I found that, in this article, it was hard to discern different takes on the curriculum. I found it to be verbose and bogged down in jargon and therefore, I struggled to understand the main points of this reading – even after taking notes and reading it out loud, but this is what I gathered from the traditionalist approach: Tyler’s traditionalist approach to curriculum is that students should adopt behaviours and that the curriculum should be approached and created in an ordered and logical manner. That being said, I think this is still prevalent in schools. I think the biggest example through my schooling would be math where one concept builds off of another and students build and adopt these practices in an organised manner. Another example is English. A teacher wouldn’t teach how to write by starting off with university style essays. We would first learn the structure of an essay and build mannerisms from there. I think this is a very efficient system of thought towards the curriculum. It gets rid of the excess and focusses on what the students need to do to modify their behaviour or learn. Tyler’s roots in efficiency help teachers to know what each student needs. In theory, this would operate like a staircase curriculum where each level would know exactly where the level before left off and would teach until or beyond where the students need to be for the next level. This ensures that all students are caught up to their level and removes the guess work in where your students are coming from. This could also create great work ethics for the children. I also think that this is missing the human aspect of this. Yes, students need to learn these behaviours but it removes room for interpretation and constructed meaning through critical thinking. This approach deals mostly with transmission style learning which has benefits and downfalls. First, it places utmost importance on the curriculum and leaves little room for the voices of the students. Second, assessment for this would be highly dissected and would focus on specific activities instead of the learner and learning process as a whole. The big picture could be lost in this method. Lastly, this implies that behaviour can be measured objectively which is a major fundamental flaw. I can see why this is still used in classrooms but I think it also needs to be taken with a grain of salt in terms of the human aspect and compassion for your students. Tyler’s method creates great workers but is that what our purpose is as teachers? Certainly it’s an aspect of it but I hope for my classroom that I can effect this and different kinds of change for more rounded students.