Once upon a time the animals in the forest decided to start a school. They agreed that
the curriculum should include the following subjects: swimming, hopping, climbing,
running, flying, digging and slithering. All animals were required to take all subjects.
Everything went on well until the third day when the principal, Wise Old Owl,
noticed some disturbing trends. For example, the rabbits were excelling in hopping
but performed poorly in flying tests. The cheetahs were scoring A’s in running but
were getting D’s in digging. The ducks were getting straight A’s in swimming but
were failing in the slithering course. The snakes easily got A’s in slithering but had
difficulty flying.
An emergency staff meeting was held among the teachers to find out whether it was
due to poor teaching or was a curriculum problem. It was agreed that the teachers
were good and dedicated to practising research-based instructional strategies.
Professor Lion from Forest State University was called in as a consultant. He
discovered that the problem was not due to poor teaching but rather the low level of
curriculum utility. He pointed out that ducks really do not need to know how to slither
and cheetahs should not be forced to learn digging skills. Neither should the snakes be
asked to take flying classes.
Prof. Lion concluded that animals were forced to learn skills that were not relevant to
their situations. However, there are certain skills every animal needs to know such as
finding food and water. He proposed that the curriculum be revised to include
instruction in generic skills such as food acquisition principles and social skills. But
animals were allowed to specialise in subjects most applicable to their species (e.g.
swimming, running). The animals all rejoiced when the recommendations were
implemented and shouted “Now this is a useful curriculum”.
[Source: Adaptation of L. F. Buscaglia (1972), Love. Thorofare, NJ: C.B. Slack, cited in R.
Burks, A theory of secondary curriculum utility, 1998.
www.randallburks.com/curriculum.htm]
