Creative Education 2012. Vol.3, No.8, 1311-1319 Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38192 Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 1311 The Evolution of Curriculum Development in the Context of Increasing Social and Environmental Complexity Richard Plate Department of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Email: richarp@ufl.edu Received October 2 nd , 2012; revised November 4 th , 2012; accepted November 18 th , 2012 The history of curriculum development has been characterized and a series of “crises” with the pendulum shifting between traditionalists’ call for getting back to the basics and the progressives’ focus on the learner. However, tracing this history, one can see a common theme in the criticisms expressed by both parties: the failure of the existing curriculum to meet the demands presented by an increasingly complex society. I follow this theme in order to provide historical context for contemporary calls by scientists and educators for wider use of systems-oriented curricula (i.e. curricula designed to improve systems thinking) at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education. With this context, one can view these current calls not as a radical shift of direction, but as a logical next stage in the evolution of curriculum. I conclude with a call for more research assessing the effectiveness of systems-oriented instruction and provide guidelines for enhancing the usefulness of such research in the current United States system. Keywords: History of Curriculum Development; Systems Thinking; Complexity Introduction One can hardly believe there has been a revolution in all history so rapid, so extensive, so complete. Through it the face of the earth is making over, even as to its physical forms; political boundaries are wiped out and moved about, as if they were indeed only lines on a paper map; population is hurriedly gathered into cities from the ends of the earth; habits of living are altered with startling abruptness and thoroughness; the search for the truths of nature is infinitely stimulated and facilitated, and their ap- plication to life made not only practicable, but comer- cially necessary (John Dewey). In his 2006 State of the Union address, George W. Bush an- nounced his new educational program, the American Competi- tiveness Initiative, committing over $136 billion over the next ten years “to encourage innovation throughout our economy” (Bush, 2006). A US Department of Education (D.O.E.) report, titled Meeting the Challenge of a Changing World: Strengthen- ing Education for the 21st Century, explains the administra- tion’s view of “innovation”: To Americans, innovation means much more than the lat- est gadget. It means creating a more productive, prosper- ous, mobile and healthy society. Innovation fuels our way of life and improves our quality of life. And its wellspring is education. (US D.O.E., 2006: p. 3) Educator David W. Orr has sharply criticizes Americans’ view of innovation, what he calls “technological fundamental- ism”—a “kind of technological immune deficiency syndrome that renders us vulnerable to whatever can be done and too weak to question what it is that we should do” (2002: p. 63). Nonetheless, Orr would likely find much to agree with in the above characterization, for he aims his criticisms specifically at Americans’ focus on the latest gadget and the general disregard for a more healthy society. In Orr’s words, Americans favor “innovations that produce fast wealth, whatever their ecological or human effects... on long-term prosperity” and neglect inno- vations “having to do with human survival” (2002: p. 69). Both Bush and Orr cite the need for education to respond to the changing global situation. The difference is a matter of focus. For the current Bush administration, a more productive, prosperous, and healthy society implies the need to graduate students who are prepared to compete in a global market and maintain a high level of national security. While Orr acknowl- edges the importance of enabling individuals “to compete more favorably in the global economy”, he suggests that there are “better reasons to rethink education” (1994: p. 26)—among them, the challenges of stabilizing world population, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity, and manag- ing renewable resources sustainably. In short, Orr explains, students today “must begin the great work of repairing as much as possible, the damage done to the earth in the past 200 years of industrialization” (1994: p. 26). For Bush, a renewed focus in science and math represents the best way to meet current educational challenges; for Orr, the most important curriculum change involves using environ- mental lessons to integrate school subjects, turning them into a cohesive whole and producing ecologically literate graduates. With these suggestions, both Bush and Orr echo a charge made often during the history of curriculum development in the USA: our schools do not adequately prepare their students to meet the demands of contemporary society. Reasons cited for this failure can be put into two broad categories. One, a critic may find the educational theory to be lacking. That is, new research on edu- cation or cognitive development may have produced findings that point toward new developments in curriculum. And two, the educational context—that is, the demands placed upon stu- dents by society—may have changed, necessitating a corre- sponding change in curriculum. These categories are not mutu-