In this essay, I would like to propose a kind of curriculum theory, and to give one specific example. The sort of theory I have in mind is not generated through application of the social science model for curriculum building. I do not share the enthusiasm of the conceptual empiricists for the idea that science is the sole source of curriculum knowledge. Nor will the curriculum theory to be defined here resemble the brand of curriculum theory usually served up by those writers known as the "reconceptualists" (although it may, in a way, serve to complement their work). Indeed, a case might be made that writers like Michael Apple, William Pinar, and Dwayne Huebner often function more as curriculum philosophers than curriculum theorists. This is, of course, not meant to disparage their valuable contributions: it is important (in the words of James MacDonald, 1975, p. 6), to "develop and criticize conceptual schema in the hope that new ways of talking about curriculum, which may in the future be far more fruitful than present orientations, will be forthcoming." But there are still those of us liberal enough to believe that curriculum theory can also serve a somewhat more traditional purpose: that is, to be more directly helpful to practitioners in planning and using actual curricula. Such theory may be generated in a variety of ways, but the approach suggested here will involve inquiry into individual programs and materials. One result of this approach can be theory that links features of those specific