student, it leaves little room for individual needs. In reality, if the curriculum was designed around teacher’s interests, different ways of learning, and the diversity in knowledge and different student abilities, the curriculum would be achievable for each student and would take into account their needs. The Tyler rationale limits how many choices the students get in what they learn, meaning some of their interests and questions will be ignored. Because students are expected to reach a certain goal, a base goal for all students, students might not get the help or education they need. For example, someone who excels in reading and passes the goal of that year’s curriculum will not have their knowledge furthered because they already reached the goal. This rationale also affects teachers. Teachers are assigned the curriculum, and so they have very little wiggle room on what to teach. Meaning they can not stay and focus on one thing that maybe the students need more time to grasp because the teachers have to meet a deadline fully. Being forced to study certain subject areas can also prevent students from appreciating them truly. For example, I really disliked Social Studies in my elementary years. I thought it was boring and uninteresting. However, once I started taking it in high school I learned there was more history in the world then what I was being taught, and I found that I disliked some parts of Social studies, I loved others, I was just never given a chance to explore them early on. 

A potential benefit of this type of curriculum is that it covers many bases. This curriculum, according to Smith 2000, is based around the learners not having a say in what they learn. This is a major con of this process. However, it does have a few benefits. For instance, some basic knowledge is important to know, and whether it interests students or not, it should be taught. For example, many children prefer other classes when compared to math. If given a choice about what they learn, some children would opt out of these lessons. However, some knowledge may be needed later in life. For example, how to tell time, how to count money, simple addition and subtraction skills are going to be needed later in life. And if given a choice about what to learn, these skills may never be taught. Another potential benefit to this method is that children are still young and do not know what they want to accomplish later in life, or at least their dreams as a five-year-old may be different from that of a 16-year-old. Elementary education gives students the base knowledge of many subjects, so that when they continue on to middle and later years, they have a small understanding of each subject, so they can start to focus on what interests them and can focus on what they want to achieve later in life. For example, when I was younger, I wanted to be an artist. Also, I was not too fond of English classes because I was a slow reader and a terrible speller. However, the curriculum pushed English onto me as a child. Once I got into high school, I continued taking art, but I also started to read more, which led me to discover my favourite book series and discovering a love of history, which has now led me to study those subjects in education. This is an example of a potential benefit of this type of curriculum. Younger years education gives children a base knowledge of each subject, which means they are free to explore their interests and professional field later in life because our interests as children do not always reflect our interests as adults.