Kliebard, Herbet. Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958. London: Routledge, 2004.

Summary
This book examines various political and intellectual movements that influenced the shape of the American curriculum. Due to the varied interest groups, there was not one reform movement but several over the course of the 20th century. He argues the reform groups can be broken down into four groups: ''' defenders of the humanist tradition (Herbartians/humanists); promoters of child-centered curriculum (developmentalists); the application of industry model; and the school as a model of democracy'''. Kliebard concludes that each group has its victories but there was no unconditional surrender or overwhelming triumph; “it is this ambiguous outcome of the struggle that accounts for much of the diversity in interpretation that has surrounded the course of American education in the 20th century” and has led to a largely “unarticulated, and not very tidy compromise.”  Each left their mark: social efficiency educator reinforced the belief that education ought to be tied to rewards; deveopmentalists drew attention to the nature of the child; and social meliorists reinforced the issue of school in relation to social progress (civil rights struggle); and the school subject remained as the basic unit (humanists/traditionalists). He concludes that the '''National Defense Education Act''' (passed in response to Sputnik) transformed this half-century long curriculum debates.

Example: 19th century societal change: immigration, railroad connections (“one country”), proliferation of the published word, and economic crises led to an increased attention to what students were taught in public schools. Up to the 1890s, the school curriculum was largely based of the theory of the “discipline of the mind” (cites the Yale Report), but was challenged both due to these larger societal changes as well as the increased enrollments in secondary (high) schools. Led to new ideas: Charles Eliot (elective, traditional, science), G. Stanley Hall (child-centered), William T. Harris (traditional), Francis Park and John Dewey (progressive-traditional), Joseph Mayer-Rice (Scientific and efficient management).

See also: John Rudolph, Adam Shapiro