(eBook PDF) Developing the

Curriculum 9th Edition by William R.

Gordon II
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-developing-the-curriculum-9th-edition-b
y-william-r-gordon-ii/
The Pearson Educational Leadership Series

NINTH EDITION

O/o
......
...
}}
0 +
+

.....
 BRIEF CONTENTS

Part I THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions 1

Chapter 1 Curriculum and Instruction Defined 2
Chapter 2 Principles of Curriculum Development 18

Part II CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of Personnel 47

Chapter 3 Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector
Process 48
Chapter 4 Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension 71

Part Ill CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the

Curriculum System Development Process 93
Chapter 5 Models for Curriculum System Development 94
Chapter 6 Philosophy and Aims of Education 108
Chapter 7 Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 137
Chapter 8 Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas
and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 160

Part IV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 177

Chapter 9 Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and
Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 178
Chapter 10 Evidence Based Instruction 197

Part V EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS 219

Chapter 11 Evaluation of Instruction 220
Chapter 12 Evaluation of the Curriculum 243

Part VI LOOKING FORWARD IN CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT 261
Chapter 13 Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 262

••
VII
 CONTENTS

Part I THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions 1

Chapter 1 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION DEFINED 2
Conceptions of Curriculum 2
Curriculum Objectives or Standards 6
Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction 8
Curriculum as a Discipline 11
Curriculum Specialists 14
Summary 15 • Application 16 •
Reflection and Inquiry 16 • Websites 16 •
References 16

Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 18

Clarification of Terms 18
Sources of Curriculum Principles 19
Types of Principles 20
Ten Axioms 21
Eight Concepts of Curriculum Construction 32
Summary 44 • Application 44 •
Reflection and Inquiry 44 • Websites 45 •
Suggested Readings 45 • References 45

Part II CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of

Personnel 47

Chapter 3 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: A MULTILEVEL,

MULTISECTOR PROCESS 48
Curriculum Decisions 48
Levels of Curriculum Development SO
Sectors of Development 60
Sectors Beyond the State 61
Summary 67 • Application 68 •
Reflection and Inquiry 68 • Websites 68 •
Suggested Readings 68 • References 69

Chapter 4 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: THE HUMAN

DIMENSION 71
The School and School District as a Unique Blend 71
•••
Role of Curriculum Team Members 72
VIII
 •
Contents IX

The Curriculum Specialist and the Team Process 79

The Change Process 79
Summary 90 • Application 90 •
Reflection and Inquiry 91 • Suggested Readings 91 •
References 91

Part Ill CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the

Curriculum System Development Process 93
Chapter 5 MODELS FOR CURRICULUM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 94
Selecting Models 94
Models of Curriculum Development 95
Summary 106 • Application 106 •
Reflection and Inquiry 107 • Websites 107 • References 107

Chapter 6 PHILOSOPHY AND AIMS OF EDUCATION 108

Using the Proposed Models 108
Aims of Education: Mission or Purpose 109
Philosophies of Education 117
Formulating a Philosophy 129
Examples of Educational Philosophies 131
Summary 133 • Application 134 •
Reflection and Inquiry 134 • Websites 134 •
Suggested Readings 135 • References 135

Chapter 7 DATA AND EVIDENCE INFORMED DECISION

MAKING 137
Changing Expectations 137
Categories of Needs 138
A Classification Scheme 139
Needs of Students: Levels 140
Needs of Students: Types 142
Needs of Society: Levels 144
Needs of Society: Types 148
Needs Derived From the Subject Matter 151
Steps in the Needs Assessment Process 156
Summary 156 • Application 157 •
Reflection and Inquiry 157 • Websites 157 •
Suggested Reading 157 • References 158

Chapter 8 CURRICULUM GOALS OR OVERARCHING IDEAS AND

CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS 160
Hierarchy of Curriculum System Components 160
Defining Curriculum Goals and Objectives 161
x Contents

Constructing Statements of Curriculum Goals 164

Constructing Curriculum Objectives or Standards 164
Validating and Determining Priority of Curriculum Goals, Curriculum
Objectives or Standards 165
Historical Perspective 167
Curriculum Documents and Artifacts 169
Curriculum Guides 169
Summary 173 • Application 174 •
Reflection and Inquiry 174 • Websites 174 •
Multimedia 174 • References 175

Part IV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 177

Chapter 9 INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS 178
Planning for Instruction 178
Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives
or Learning Targets Defined 179
Historical Perspective 180
Guidelines for Preparing Instructional Goals or Essential Questions
and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 183
Classification Systems 186
Writing Instructional Goals and Objectives 190
Validating and Determining Priority of Instructional Goals and
Objectives 193
Summary 194 • Application 194 •
Reflection and Inquiry 194 • Websites 195 •
References 195

Chapter 10 EVIDENCE BASED INSTRUCTION 197

Instructional Models 197
Science of Instruction (SOI) 201
Science of Learning (SOL) 201
Organizing Instruction for Alignment with Standards 206
Teaching: Art or Science? 212
Summary 213 • Application 213 •
Reflection and Inquiry 214 • Websites 214 •
Podcast 214 • Suggested Readings 214 • References 215
 •
Contents XI

Part V EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS 219

Chapter 11 EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION 220
Assessing Instruction 220
Collaborative Assessment Planning 220
Assessment 221
Stages of Planning for Evaluation 222
Norm-Referenced Measurement and Criterion-Referenced
Measurement 225
Evaluation in Three Domains 227
Performance Based Assessment 232
Summary 239 • Application 239 •
Reflection and Inquiry 240 •
Additional Resources 240 •
Websites 240 • Suggested Readings 240 •
References 241

Chapter 12 EVALUATION OF THE CURRICULUM 243

Purposes and Problems of Curriculum Evaluation 243
Evaluation 246
Evaluation Models 247
Standards for Evaluation 256
Summary 256 • Application 257 •
Reflection and Inquiry 257 • Websites 257 •
Suggested Readings 258 •
References 258

PART VI LOOKING FORWARD IN

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 261
Chapter 13 TRENDS IN DIGITAL CURRICULUM AND
INSTRUCTION 262
Educational Technology 262
Digital Learning (Online Learning) 266
Personalized Learning 269
Netiquette 274
Summary 276 • Application 276 •
Reflection and Inquiry 276 • Websites 276 •
Suggested Reading 277 • References 277
Credits 279
Name Index 281
Subject Index 284
This page intentionally left blank
 •
e urr1cu um
Theoretical Dimensions

Chapter 1 Curriculum and Instruction Defined

Chapter 2 Principles of Curriculum Development

1
 • •
urr1cu um an nstruction
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter,
you should be able to:
1 . Define curriculum for
your context.
2. Distinguish between
curriculum and
instruction.
3. Explain the ways
curriculum can be
considered a discipline.
4. Create or select a model
showing the relationship
between curriculum and
instruction supported with
evidence.
2
e 1ne
CONCEPTIONS OF CURRICULUM
Gaius Julius Caesar and his cohorts of the first century BC had no
idea that the oval track on which the Roman chariots raced would
bequeath a word used almost daily by educators 21 centuries later.
The track the curriculum is a major focus of today's educational
leaders as they seek to create and implement the curriculum that best
aligns with the needs of students and to increase successful student
learning outcomes on the accountability metrics that apply in their
unique contexts.
It is important to note the pragmatic implications of curriculum
in serving the students' needs and in making progress with student
learning as measured officially, which may be different requirements.
Curriculum theorists recognize that theory and practice are not neces-
sarily separate and should be connected (Wright, 2000). In fact, Wright
discusses how curriculum theorists are wrestling with the inclusion of
curriculum in non-traditional learning environments, such as muse-
ums, community centers, and in various locales which may be virtual
or real. Theorists are also considering the technological opportunities
for learning that are reflected in changes in brick and mortar schools,
virtual schools, and in curriculum development, implementation, and
evaluation (Wright, 2000). These and other contemporary curriculum
concepts are addressed throughout chapters in this text.
Various definitions of curriculum have been generated since
as long ago as 1976, when Dwayne Huebner (1976) ascribed ambi-
guity and a lack of precision to the term curriculum (p. 156). In
1988, Madeleine R. Grumet (1988) labeled curriculum a ''field
of utter confusion'' (p. 4 ). At the turn of the twenty-first century
Arthur W. Foshay (2000) attributed a lack of specificity to the cur-
riculum (p. xv). Indeed, curriculum seems at times analogous to the
blind men's elephant. It is the pachyderm's trunk to some; its thick
legs to others; its pterodactyl-like flopping ears to some people; its
massive, rough sides to other persons; and its ropelike tail to still
others. Herbert K. Kliebard (1998) observed that ''what we call
the American curriculum is actually an assemblage of competing
doctrines and practices'' (p. 21).
 Chapter 1 • Curriculum and Instruction Defined 3

Until the development and various implementations of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in the United States (US), curriculum was thought to be the written plan provided by the
local education agency (LEA) or even by the state education agency (SEA). In 2010 the CCSS or
a variation had been implemented in 45 states making curriculum across the US more alike than
previously (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). However, as an observer of teachers
the authors note that in every school and in individual classrooms (virtual or traditional), the real
curriculum is the interpretation of the curriculum through instruction. What an observer immedi-
ately perceives is that the interactions between the teachers and students (instructional learning
experiences) actually provides evidence of the real curriculum. Because of the practical imple-
mentations or interpretations of the official curriculum by the teachers through their instruction
with students, curriculum and instruction cannot be completely separated. Officially, curriculum
is the what and instruction is the how.

Professional Licensure and Curriculum

State professional licensure or certification governance documents set professional standards
for educators. These requirements, whether in statute, rule, or policy, compound the problem of
defining curriculum because few professionals can become licensed or certified in curriculum.
Whereas most education professionals in preparatory programs take courses of one type or another
called curriculum, there is generally not a certifiable field labeled curriculum. Professionals are
typically licensed or certified in areas such as educational leadership, counseling, school psychol-
ogy, elementary education, or secondary education content areas. But in curriculum per se? Not
as a rule, although courses in the field of curriculum are often required for most education areas,
including educational leadership.
Nevertheless, numbers of curriculum specialists, coordinators, developers, digital designers,
supervisors, consultants, and even professors of curriculum can be identified. These curriculum
specialists, many of whom may hold licensure or certification in one or more fields, cannot cus-
tomarily hang on the wall a certificate that shows that they are certified in a field called curriculum.
Though a certifiable field of specialization called curriculum may be lacking, the word
itself is treated as if it had tangible substance, for it can undergo a substantial variety of processes.
Curriculum or its plural, curricula or curriculums ( depending on the user's penchant or abhor-
rence for the Latin) is built, planned, designed, and constructed. It is improved, revised, and
evaluated based on the implementation's learning outcomes or change in results on accountability
metrics. Like muscles that are developed to become stronger and provide more power, the cur-
riculum is developed. It is also organized, structured, and restructured, and, like a misdirected
child, reformed. With considerable ingenuity, the curriculum planner can mold, shape, and tailor
the official curriculum. However, with the implementation of CCSS and its variations across the
states, the public school curriculum may be perceived to have become less creative and more
straightforward with defined and expected student learning outcomes across many states. Charter
school, for profit school, and private or independent school curriculums may have more flexibility
as they have different accountability measures than their public school counterparts.

Interpretations of Curriculum
The amorphous nature of the word curriculum has given rise over the years to many interpreta-
tions. Depending on their philosophical beliefs, persons have conveyed these interpretations.
• Curriculum is that which is taught in school.
• Curriculum is a set of subjects or content areas.
4 Part I • The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

• Curriculum is a program or course of study.

• Curriculum is a set of materials and resources.
• Curriculum is a sequence of courses.
• Curriculum is a set of performance standards.
• Curriculum is everything that goes on both academic, social, and otherwise, inside and
outside of classes.
• Curriculum is that which is officially taught both inside of school and outside of school.
• Curriculum is everything that is planned by school personnel.
• Curriculum is a series of experiences undergone by learners in school.
In the foregoing definitions, you can see that curriculum can be conceived in a narrow way
as the official curriculum of the standards that are to be taught in specific grade levels and content
areas or the unofficial or hidden curriculum of the other experiences that students have in school,
both during instruction and beyond instruction. The implications for instructional leaders to be
drawn from the differing conceptions of curriculum can vary considerably. The instructional
leader who accepts the definition of curriculum as standards to be learned, faces a much simpler
task than the school leaders who take responsibility for experiences of the learner both inside the
classrooms and beyond, maybe even to what is learned outside of school.

Historical Conceptions of Curriculum

A variety of nuances are perceived when professional educators define curriculum. Trace how
a number of writers between the early twentieth and early twenty-first centuries conceptualized
curriculum. Franklin Bobbitt (1918), one of the earliest writers on curriculum, perceived cur-
riculum as:

that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abili-
ties to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults
should be. (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 42)

Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell (1935) viewed curriculum not as a group of
courses but as ''all the experiences children have under the guidance of teachers'' (p. 66). Ralph
W. Tyler's (1949) writings pointed the way to ''educational objectives'' that ''represent the kinds
of changes in behavior that an educational institution seeks to bring about in its students'' (p. 6).
Hilda Taha (1962), in a discussion of criteria for providing sets of learning opportunities for cur-
riculum development, said, ''A curriculum is a plan for learning'' (p. 11). She defined curriculum
by listing its elements. Taha (1962, p. 10) explained that every curriculum globally contains com-
mon elements, such as goals and objectives, and distinct content selections and organizational
approaches that inform styles of learning and teaching, concluding with an assessment methodol-
ogy to determine whether the objectives were met.
A different approach to defining curriculum was taken by Robert M . Gagne (1967, p. 21), who
wove together subject matter (content), the statement of ends (terminal objectives), sequencing of
content, and preassessment of entry skills required of students when they begin the study of the con-
tent. Mauritz Johnson Jr (1967), agreed basically with Gagne (1967) when he defined curriculum as
a ''structured series of intended learning outcomes," (p. 130). Johnson perceived curriculum as ''the
output of a 'curriculum development system' and as an input into an 'instructional system''' (p. 133).
Albert I. Oliver ( 1977) equated curriculum with the educational program and divided it into
four basic elements: ''(l) the program of studies, (2) the program of experiences, (3) the program
 Chapter 1 • Curriculum and Instruction Defined 5

of services, and (4) the hidden curriculum," (p. 8). The programs of studies, experiences, and
services are readily apparent. To these elements Oliver added the concept of a hidden curriculum,
which encompasses values promoted by the school, differing emphases given by different teachers
within the same subject areas, the degree of enthusiasm of teachers, and the physical and social
climate of the school.
J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis (1981) offered this definition:
''We define curriculum as a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons to be
educated," (p. 8-9).
As the years progress you will notice a broadening of some conceptions of the school cur-
riculum. Geneva Gay ( 1990), writing on desegregating the curriculum, offered a more expansive
interpretation of curriculum: ''If we are to achieve equally, we must broaden our conception to
include the entire culture of the school not just subject matter content'' (pp. 61-62).
Expressing the view that the word '' 'curriculum' has come to mean only a course of study,"
D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly (1992) held curriculum to be no less than ''a course
of life'' led by teachers as curriculum makers (p. 393).
Ronald C. Doll ( 1996) defined the curriculum of a school as: ''the formal and informal con-
tent and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter
attitudes, appreciations, and values under the auspices of that school'' (p. 15).
Departing from a definition of curriculum as ''school materials," William F. Pinar, William
M. Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter M. Taubman (1996) described curriculum as ''symbolic
representation," (p. 16). These authors said:

Curriculum understood as symbolic representation refers to those institutional and discursive

practices, structures, images, and experiences that can be identified and analyzed in various
ways, i.e., politically, racially, autobiographically, phenomenologically, theologically, interna-
tionally, and in terms of gender and deconstruction. (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 16)

Have definitions changed in writings of the early twenty-first century? Examine a few.
Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins (2004) considered curriculum as ''a plan for action or
written document that includes strategies for achieving desired goals or ends," (p. 10).
Emphasizing the role of curriculum in the continuing growth of learning and learners, Dan-
iel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner (2007) proposed the following definition: ''The authors regard
curriculum as that reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow
in exercising intelligent control of subsequent knowledge and experience'' (p. 99).
Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi (2007) also saw ''the curriculum as a desired goal or set of values
that can be activated through a development process culminating in experiences for students'' (p. 5).
James Mc Kiernan (2008) saw curriculum ''concerned with what is planned, implemented,
learned, evaluated, and researched in schools at all levels of education'' (p. 4).
Regarding the various interpretations of curriculum, Peter Hlebowitsh (2005) commented,
''When we begin to think about the curriculum as a strictly professional and school-based term, a
number of different interpretive slants on what comprises the curriculum comes into play'' (p. 1).

Definitions by Purposes, Contexts, and Strategies

Differences in substance of definitions of curriculum, while they exist, are not as great or as com-
mon as differences in the components that the curriculum theorists include in their conceptions
of the term. Some theorists elaborate more while others combine elements of both curriculum
and instruction, a problem that will be examined later in this chapter. Others find a definition of
6 Part I • The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

curriculum in (a) purposes or goals of the curriculum, (b) contexts within which the curriculum
is found, (c) instructional strategies used, or (d) standards to be learned.

PURPOSES. The search for a definition of curriculum is clouded when the theoretician responds
to the term, not in the context of what curriculum is, but in what it does or should do that is, its
purpose. On the purposes of the curriculum varying statements can be found and confusing. An
example is when curriculum is conceptualized. The statement: Curriculum is the development of
reflective thinking on the part of the learner, is not concrete. The same statement could be stated
more specifically: The purpose of the curriculum is the development of reflective thinking on the
part of the learner. A statement of what the curriculum is meant to achieve does little to help us
sharpen a definition of curriculum and clarifying and specifying the purpose of the curriculum is
a wise move for curriculum developers.

CONTEXTS. Definitions of curriculum sometimes state the settings within which it takes shape.
When theoreticians speak of an essentialist curriculum, a student-centered curriculum, or a re-
constructionist curriculum, they are invoking two characteristics of the curriculum at the same
time purpose and context. For example, an essentialistic curriculum is designed to transmit the
cultural heritage to students in the organized disciplines, and to prepare them for the future. This
curriculum arises from a special philosophical context of the essentialist school of philosophy.
A learner-centered curriculum clearly reveals its orientation: the learner, who is the primary
focus of the progressive school of philosophy. The development of the individual learner in all
aspects of growth may be inferred, but the plans for that development vary considerably from
school to school. The curriculum of a school following re-constructionist philosophical beliefs
aims to educate in such a way that learners will be capable of solving some of society's pressing
problems and, therefore, change society for the better.

STRATEGIES. While purpose and context are sometimes offered as definitions of curriculum, an
additional complexity arises when the theoretician equates curriculum with instructional strategy.
Some theoreticians isolate certain instructional variables, such as processes, strategies, or tech-
niques, and then proceed to equate them with curriculum. The curriculum as a problem-solving
process illustrates an attempt to define curriculum in terms of an instructional process problem-
solving techniques, the scientific method, or reflective thinking. The curriculum as personalized
learning, perhaps delivered digitally or online is a system by which learners encounter curricular
content through a mode of instruction. Neither purpose, nor context, nor strategy provides a clear
basis for defining curriculum.

CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS

Among prominent conceptions of curriculum is the classification of curriculum as curriculum
objectives or standards to be learned or mastered. This text will use both terms of curriculum
objective and standards synonymously, as well as other traditional based academic language and
standards based academic language, due to some educational organizations using one or the other
or both. Originally, the term used was performance or behavioral objective. Tyler's advocacy in
mid-twentieth century was for educational objectives to be written in behavioral terms. W. James
Popham and Eva L. Baker (1970) held that ''Curriculum is all the planned learning outcomes for
which the school is responsible," (p. 48). In designing the curriculum, planners would cast these
learning outcomes or objectives in operational or behavioral terms.
 Chapter 1 • Curriculum and Instruction Defined 7

The behavioral objectives may also be called performance or operational objectives and
in effect are instructional objectives. According to the proponents of behavioral objectives, a
compilation of all the behavioral objectives of all the programs and learning experiences of the
school would constitute the curriculum. The curriculum would then be the sum of all instructional
objectives. You will encounter in this text an approach that distinguishes curriculum goals ( over-
arching ideas) and curriculum objectives (standards) from instructional goals (essential questions,
big ideas) and objectives (learning targets). You will see later that standards are derived from
overarching ideas and aims of education (mission or purpose), and learning targets are derived
from essential questions or big ideas and from overarching ideas and standards. Both standards
and learning targets can be stated in behavioral terms. To assist you with the multiple and chang-
ing terms related to the curriculum system that includes curriculum, instruction, and assessment,
Table 1.1 is provided. Table 1.1, Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language, shows
the alignment between the more traditional terms and terms that apply in the standards based
environment. These terms may be helpful as you continue to read this text.
Some advocates of behavioral objectives seem comfortable with the notion that once the
expected learning outcomes (learning targets) are clearly specified, the curriculum has been
defined. From that point on instruction takes over. This view of curriculum as specification of
standards or objectives is quite different from the big concept of the curriculum as a plan, a pro-
gram, or a sequence of courses.
In this text, the official curriculum is perceived as a plan or program for all the experiences
that the learner encounters under the instructional leadership of the school or school district. This
official curriculum includes the curriculum objectives or standards that students are expected
to master within a specific grade level or content area, and are often those for which educators
are held accountable through various metrics. As curriculum is presented within the text, think
about the official curriculum and not all the extensions or experiences that students may have
while moving through their schooling or education. In practice, the official curriculum consists
of a number of plans, in written form and of varying scope, that delineate the intended student
learning outcomes. The curriculum, therefore, may be a unit, a course, a sequence of courses, the
school's or school district's entire program of studies and may be encountered inside or outside
of class or school when led by the personnel of the school.

TABLE 1.1 Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language

Traditional Academic Language Standards Based Academic Language

Aims Mission or purpose
Curriculum goals Overarching idea
Curriculum objectives Standards
Instructional goals Essentia l question (big idea)
Instructional objectives Learning targets (short-term measurable outcomes)
Measures Success criteria (evidence)
Assessments/tests Formative assessments (informal or formal check on progress towards
standard, goal, or learning target to inform instruction)
Summative assessment (measure of progress toward proficiency on a
standard, goal, or learning target)
8 Part I • The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

The search to clarify the meaning of curriculum reveals uncertainty about the distinctions between
curriculum and instruction and their relationship to each other. Simplistically, curriculum can be
viewed as that which is taught, and instruction as the means used to teach that which is taught.
Even more simply, curriculum can be conceived as the ''what," or intentions and instruction as
the ''how," or means. You may think of the curriculum as a program, a plan, content, and learn-
ing experiences, whereas you may characterize instruction as pedagogy, methods, delivery mode,
strategies, and implementation.
Historically, distinguishing instruction from curriculum, Johnson ( 1967) defined instruc-
tion as ''the interaction between a teaching agent and one or more individuals intending to learn''
(p. 138). James B. Macdonald and Robert R. Leeper (1965) viewed curricular activity as the
production of plans for further action, and instruction as the putting of plans into operation. Thus,
according to MacDonald and Leeper, curriculum planning precedes instruction, a premise with
which this text is aligned (McDonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5-6).
In the course of planning for either the curriculum or instruction, decisions are made. Deci-
sions about the curriculum relate to plans or programs and thus are programmatic. Whereas,
those decisions made about instruction (and thereby implementation) are methodological and
pedagogical. Both curriculum and instruction are subsystems of a larger system of education.

Models of the Curriculum-Instruction Relationship

Definitions of the two terms are valuable but can obscure the interdependence of these two sys-
tems. That the relationship between the what and the how of education is not easily determined can
be seen in several different models of this relationship. For lack of better terminology, academic
language for these models are: (a) dualistic model, (b) interlocking model, (c) concentric model,
and (d) cyclical model. Each curriculum-instruction model has its champions who espouse it in
part or in whole, and in theory or in practice.

DUALISTIC MODEL. Figure 1.1 depicts the dualistic model. Curriculum is on one side and
instruction on the other and they remain separate. Between the two entities lies a great abyss. What
takes place in the classroom seems to have little relationship to the master plan of curriculum or
learning intentions. The curriculum developers or designers do not engage with the instructors.
Discussions of curriculum are divorced from their practical classroom implementations. Under
this model the curriculum and the instruction may each change without significantly affecting
one another.

FIGURE 1.1
The Dualistic Model

Curriculum Instruction
 Chapter 1 • Curriculum and Instruction Defined 9

A B FIGURE 1.2
The Interlocking
Model

Curriculum Instruction Instruction Curriculum

INTERLOCKING MODEL. When curriculum and instruction are shown as systems entwined, an
interlocking relationship exists. No particular significance is given to the position of instruction
or curriculum in either of the versions of this model presented in Figure 1.2. The same relation-
ship is implied no matter which element appears on the left or the right. These models clearly
demonstrate an integrated relationship between these two entities. The separation of one from the
other would impact effectiveness of both.
Curriculum developers would find it difficult to regard instruction as paramount to curricu-
lum and to determine teaching methods before program development. Nevertheless, some instruc-
tors may proceed as if instruction is primary by dispensing with advance planning of instruction
based on the curriculum and by letting curriculum develop as learning proceeds in the classroom.

CONCENTRIC MODELS. The preceding models of the relationship between curriculum and
instruction reveal varying degrees of independence, from complete detachment to an interlock-
ing relationship. Mutual dependence is the key feature of concentric models. Two conceptions of
the curriculum-instruction relationship that show one as the subsystem of the other can be seen
in Figure 1.3. Variations A and B both convey the idea that one of the entities occupies a super-
ordinate position while the other is subordinate.
Concentric model A makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum, which is itself a sub-
system of the whole system of education. Concentric model B subsumes curriculum within the
subsystem instruction. A clear hierarchical relationship is in both these models. Curriculum ranks
above instruction in model A and instruction is predominant in model B. In model A, instruction

A B FIGURE 1.3
The Concentric Model
Curriculum Instruction

Instruction Curriculum
10 Part I • The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

is a very dependent portion of the entity curriculum. Model B makes curriculum subservient to
and a derivative of the more global instruction.

CYCLICAL MODEL. The cyclical conception of the curriculum-instruction relationship is a sim-

plified systems model that stresses the essential element of feedback. Curriculum and instruc-
tion are separate entities with a continuing circular relationship. Curriculum makes a continuous
impact on instruction and vice versa; instruction has impact on curriculum. This relationship
can be schematically represented as in Figure 1.4, The Cyclical Model implies that instructional
decisions are made after curricular decisions, which in tum are revised after student learning
outcomes are evaluated. This process is continuous, repetitious, and never-ending. The evalu-
ation of instructional effectiveness affects the next round of curricular decision making, which
again affects instructional implementation. While curriculum and instruction are diagrammed as
separate entities, with this model they are not to be conceived as separate entities but as part of a
sphere a circle that revolves, causing continuous adaptations and improvements of both entities,
based on learning outcome metrics.

FIGURE 1.4
The Cyclical Model

Curriculum Instruction

COMMON BELIEFS. As research findings add new insights on teaching and learning and as new
ideas are developed, beliefs about curriculum and instruction also undergo transformation. The
''rightness'' or ''wrongness'' of concepts such as curriculum and instruction cannot be established
by an individual or even by a group. One index of ''correctness'' might be the prevailing informed
opinion at a particular stage in history a rather pragmatic but nevertheless a viable and defensible
position. Most theoreticians today appear to agree with the following comments.
• Curriculum and instruction are related but different.
• Curriculum and instruction are interlocking and interdependent.
• Curriculum and instruction may be studied and analyzed as separate entities but cannot
function in isolation from one another.
Problems may be posed by the dualistic conceptual model of the relationship between cur-
riculum and instruction, with its separation of the two entities. With creation of the CCSS and each
state's specific implementation or variation in standards, there is a trend towards the concentric
model that makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum with the curriculum standards being the
driver. This is the case in many public school districts. Some curriculum developers and design-
ers are comfortable with an interlocking model because it shows a close relationship between the
two entities with the feedback loop that includes metrics of student learning outcomes to inform
revisions. Given the accountability for student learning outcomes of teachers and administrators,
it may be that the cyclical model has advantages. With simplicity and clarity of the importance
 Chapter 1 • Curriculum and Instruction Defined 11

of continuous improvement of both curriculum and instruction informed by feedback (data and
evidence), this model may hold the most promise for practitioners in roles that include or relate
to curriculum development and design.

CURRICULUM AS A DISCIPLINE
In spite of its elusive character, curriculum is a discipline or a major field of study in higher
education and curriculum is then both a field within which people work and a discipline to
be taught. Graduate and undergraduate students may take courses in curriculum development,
curriculum theory, curriculum evaluation, secondary school curriculum, elementary school cur-
riculum, middle school curriculum, community college curriculum, and on fewer occasions-
university curriculum.

The Characteristics of a Discipline

To arrive at a decision as to whether an area of study is a discipline, the question might be raised,
''What are the characteristics of a discipline?'' If the characteristics of a discipline can be spelled
out, it can be determined whether or not curriculum is a discipline.

PRINCIPLES. Any discipline worthy of study has an organized set of theoretical constructs or
principles that governs it. Certainly, the field of curriculum has developed a significant set of
principles, tried and untried, proven and unproven, many of which are appropriately the subjects
of discussion in this text. Balance in the curriculum, discussed in Chapter 2, is a construct or
concept. Curriculum itself is a construct or concept, a verbalization of an extremely complex idea
or set of ideas. Using the constructs of balance and curriculum, a principal can be derived that
stated in simple terms, says, ''A curriculum that provides maximum opportunities for learners
incorporates the concept of balance.'' Sequencing of courses, behavioral objectives, integrated
studies, and multiculturalism are examples of constructs incorporated into one or more curriculum
principles.
A major characteristic of any theoretical principle is its capacity for being generalized and
applied in more than one situation. Were curriculum theories but one-shot solutions to specific
problems, it would be difficult to defend the concept of curriculum as a discipline. The principles
of curriculum theory are often successful efforts to establish rules that can be repeated in similar
situations and under similar conditions. Generally, the concept of balance should be incorporated
into every curriculum. However, controversy may arise over a principle that might be stated as,
The first step in curriculum planning is the specification of behavioral objectives. Though some
maintain this principle has become universal practice and therefore might be labeled ''truth," it
has been tried and accepted by many educators, rejected by some, and tried and abandoned by
others; therefore, it cannot be applied consistently.

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS. Any discipline encompasses a body of knowledge and skills perti-
nent to that discipline. The field of curriculum has adapted and borrowed content from a number
of pure and derived disciplines. Figure 1.5 schematically shows areas from which the field of
curriculum has borrowed constructs, principles, knowledge, and skills. Selection of content for
study by students, for example, cannot be done without referring to the disciplines of sociology,
psychology, and specific core content like mathematics. Organization of the curriculum depends
on knowledge from organizational theory and instructional leadership, which are aspects of school
12 Part I • The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

FIGURE 1.5
Sources of the Curriculum Field
Systems
theory
Instruction Technology

Communica-
Evaluation
tion

History Sociology

Curriculum

Philosophy Psychology

Subject
Supervision
areas

Organizational
Management
theory

leadership. The fields of communications, supervision, systems, instructional technology, and

digital design are called on in the process of curriculum development. Knowledge from many
fields is selected and adapted by the professionals within the curriculum field.
The learner-centered curriculum as a concept draws heavily on what is known about learn-
ing, growth, and development (psychology and biology), on philosophy (particularly from one
school of philosophy, progressivism), and on sociology. The essentialist curriculum borrows from
the areas of philosophy, psychology, and sociology, as well as the academic disciplines.
You might ask whether the field of curriculum contributes any knowledge of its own to
that borrowed from other disciplines. Certainly, a good deal of thinking and research is going on
in the name of curriculum. New curricular ideas are being generated continuously, such as those
emerging from social and political theories related to multi-culturalism and culturally relevant
curriculum and pedagogy (Wright, 2000). New ideas, whether they be character education, techni-
cal education, or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, borrow
heavily from other disciplines.
As those who study educational leadership you will be familiar with an example from the
field of social psychology. Generally accepted is the notion that a curriculum changes only when
the people affected have changed. This principle, drawn from the field of social psychology and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
closing of the “drift” was a breach of the London Convention, of 1884, and must
be reversed. To avoid trouble over so paltry a matter the Transvaal government
withdrew the proclamation, but there was bitter feeling occasioned by this
interference, naturally in inverse ratio to the petty cause of it. The resentment
was as widespread as the two Africander Republics. It was this incident,
together with the Jameson raid of a few months later, that decided the Free
State to dissolve all partnership with Cape Colony as to railway interests, and to
use its option of buying the Free State section of this trunk line at cost price. As
this was the most profitable part of the whole system, the Cape government was
a heavy loser—to the extent of 7 per cent out of 11 per cent profits previously
derived from the road;—but if the ultimate object sought by those who directed
the movement was to create a [213]strong prejudice in England against the
Transvaal government, it was gained.

As time went on preparations for the contemplated uprising were matured.

Ostensibly to participate in the taking over of the Bechuanaland Protectorate
Doctor Jameson and his police were brought down to the vicinity of the
Transvaal frontier. Simultaneously, mutterings of the coming earthquake—as it
was intended to be—began to be heard. At the meeting of the Johannesburg
Chamber of Mines, held on the 20th of November, 1895, Mr. Lionel Phillips, in
an incendiary speech, declared that “capital was always on the side of order, but
there was a limit to endurance, though there was nothing further from their
desires than an upheaval which would end in bloodshed.” How this was
understood, even in Europe, may be seen from the following reference to it in a
letter from a gentleman in Hamburg, written on the 6th of December, and quoted
by Mr. Statham in his “South Africa as It Is”:

“Master Lionel’s speech has been very foolish, and is likely to do a great deal of
harm and no good—unless his instructions are to incite to bloodshed—and I can
scarcely imagine such instructions to have gone out while the boom is
[214]lasting. If there is anything that is likely to put Paul Kruger’s back up, it is
threats; and unless Cecil Rhodes is prepared to back up with his Matabele
heroes those threats, you will find the Volksraad of 1896 give an unmistakable
answer to what they will wrongly call ‘British threats.’ ”

How the real state of things was comprehended locally is evinced in the answer
to that letter, dated December the 10th:
“Your remark concerning Rhodes’ Matabele heroes is probably more prophetic
than you yourself are aware of. South Africa is, as you say, the land of
surprises.”

Among the parties privy to the conspiracy the date of uprising was spoken of as
the “day of flotation.” It was carefully discussed, as was the use that could be
made of the British crown officials at the Cape. Arms and ammunition for the use
of the revolutionists continued to arrive at Johannesburg, concealed in coal
trucks and oil tanks. It looked like an appointment when, on the 21st of
December, Colonel Rhodes, brother and representative of Cecil Rhodes at
Johannesburg, telegraphed to the Cape that a high official, whom he called the
“Chairman,” should interfere at the earliest possible moment, and that he and
Mr. Cecil Rhodes should start [215]from Cape Town for Johannesburg on the “day
of flotation.”

This telegram has been interpreted to mean that the conspirators wanted to
create just enough of disturbance to justify alarming telegrams and calls for help,
but not so prolonged and violent as to make it necessary for them to lead a
hand-to-hand fight against the burghers in the streets of Johannesburg. They
would have the Jameson force near enough to take the brunt of the fighting, and
the High Commissioner to come in opportunely to mediate a peace favoring the
re-establishment of British control in the Transvaal.

Strangely enough, at the last moment divisions arose among the local
conspirators at Johannesburg; they hesitated, and were lost. To some, the
project which had been much talked of—that of re-establishing British rule—
became suddenly distasteful, the principal reason being that the desired control
of capital over legislation could not be as complete under British colonial
administration as it might be made under some other regime. They had
appealed to the sentiment of British loyalty in persuading English recruits to
enter their ranks, but they began to see that this sentiment, carried to its
legitimate fruition, [216]would defeat the chief end of the capitalists in seeking the
overthrow of the Kruger government. Christmas day of 1895 found the
Johannesburg reformers so divided in feeling that most of them were in favor of
postponing all action until some definite assurance could be obtained as to what,
and for whom, they were to fight. To this end the President of the National
Union, Mr. Charles Leonard, was sent off to Cape Town to confer with Mr. Cecil
Rhodes.
In enlisting Doctor Jameson and his police force in this movement an uncertain
and dangerous factor had been included. The situation became critical.
Jameson, who had been warned that he must on no account make any move
until he received further orders, grew restive and eager for the fray. In
Johannesburg the conspirators were in a state of indecision and alarm. Mr. Cecil
Rhodes himself was halting between the two opinions, whether to abandon the
enterprise altogether or to precipitate the struggle regardless of the divided
counsels at Johannesburg.

Then the factor of danger declared itself. On the night of the 29th of December,
1895, Doctor Jameson broke his tether and, presumably without orders, invaded
the territory of the South African Republic from the British territory of
[217]Bechuanaland, at the head of about six hundred men.

Just why Jameson moved at that time probably never will be known. He has
himself assumed the entire responsibility; Mr. Rhodes and Sir Hercules
Robinson, the High Commissioner, have disavowed it utterly. There are few who
believe that his invasion was intended to initiate the revolution. A probable
solution of the mystery is that the revolutionary programme included (1) a
collision between the conspirators in Johannesburg and the burgher police, (2)
the calling in of the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, as mediator, (3)
the ordering up of Jameson and his force to support the High Commissioner in
any course he might decide upon, and that Jameson thought he could time his
arrival aright without waiting for further orders.

But the skillfully arranged programme was spoiled by the shrewdness of

President Kruger. There was no initial conflict in the streets of Johannesburg.
Penetrating the design, the president withdrew all the Transvaal police from the
streets of the city; there was no one to exchange shots with, and therefore no
reason to justify a call for outside interference. [218]

By cutting the telegraph wires Jameson made it impossible for friend or foe to
know his whereabouts, but the report got abroad that he was coming. In
Johannesburg some desired, some feared, his coming. A member of the
committee of the National Union assembled a hundred of the malcontents and
attempted to lead them out to co-operate with the invaders, but they tamely
surrendered to a burgher force without firing a shot. As for Jameson, on
Wednesday, the 1st of January, 1896, he was checked near Krugersdorp by a
few hundred burghers hastily collected, and on the next day was surrounded
near Doornkop and forced to surrender. Thus ended the attempt at revolution.

During the few days which closed 1895 and opened 1896, there was a state of
social, political and financial chaos in Johannesburg. All that was left visible of
the reform association was confined within the walls of a single clubhouse—a
resort of the leading spirits in the conspiracy. The European population at large
seemed to be unaware of anything connected with the affair but the, to them,
unaccountable situation—full of peril to life and property—which had been
created they knew not how. The state of panic was sustained and intensified by
the wildest rumors of [219]what Jameson was to do, of thousands of burghers
assembling to lay siege to the town, of a purpose to bombard the city from the
forts, of a new government about to be proclaimed—indeed, anything and
everything might happen.

When it leaked out that the principal actors in the revolutionary movement had
secretly removed their families from the city—which was to be the storm-center
of the expected disturbance—there was a general stampede. Men and women
fought for place on the outgoing trains. In one tragical instance an overladen
train left the track, and forty persons, mostly women and children, perished. To
exaggerate the misery and disaster to innocent and peaceable people, caused
by this unfortunate and abortive uprising, would be impossible.

The immediate effect of the raid was most unfavorable to the return of anything
like good feeling between the British and the Africanders. The historic cablegram
of the German Emperor to President Kruger, congratulating him on the prompt
and easy suppression of the rebellion, was construed as evidence that the
South African Republic was secretly conniving at a German rivalry to Great
Britain as the paramount power in South Africa. On the other hand, every
[220]burgher in the Transvaal saw in the conspiracy a new indication of the
inexorable hostility of the British to their independence, and of a relentless
purpose to subvert it again by any means necessary to accomplish their end,
however unjust or violent. The effect on the burghers of the raid was much the
same as that of the blowing up of the Maine on the citizens of the United States
—a feeling that relations had been created which nothing could finally adjust but
war.

Notwithstanding the intensified bitterness between the two peoples, no one was
put to death, nor was any one very seriously punished for taking up arms
against the Transvaal government. This is to be credited not to any doubt or
extenuation of their guilt, but to urgent intercession on the part of the British
authorities, and to the wisdom of those who administered the government whose
territory had been invaded from the soil of a professedly friendly nation, whose
very existence had been conspired against by resident aliens, and which had in
its power both the invaders and the resident conspirators. [221]
[Contents]
CHAPTER XV.
 CAUSES OF THE AFRICANDERS’ SECOND WAR OF
INDEPENDENCE.—CONTINUED.

After the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896 the peace of South Africa and the
final paramountcy of Great Britain therein by the mere force of a superior
civilization and of preponderating financial and diplomatic resources, depended
upon a policy which was not followed.

If the British authorities had eliminated Mr. Cecil Rhodes and his schemes from
the situation, and had suffered matters in South Africa to return to the state
which prevailed in 1887, the end would have been different, and better. At that
time the country was being allowed to move in an unforced way toward a destiny
of settled peace between the two races. A genuine but unaggressive loyalty in
the British colonies was beginning to develop a reciprocal good will on the part of
the two republics, giving promise of a pleasant fellowship of nations in South
Africa. [222]

The result would not have been a confederated South Africa under the British
crown; that was and is impossible, both for geographical and political reasons.
But there might have been brought about acquaintanceship and mutual esteem
between Great Britain, the would-be Paramount Power, and the Africander race
throughout the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British colonies of
Natal and the Cape—which race is and will long continue to be the dominant
factor in South Africa. Out of that friendly relationship might have come a
paramount power to Great Britain well worth the having, and in every way
consistent with the honor of the British crown and the continued independence of
the Africander republics.

But Mr. Rhodes and his projects were not eliminated from the situation. By force
of almost unequaled genius for acquisition and intrigue, and of great powers in
no least degree controlled by moral considerations, he continued to dominate—
both locally and in England—the British policy in South Africa. His presence and
influence made final peace in the country impossible on any condition other than
the subjugation of the Africander Republics. Probably two-thirds of the European
population of South [223]Africa believed that he was the chief criminal—though
unpunished—in connection with the conspiracy and raid of 1895–1896. His
influence, therefore, had the effect of intensifying the race enmities, already the
too vigorous growth of a century, and of warning every Africander in the two
republics to stand armed and ready to defend the independence of his country.
And these men, to whom Mr. Rhodes’ presence and activities were a constant
irritation and threat, loved freedom after the fashion of their Netherland
forefathers who worsted Spain in diplomacy and war in the sixteenth century,
and after the fashion of their Huguenot forefathers who counted no sacrifice too
great to make for liberty.

During 1896 there was a temporary lull in the agitation for reforms in the
Transvaal. Investigations had become an international necessity, for
appearance’s sake if for no other reason; but they led to nothing except the
rehabilitation of the principal leaders in the conspiracy which had miscarried. Of
necessity Doctor Jameson, and his immediate associates in conducting the
invasion, were condemned to death by the Transvaal authorities, for they were
taken in the act, and confessed themselves guilty of a capital [224]crime. After a
time the death sentences were reversed, and the offenders were set free.

By the opening of 1897 a good degree of order had replaced the state of chaos
into which the uprising had thrown the foreign population and interests in the
Transvaal. Then the agitation for reforms was renewed, and the claims of the
foreigners were backed up and pressed diplomatically by the British government,
of which the exponent in the long controversy was the Hon. Joseph
Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies.

It is not necessary to trace, step by step, the diplomatic correspondence on the

subject of reforms in the Transvaal during 1897, 1898 and the first two months of
1899. The whole situation—including every subject in dispute between the two
governments—will come into view in the discussions and negotiations
immediately preceding the outbreak of the Africanders’ Second War of
Independence, in October, 1899.
 GENERAL CRONJE.

On the 20th of March, 1899, in reply to a question by Sir E. Ashmead Bartlett as

to Great Britain’s right to interfere with the affairs of the South African Republic,
Mr. Chamberlain, from his place in parliament, said: [225]
“There are certain cases where we can intervene, and rightly intervene, in
Transvaal affairs.

“1. In the first place, we may intervene if there is any breach of the convention.

“2. There is no doubt we should have the usual right of interference if * * * the
treatment of British subjects in the Transvaal was of such nature as would give
us the right to interfere as to the treatment of British subjects in France or
Germany.

“3. Then there is only one other case—the third case. We can make friendly
recommendations to the Transvaal for the benefit of South Africa generally and
in the interests of peace.”

In concluding Mr. Chamberlain said: “I do not feel at the moment that any case
has arisen which would justify me in taking the strong action suggested”; the
reference being to the sending of an ultimatum.

The next important development was a petition to the Imperial Government,

signed by 21,684 British subjects in the Transvaal, praying for interference in
their behalf. This was forwarded through Mr. Conyngham Greene, the British
agent at Pretoria, to Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, who transmitted
it to London, [226]where it was received by Mr. Chamberlain on the 14th of April.

Summarized, the complaints of the petitioners were as follows:

1. The great majority of the uitlander population consists of British subjects who
have no share in the government.

2. Petitions of the uitlanders to the Transvaal government have either failed or

have been scornfully rejected.

3. Instead of redressing uitlander grievances, the Transvaal government, after

the Jameson raid, passed laws making their position more irksome—i.e., the
immigration of aliens act, the press law, the aliens expulsion law. The
immigration act was suspended at the insistence of the British government, but
the others remain in force.

4. The Transvaal government exercises the power of suppressing publications

devoted to the interests of British uitlanders.
5. British subjects are expelled from the Transvaal without the right of appeal to
the high court.

6. The promise of municipal government for the city of Johannesburg has been
kept in appearance only. There are 1,039 burghers resident [227]of
Johannesburg, and 23,503 uitlanders, but the law giving each ward of the city
two members of the council also requires that one of them must be a burgher,
and the Burgomaster, who is appointed by the government, has the casting vote.

7. The city of Johannesburg is menaced by forts occupied by strong Boer

garrisons.

8. The uitlanders of Johannesburg are denied the right to police their own city.

9. Trial by jury is a farce, as uitlanders can be tried by burghers only.

10. The uitlanders are deprived of political representation; are taxed beyond the
requirements of the Transvaal government.

11. The education of uitlander children is made subject to impossible conditions.

12. The Boer police give no protection to lives and property in the city of
Johannesburg.

It will be noted that this petition, dealing with political and other grievances,
makes no mention of the dynamite monopoly, extortionate railway charges,
burdensome tariffs on imported foodstuffs, and other industrial and commercial
grievances of which complaints had been made at an earlier date. And in judging
of this list of complaints it should be considered that, with the [228]exception of the
eleventh, concerning the education of children—which is fatally indefinite in
expression—most of the conditions complained of are exactly such as would be
imposed on a city lately in insurrection, and yet inhabited by the same persons
who had conspired to overthrow the government.

The dangerous tension already existing was greatly heightened by a long

telegraphic communication from Sir Alfred Milner, Governor of Cape Colony, to
Mr. Chamberlain, on the 5th of May. After reviewing the situation, and reiterating
the grievances which British subjects were said to be suffering, and declaring
that the spectacle presented “does steadily undermine the influence and
reputation of Great Britain,” Sir Alfred revealed the true inwardness of the
struggle already begun between the Africanders and the British by saying:
“A certain section of the press, not in the Transvaal only, preaches openly and
constantly the doctrine of a republic embracing all South Africa, and supports it
by menacing references to the armaments of the Transvaal, its alliance with the
Orange Free State, and the active sympathy which in case of war it would
receive from a section of her Majesty’s subjects. [229]

“I can see nothing which will put a stop to this mischievous propaganda but some
striking proof of the intention of her Majesty’s government not to be ousted from
its position in South Africa.”

Sir Alfred’s reference in the last two paragraphs is to the “Africander Bund,” a
society whose ramifications were to be found throughout Natal, Cape Colony,
and, indeed, wherever members of the Africander race were to be found.

He that runneth may read and understand these luminous words in Sir Alfred
Milner’s dispatch. The coming struggle was not to be about some foreigners in
the Transvaal, but to defeat, in time, the republican aspirations of the whole
Africander race, including those in the two republics already established and “a
section of her Majesty’s subjects” in the British territories of Natal and Cape
Colony; and the issue was understood to be either “a republic embracing all
South Africa”—involving the expulsion of the British government “from its position
in South Africa”—or the defeat of those aspirations in the establishing of a
confederated South Africa under the British crown.

In the light of Sir Alfred’s dispatch one ceases to wonder that all negotiations
about the uitlander [230]grievances, and that the repeated concessions as to the
franchise offered by the Transvaal, were without effect. It is evident that both
parties saw inevitable war approaching on quite another and a much larger
question.

The response of the British government to the uitlanders’ petition, and to Sir
Alfred Milner’s appeal for intervention, was a suggestion that President Kruger
and Sir Alfred Milner should meet at Pretoria and confer concerning the chief
matters in dispute between the two governments. Afterward, upon the invitation
of Mr. Steyn, president of the Orange Free State, it was decided to hold the
conference at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State Republic. In accepting
the invitation to this conference in a telegram dated the 17th of May, Mr. Kruger
said:
“I remain disposed to come to Bloemfontein and will gladly discuss every
proposal in a friendly way that can conduce to a good understanding between
the South African Republic and England, and to the maintenance of peace in
South Africa, provided that the independence of this republic is not impugned.”

The date selected for the first meeting between Mr. Kruger and Sir Alfred was the
31st of May. On the 22d Sir Alfred telegraphed Mr. [231]Chamberlain asking for
final instructions to guide him in the approaching conference, and outlining his
own views of the situation thus:

“It is my own inclination to put in the foreground the question of the uitlanders’
grievances, treating it as broadly as possible, and insisting that it is necessary, in
order to relieve the situation, that uitlanders should obtain some substantial
degree of representation by legislation to be passed this session. Following
would be the general line:

“Franchise after six years, retroactive, and at least seven members for the Rand”
(the mining district). “Present number of Volksraad of South Africa being twenty-
eight, this would make one-fifth of it uitlander members.

“If President Kruger will not agree to anything like this, I should try municipal
government for the whole Rand as an alternative, with wide powers, including
control of police.

“If he rejects this, too, I do not see much use in discussing the various
outstanding questions between the two governments in detail, such as dynamite,
violations of Zululand boundary, ‘Critic’ case, Cape boys and Indians, though it
would be desirable to allude to them in course [232]of discussion, and point out
the gravity of having so many subjects of dispute unsettled.”

In a telegram, dated the 24th of May, Mr. Chamberlain instructed Sir Alfred
Milner, in part, as follows:

“I think personally you should lay all stress on the question of franchise in first
instance. Other reforms are less pressing and will come in time if this can be
arranged satisfactorily and form of oath modified. Redistribution is reasonable,
and you might accept a moderate concession.

“If fair terms of franchise are refused by President Kruger it is hardly worth while
to bring forward other matters, such as aliens, colored people, education,
dynamite, etc., at the conference, and the whole situation must be reconsidered.”

On the 31st of May, 1899, Sir Alfred Milner and President Kruger met in
conference at Bloemfontein. Their negotiations form one of the most interesting
features of the controversy between the two governments. The results of the
conference, in brief, were as follows. For the uitlanders, Sir Alfred demanded
that:

“Every foreigner who can prove satisfactorily that he has been a resident in the
country for five [233]years; that he desires to make it his permanent place of
residence; that he is prepared to take the oath to obey the laws, to undertake all
obligations of citizenship, and to defend the independence of the country; should
be allowed to become a citizen on taking that oath.”

Sir Alfred Milner modified these proposals by suggesting that the franchise be
restricted to persons possessing a specific amount of property or of yearly
wages, and who have good characters. He asked, further, that “in order to make
that proposal of any real use for the new citizens, who mostly live in one district,
* * * there should be a certain number of new constituencies created,” and that
“the number of these districts should not be so small as to leave the
representatives of the new population in a contemptible minority.”

President Kruger did not accept Sir Alfred’s proposals, and submitted counter
proposals as follows:

“1. Every person who fixes his residence in the South African Republic has to get
himself registered on the Field Cornet’s books within fourteen days after his
arrival, according to the existing law. He will be able after complying with the
conditions under ‘A’ and after the lapse [234]of two years to get himself
naturalized, and will, five years after naturalization, on complying with the
conditions under ‘B,’ obtain the full franchise.

“A.

“1. Six months’ notice of intention to apply for naturalization. 2. Two years’ continuous
residence. 3. Residence in the South African Republic during that time. 4. No
dishonoring sentence. 5. Proof of obedience to laws; no act against the government or
independence. 6. Proof of full state citizenship and franchise or title thereto in former
country. 7. Possession of unmortgaged property to the value of £150; or occupation of
house to the rental of £50 per annum; or yearly income of at least £200. Nothing,
however, shall prevent the government from granting naturalization to persons who
 have not satisfied this condition. 8. Taking of an oath similar to that of the Orange Free
State.

“B.

“1. Continuous registration for five years after naturalization. 2. Continuous residence
during that period. 3. No dishonoring sentence. 4. Proof of obedience to laws. 5. Proof
that applicant still complies with the condition of A 7.”

In a memorandum which is a part of the records of the conference Sir Alfred

Milner admitted [235]that President Kruger’s proposals were “a considerable
advance upon the existing provisions as to franchise.” But he intimated that they
stopped far short of the solution he had suggested, and which, he said, “alone
appeared to be adequate to the needs of the case.” He also declared it a waste
of time to discuss further details; and so the conference ended in failure.

Notwithstanding the failure of the conference, the Volksraad of the South African
Republic passed a seven years’ retroactive franchise law on the 19th of July,
1899. This law was somewhat modified from the proposals submitted by
President Kruger at the conference. It also gave the uitlanders additional
representation in both raads, which President Kruger announced on the 27th of
July as follows:

“By virtue of the powers conferred upon them the Executive Council yesterday
decided to give three new members in each Volksraad for the Witwatersrand
gold fields. That is to say, there are at present two members for both raads; the
number will be increased to eight, four to sit in the first and four in the second
raad. With the De Kaap representative, there will now be five members to
represent the mining industry in a [236]proposed enlarged legislature of thirty-one
members.”

In London it was believed that the action of the Volksraad was a long stride
toward a peaceful solution of the difficulties. In the House of Commons Mr.
Chamberlain, after reading a telegram from Sir Alfred Milner announcing the
action of the Volksraad, said:

“I have no official information as to the redistribution, but it has been stated that
the government of the South African Republic proposes to give seven new seats
to the district chiefly inhabited by aliens.
“If this report is confirmed this important change in the proposals of President
Kruger, coupled with previous amendments, leads the government to hope that
the new law may prove a basis of a settlement on the lines laid down by Sir
Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein conference.”

But somewhere in the counsels by which the British authorities acted at this time
there was an element of suspicion and of yet unsatisfied aggression, which did
not make for a peaceful settlement. After the Volksraad of the South African
Republic had passed the seven years’ franchise law, together with enlarged
representation [237]of the uitlanders in both raads, and after Mr. Chamberlain had
made his hopeful announcement in the House of Commons, the whole subject
was reopened by a new request. The Transvaal government was asked to agree
that a joint commission of inquiry, made up of expert delegates representing the
Transvaal and the British government, should be appointed to investigate the
exact effect of the new franchise law.

It is not surprising that this request fell as a shock upon a government which had
received from the power making this and other extraordinary demands a
guaranty, in the convention of 1884, that it should be in every sense independent
in the management of its internal affairs. On the 21st of August President Kruger
formally declined to accede to the request for a joint committee to investigate the
effect of the new franchise law, and submitted an alternative proposition: The
South African Republic would give a five years’ retroactive franchise, eight new
seats in the Volksraad and a vote for President and Commandant-General,
conditioned upon Great Britain consenting:

“1. In the future not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal Republic. 2.
Not [238]to insist further on its assertion of the existence of suzerainty. 3. To agree
to arbitration.”

In a dispatch dated the 2d of September, 1899, Mr. Chamberlain, having rejected

President Kruger’s alternative proposals, suggested another conference, to be
held at Cape Town, and ended with the significant statement:

“Her Majesty’s government also desires to remind the government of the South
African Republic that there are other matters of difference between the two
governments which will not be settled by the grant of political representation to
the uitlanders, and which are not proper subjects for reference to arbitration.”
In dispatches printed on the 7th of September President Kruger signified a
willingness to attend the Cape Town conference, and, while holding that no good
could come of a joint inquiry into the effect of the new franchise law, he would
agree that British representatives should make an independent inquiry, after
which any suggestions they might make would be submitted to the raad.
Concerning suzerainty he announced the unalterable purpose of his people to
adhere absolutely to the convention of 1884.

On the 8th of September the British cabinet formulated a note to the South
African Republic [239]very much in the nature of an ultimatum, refusing point
blank to entertain the proposal that Great Britain should relinquish suzerainty
over the Transvaal and pointedly intimating that the offer of a joint inquiry into the
effect of the seven years’ franchise law would not remain open indefinitely.

The Transvaal’s rejoinder, printed unofficially on the 16th of September,

announced that the South African Republic withdrew the proposal to give a five
years’ franchise, that it would adhere to the original seven years’ law already
passed by the Volksraad, and that it would, if necessary, adopt any suggestions
Great Britain might make with reference to the practical workings of the law.

On the 25th of September, after three days’ consideration, the British cabinet
gave out the text of another note to the South African Republic, which read as
follows:

“The object Her Majesty’s government had in view in the recent negotiations has
been stated in a manner which cannot admit of misunderstanding—viz.: To
obtain such substantial and immediate representation for the outlanders as will
enable them to secure for themselves that fair and just treatment which was
formally promised [240]them in 1881, and which Her Majesty intended to secure
for them when she granted privileges of self-government to the Transvaal.

“No conditions less comprehensive than those contained in the telegram of

September 8 can be relied on to effect this object.

“The refusal of the South African government to entertain the offer thus made—
coming, as it does, after four months of protracted negotiations, themselves the
climax of five years of extended agitation—makes it useless to further pursue the
discussion on the lines hitherto followed, and the imperial government is now
compelled to consider the situation afresh and formulate its own proposals for a
final settlement of the issues which have been created in South Africa by the
policy constantly followed by the government of South Africa.

“They will communicate the result of their deliberations in a later dispatch.”

PRITCHARD STREET, LOOKING EAST, JOHANNESBURG.

[241]
[Contents]