泰勒傳統下的系統課程理論視課程設計為專家的工作，教師只須忠實地執行原定計畫，而學生則是一個等待課程傳遞的知識儲存體。課程發展的目的不再是為了人的發展，而是為了達成一套預設的課程目標，於是課程方案凌駕了人的重要性，反而成為教師與學生行動的控制者。然而課程若缺乏師生的詮釋及生活經驗的相互激發，將僅只是沒有生命的文本，不會對人產生意義。概念重建論強調，課程不是為了滿足任何外界預定的目標，而應是師生共同建構意義的一段歷程，所以課程設計與實施，都應該有師生的共同參與。 然而課程作為一種制度性的文本，在多數國家裡仍然以系統理論觀進行課程發展。中央或地方行政當局往往設計一套次序井然的課程目標或綱要，再逐步檢核學生的成就表現。而教師則如同技術工人一般，依循既定的計畫，將一定範圍的知識傳遞給學生。這使得學校生活世界中真實的課程被壓抑了。 教師的課程意識以及對制度性課程的反省批判、行動，成為改變師生處境的重要關鍵。教師應自許為知識分子，參與政策與政治領域的集體發聲，擺脫作為政策下游執行者的身分；追求對於自己和學生具有意義的課程，而不再不假思索地遵從學術界或行政界所倡導的方向。 當教師與學生成為課程的真正主體，其經驗與知識成為課程建構的主要內涵，我們才算有一個真正的課程改革。

In Tyler’s tradition, curriculum is designed by professionals outside of schools. Teachers must loyally implement the given plan, and students become the stock of packaged knowledge. In the process of Curriculum development, humans become the object controlled by curriculum. The Reconceptualist emphasizes that “curriculum” is the journey to seek life meanings for teachers and students. Lacking the interchange of life experiences between them, the curriculum is meaningless. As an institutional text, curriculum is developed in the traditional engineering model in most countries. Central or local governments usually design the goals of attainment or programs of study, then assess student achievement. Under the curriculum framework, teachers, like technical workers, transmit the prescribed knowledge according to a given plan. The curriculum in their life world is oppressed. However, Teacher curriculum consciousness and critical action are the keys to unfolding a way to well-being. There will not be a true curriculum reform until teachers and students become the subject of curriculum.