In an earlier post, retired high school English teacher Randall Hendee expressed his opposition to the Core Knowledge curriculum, which contains specific knowledge that students are expected to learn.
Here, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., the founder of the Core Knowledge curriculum, responds to Hendee.
Full disclosure : I was a board member of Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Foundation for several years. He has been a friend since 1983, when I met him at a conference in California and we discussed our mutual concern about curriculum content. When we were both part of the Koret Task Force at the conservative Hoover Foundation, Don and I were partners in a debate with Caroline Hoxby and Paul Peterson. We argued that curriculum and instruction were more important than markets and choice. They argued that markets and choice were more important.
Hirsch writes:
“This discussion started when Diane cited Mr. Hendee’s criticism of my Huffington Blog, and this comment is addressed mainly to Mr. Hendee.
“Your account of what I said in the blog was selective to the point of distortion. My blog had a double theme, stated in its title: “Teacher Bashing and Common Core Bashing are both Uncalled For.” (I’ve always admired Diane’s courageous defense of teachers and of the public schools – as I stated in my NYRB review of her prior book.)
“In defense of the Common Core, I pointed out that its call for a coherent and cumulative plan of content across grade levels was far from an untried scheme, but is characteristic of all best and fairest school systems.
“But I spent much more space on the benefits to teachers of content coherence: I said, “This fall, my granddaughter Cleo, will be teaching in a school in the Bronx, assigned to teach the American Revolution to seventh grade public school students. Though hugely competent, she panicked and called me: “Oh my gosh. Granddad, are there any teaching guides for this?” Her school could offer no real support. I sent her one of the thick, grade-by-grade teacher handbooks produced by the Core Knowledge Foundation. In them each topic is explained and instructional suggestions are provided. … Cleo was greatly relieved. But what about all the other Cleo’s out there who are being thrown into these sink-or-swim situations in our public schools, sent into classrooms where it’s impossible to know what their students already know, and where teachers are given scant guidance about what they should be teaching — or worse — are asked to teach literacy classes based on the trivial and fragmented fictions found in the standard literacy textbooks? That’s why I have become so impatient with the teacher bashing that has overtaken the education reform movement. The favored structural reforms haven’t worked very well. The new emphasis on “teacher quality” implies that the reforms haven’t worked because the teachers (rather than the reform principles themselves) are ineffective. A more reasonable interpretation is that reforms haven’t worked because on average they have done little to develop rich content knowledge within and across grades.”
“On the other points in the discussion: No, I’ve never drawn a salary from Core Knowledge, and won’t make a cent from the literacy program,which in any case can be downloaded in full for free from the Core Knowledge web site. Finally I have no idea who controls the comments on Huffington.”

The HUGE problem, though, for thoughtful people like Hirsch is there is NO evidence having standards or even the quality of standards improves outcomes. NONE:
http://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/what-we-know-now-and-how-it-doesnt-matter/ :
What we know now about accountability, standards, and high-stakes testing: After thirty years of accountability, standards, and high-stakes testing in 50 separate state experiments, the research base is clear: “the absence or presence of rigorous or national standards says nothing about equity, educational quality, or the provision of adequate educational services, there is no reason to expect CCSS or any other standards initiative to be an effective educational reform by itself” (Mathis, 2012).
Click to access pb-options-2-commcore-final.pdf
LikeLike
If you are saying that a structured curriculum is not sufficient for effective education then I agree. I am puzzled as to who you think disagrees.
If you are saying that a structured curriculum is not necessary for effective education then I need to see the evidence for this rather novel assertion.
LikeLike
Cleo is one lucky granddaughter!
LikeLike
E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Sir, I too, have referred to the volumes published per grade, to a very adequate synopsis of specific content-subject matter. At a school where I taught, at one time, used the “Core Knowledge” for curriculum guidance. I rather liked that approach because you were able to supplement with other materials, as necessary. As I’m now an educator-in-rotation, I find that access to your published works very, very useful & helpful in my everday duties. Cleo is indeed very fortunate & blessed that you’re her GrandDad!!!
LikeLike
Funny coincidence: I wrote a paper recently about Core Knowledge that seemed to me culturally biased versus culturally relevant instructional models and curricula. I’m totally opposed to CCSS. So the coincidence? My daughter’s name is Cleo. She’s only 6 years old but she’s an avid swimmer (in connection to the “sink or swim” comment) and we’ve made the choice to place her in a public Montessori in our district.
I know this isn’t really connected to the actual post, but I did find it amusing that I’ve spent a great deal of time researching Core Knowledge and Hirsch’s stance on choice and public ed and then read this article with such coincidences. 😉
LikeLike
Here’s what I wrote in response. I corrected one typo…
Thanks for responding. I read your entire original post, and I don’t think I quoted you unfairly. The anecdote you reprint here doesn’t say anything about the efficacy of a detailed, sequential curriculum or about how background knowledge and learning capacity are built within individual learners. It just proves that a detailed sequential curriculum has been published. It might also indicate that a particular school didn’t have its act together, I don’t know. Also, it may not be obvious that the success of your son’s school can be credited solely to the curriculum. It could be that he’s a terrific principal with a talented, dedicated, empathetic staff (and when I say “staff,” I include the custodians, secretaries, and all the other support people).
As I said, I don’t believe it’s possible or advisable to create a detailed, sequential (i.e., “canned”) program that fits all students, especially if mastery of one year’s work is assumed as a prerequisite for the next year’s. I think it’s wishful thinking to imagine that exposing every child to the same materials at the same time will somehow reduce the deficits they may enter school with. It does, however, invite the problem of developmentally inappropriate materials in the earliest grades, especially when you consider the difference between boys and girls at that age.
Some of my objections rest on philosophical differences. I’m looking at learning from a constructivist perspective rather than a knowledge-transfer perspective. Mastering a body of knowledge may be necessary when you’re training someone to be competent at a particular set of tasks. But it’s not clear that a detailed, programmatic curriculum is the best route to building a robust knowledge base and learning facility within every child. My bias is toward helping children develop their own individual knowledge base in an organic fashion, rather than trying to impose a predetermined knowledge base onto them. Free reading, inquiry-based methods such as Problem Based and Project Based learning, the Learning Power paradigm espoused by Ruth Deakin Crick in the UK, the Maker Movement… none of these approaches rules out a content-rich learning environment. What they might be able to do that a lock-step curriculum is less likely to do, is engage the learner on a deeper level with the content that means the most to him, within a community of learners who are encouraged to share that knowledge with one another. That’s where the work of Stephen Krashen comes in. He offers evidence that extensive reading of self-selected materials, for example, is practically guaranteed to make a child a good reader.
In any case, I don’t agree that “effective classroom teaching depends on key prior knowledge being shared by all the members of the class.” Kids don’t have to know the same things on the way into a grade level in order for them to learn new concepts, or for the teacher to run an effective classroom. If this were true, the one-room schoolhouse would’ve been an utter failure. But in fact, it worked brilliantly. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s necessary for every child to learn the same thing. No matter what we do, students will come out of elementary school with wildly varied knowledge sets. It doesn’t matter, though, as long as each child has continued to grow substantially in learning capacity. Ruth Deakin Crick’s research has shown that the longer students endure traditional schooling, the LESS resilient is their learning capacity. That is, they are less likely to persevere and remain absorbed in a learning task then they were at an earlier age. Not a good sign for prescribed curricula.
As I indicated in my comment, I attribute my own intellectual development to extensive independent reading and study in the areas that interested me. I also had a lot of great teachers over the decades. None of them ran a classroom that wasn’t “content-rich,” yet the best of them weren’t hung up on a rigid body of knowledge, and some of them turned me loose to learn on my own. That made a big difference. Maybe that’s why anything with the word “common” in it goes against my learning instincts. And the Common Core Standards go against both my graduate school education AND my teaching experience, and that’s why I oppose them. (And yes, it seems like a boondoggle hatched by a small group of self-interested people, forced from the top onto the people below who had the least input but will be the most affected, and so on.)
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I, for one, never questioned your integrity. Also, thanks for sticking up for teachers. They really are more important than the curriculum, though!
LikeLike
Note that I’m not talking about the study of mathematics. I’m not qualified to do that. I do like the idea of integrated studies, where math and science go together, and English goes with almost any other subject.
LikeLike
Randal Hendee: these recent exchanges regarding E. D. Hirsch, Jr., and Common Core have been enlightening. I agree with your final paragraph:
“Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I, for one, never questioned your integrity. Also, thanks for sticking up for teachers. They really are more important than the curriculum, though!”
Nonetheless, I would like to respectfully add that Mr. Hirsch should ponder the old English adage “there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” Aspirational goals, however beautifully stated and detailed and beloved, may be completely perverted and distorted in their implementation.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
🙂
LikeLike
You have concisely summarized a huge problem with Common Core and grounded it in learning theory. Thank you!! We know a lot about how people learn and one of the things we know is that humans construct their own knowledge and that construct is based on their prior experiences. Note that this does NOT mean that students will discover the theory of relativity on their own. The thirty kids in my classes all have different experiences, even though I teach in a small, rural school. I need to engineer experiences for them to learn, based on what they bring to the classroom. That means that not every student leaves with the same “knowledge,” but they do all leave thinking differently (and hopefully deeper) than when they entered. And, of course, the truth of the matter is that student never have all learned the same things, even in rigid drill and kill classrooms at any point in history. But now we have a better idea on how people learn. I fear the Common Core will be implemented in a way that directly opposes what we know about learning
LikeLike
Hirsch said “I sent her one of the thick, grade-by-grade teacher handbooks produced by the Core Knowledge Foundation. In them each topic is explained and instructional suggestions are provided. … Cleo was greatly relieved. But what about all the other Cleo’s out there who are being thrown into these sink-or-swim situations in our public schools, sent into classrooms where it’s impossible to know what their students already know, and where teachers are given scant guidance about what they should be teaching — or worse — are asked to teach literacy classes based on the trivial and fragmented fictions found in the standard literacy textbooks?”
Did Mr. Hirsch ask Cleo what her students already knew about the American Revolution? Apparently not. Did Cleo find out what her students knew about American history and the connected world history? From the story, it does not seem that she did. It is pretty simple to find out what our students know – and NO I do not mean by giving them a standardized test.
Additionally, prior to the Common Core, state Social Studies “standard courses of study” would describe what should be taught.
And since Cleo is teaching in NYS this fall, surely she can look at documents at EngageNY to find her Common Core-based “teaching guide.” http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/ss-framework-k-8.pdf
Obviously, I agree with Randall and find Mr. Hirsch’s explanation lacking.
LikeLike
NOT that I am encouraging Cleo to teach to the Core or any unrealistic standards! Cleo should do what all good/great teachers do. Figure out what each kid knows and start there, even if it is different for each kid. And hopefully, Cleo knows enough about the American Revolution AND seventh graders that she can write her own lessons.
LikeLike
Common Core bashing. Hmmmm.
What about making light of it being forced a little? And then tying high stakes testing to it?
Is skepticism the same thing as bashing? I don’t think that it is.
(Not that anyone asked me, I just type responses when something hits me and this hit me because I am skeptical of Common Core, mostly as a parent).
LikeLike
You are quite right, Joanna. The Common Core supporters are leaving out the “OR ELSE” element.
Let’s focus on the whole hydra: high stakes testing, new evaluation systems, tenure reform (elimination), competition from temporary, untrained “teachers,” openly hostile elected officials (a guy named Chris comes to mind), power mad billionaires, and . . . well , it’s all on this blog.
LikeLike
I taught the Core Knowledge Language Arts curriculum at the 5th grade level last year. In my 9 years of teaching, I have never challenged students so much or seen them tackle and master such difficult concepts and books. I provided different levels of the same book to my different readers, but they were all exposed to Tom Sawyer, The Secret Garden, Don Quixote, Little Women, selections from The Narrative Life of Frederick Douglass, and the most difficult in my opinion, Sherlock Holmes and the Red-Headed League. I was AMAZED at how hard the kids worked to understand this literature, and am now a huge believer in Core Knowledge.
I read E.D. Hirsch’s The Knowledge Deficit as part of my preparation to teach Core Knowledge, and I share his opinion that students must be exposed to classic literature instead of the short, simple, picture-filled pages of reading anthologies. Those stories won’t teach kids how to be great readers!
Additionally, the teacher’s manuals that Cleo received are definitely excellent sources full of interesting information and anecdotes to share with students. Thank you, Dr. Hirsch, for what you are doing! Our students in Canton, MI thank you too!
LikeLike
I would never advocate for “the short, simple, picture-filled pages of reading anthologies,” or the workbooks that go with them. Outside of the publishers themselves, I don’t know who would.
You oughta give yourself more credit. It couldn’t have been just those books that inspired your students!
LikeLike
I think Ed Hirsch is correct that the best schools teach in the way he describes. Not only that, but students generally respond eagerly to content. They generally hunger for knowledge and they recognize it when it is offered. The problem with his Core Knowledge programs as I see it the lack of age appropriateness in the earliest grades. Of course, to be successful teachers must believe in any curriculum that they follow, and they must genuinely follow it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why we have to make this an either/or debate. Years ago when I was teaching special ed in a middle school, I taught a small group of students following the regular curriculum. As the eighth grade concentrated on 20th century+, one of the books we read together was To Kill a Mockingbird. It is not an easy read, and required quite a bit of background knowledge, some of which I provided and some of which they got in social studies. In my class, the information was provided organically as we read. None of the kids were bored by it, and it helped to make the story come alive. It allowed them to concentrate on bringing their own projects to life in a way that would have been difficult without that knowledge base. I have not read the Core Knowledge material, so perhaps I am more leery of a prescribed grade by grade base than I need be, but I also am a firm believer in the teacher as BOTH an instructor and a facilitator.
LikeLike
“I also am a firm believer in the teacher as BOTH an instructor and a facilitator.”
I’m with you 100%. As much as I want students to be involved with their own learning, select their the own reading materials, and interact with peers, the teacher still has to run the show. This includes supplying relevant information as needed and teaching key processes where they fit in. If the prescribed curriculum and “standards” supersede the teacher’s authority to make these decisions–a good teacher will feel stymied.
That’s a big problem in my book. Give teachers a general structure and a list of content options to work with–don’t prescribe everything in detail. These lesson plan hawks I’ve been reading about aren’t doing the profession any good.
About the Core Knowledge program, I read a long list of required outcomes for first graders for the ancient Middle East unit that Diane linked to (reportedly based on CK). That was enough. I thought it was dreadful.
LikeLike
I, too, am not convinced that schools or teachers must choose between a content- and literature-rich curriculum and a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. It’s funny, on Hirsch’s other (very good) HuffPo piece about testing, I responded with a supposition about a 3rd grade teacher teaching about the Revolutionary War. I was remembering my daughter’s actual 3rd grade teacher who taught this — with no textbooks and no preset curriculum. She brought library materials into the classroom, read books aloud, and later took the children to the public library to research their own individual biography projects. (The children also had regular time during the school day to read anything they wanted.)
Edutopia published an article 13 years ago about Ron Berger, who was working at the time at a small public school in Massachusetts. He said: “We don’t use any textbooks. We haven’t for twenty-five years. We don’t use worksheets. We don’t use premade things. It’s like the difference between fast food and home-cooked meals. We really like to build everything, although we certainly derive from all kinds of good programs and texts.”
I submit that this is the kind of school where any teacher worth his or her salt would want to teach. Not incidentally, it’s also the kind of school children are eager to attend.
Here’s the article, which is about project-based learning but also about what it means to have high standards:
http://www.edutopia.org/shutesbury-elementary-school-PBL
LikeLike
That’s my kind of school. The fast food v. home cooked meal analogy hits home. That’s an interesting handle you have–quilts4kids. There’s gotta be an education metaphor in there somewhere.
You could look at a curriculum as a quilt. I would be partial to a crazy quilt curriculum. I don’t know the correct terminology, but the maybe the school could supply the foundation fabric and some material for the border. Teachers could supply some of the materials ahead of time, but the rest of the quilt could be discovered and assembled by teachers and students as the year progressed. The finished quilt could be hung in the classroom to serve as a model for the next year’s work. Some teachers would want to select new materials, but the school would set the border once again. Each new group of kids would come up with different ideas and discoveries to add to the new quilt. Each school could display the older quilts in the school library. Veteran teachers could explain them to the rookies. Kids could see what they’ve accomplished over the years, and so on. The evolving curriculum, co-created by the administration, teachers, and students, would be available for anyone to see.
Metaphor aside, this idea could be turned into an actual class or school project, with each student and staff member contributing a square to commemorate a learning highlight of their school year. The result could actually be displayed in the school media center. I wonder if any schools have already done this.
LikeLike
Go for it. Even if it has been done, each one is unique to the group that does it.
LikeLike
2old2tch:
If only I still had a classroom. I retired from my regular teaching job in 2005. Maybe someone else can try some version of the idea. As final project for a high school class, a former student made a quilt from personalized squares contributed by people she learned from. It was a great success.
LikeLike
Let’s hope someone here who is still teaching will pick it up. I love the senior project!
LikeLike
What amazes me as a former Social Studies teacher in all of the exchanges above is that teaching the American Revolution in 7th grade is and has been a requirement in NYS for a very long time. The curriculum for 7th grade Social Studies includes all of U.S. History from the initial populating of the North American continent through to the Civil War. If Mr. Hirsch’s granddaughter was unprepared to teach this topic, then perhaps she needed to consult with colleagues in her school to see what materials were currently being used, and not simply to depend on her grandfather to supply “his” materials. The NYS Social Studies Core Curriculum already provides a wealth of information that, if she had bothered to investigate, not only suggests materials to use, but also “Essential Questions” to be explored. See pages 37-61 at the following URL: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/pub/sscore1.pdf.
It’s a shame that she decided turned to her family instead of using the extant NYS Social Studies curriculum that provides the information that she needed to “teach” the American Revolution. However, as a means for promoting Dr. Hirsh’s materials, his anecdote serves marvelously well, and he manages to avoids the issues that Mr. Hendee presents.
It’s exceedingly unfortunate when policy is determined by anecdote and “aspirational goals,” rather than through sound research, which seems increasingly to be occurring in so many aspects of education these days.
LikeLike
thanks, i’ve just sent this info off to Cleo. I’m sure she’ll appreciate it. I wish she had had someone with your experience to mentor her. And if this particular example could be multiplied for all subjects and grades — at least for core topics — the school experience would be better for both students and teachers. The students would share some degree of preparation, the class discussion would be more interesting and animated, and more time would be available for students with special needs. Does this description of grade-by–grade coherence apply to other subjects? It’s hard to see how, since the grade by grade topics aren’t defined. You say it’s so for U S history. Where else in NYS?.
LikeLike
Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Hirsh, but any veteran teacher of Social Studies in NYS would be aware of this resource, as it is has been available since 1996.
The core curriculum in Social Studies is applicable all grades K-12. Similar ones also exist in other core subjects, and are available at the following URL:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/cores.html
The ones for English Language Arts and Mathematics, Science and Technology have now been abandoned due to the implementation of CCSS because of the requirements of Race to the Top.
The larger issue, however, based on your response, is the issue of mentoring, which unfortunately does not have an adequate level of funding to help novice teachers for whom help apparently is needed. Seems that money in NYS is much more easily allocated these days to publishing/testing companies, as well as enlarging data collection to a level of minutia and implementing blatantly unfair assessment/teacher/school rating systems.
LikeLike
I read this story about Cleo and my first thought was to wonder if she was a new teacher. I then asked myself what did she learn or not learn in her teaching classes that would have helped her in this situation. Did she not learn how to make lesson plans? Did she not learn about things like Understanding by Design. I thought about what I would in this situation. Google. Pinterest. Teachers Discussion Boards. Isn’t there some American History Teachers group or something? What about what the other teachers are doing? Surely I had a teacher friend or two… Look at what resources I had and move from there.
LikeLike
When I started teaching (HS English), I was handed the state standards –a long laundry list of aspirations –and a school-created set of “frameworks” that were quite vague, as well as access to the large collection of novels in the book room. I had a mentor, but something about her system seemed off to me, so I didn’t adopt it. I don’t think this situation is unusual. Turning these disparate and uneven resources into daily lessons was a huge challenge. I found that even if I labored long and hard, my lessons had an unsatisfying first-draft quality to them. Even after five years of teaching, I felt I was killing myself with the effort and STILL not producing a satisfying product (part of this was due to having to teach a variety of courses) I would have loved a HIGH-QUALITY off-the-shelf curriculum to guide me. I believe asking new teachers to create a curriculum from a pile of resources is asking too much, especially if they’re grappling with classroom management issues. After five years of frustration, I realized that, since American schools seem to expect teachers to make their own curricula largely from scratch, I would only obtain job satisfaction if I could teach just one or two courses for many years in a row. That way I would have the time and opportunity to do 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th drafts of the curriculum. It didn’t seem rational that we had a system that demanded this. Fortunately I found a job where I could do this.
Even now, 17 years later, I doubt I would be able to teach a new course well the first time around –unless perhaps I had some of the work prefabricated for me. It was only after teaching my current course, world history, for five years in a row that I began to feel it was well-crafted. The Core Knowledge materials seem like they could be the salvation of a lot of beginning teachers who lack the time and judgement to sort through, evaluate and select first WHAT to teach and then the resources with which to teach it, and then to do the often-labor-intensive work of converting those resources into non-sketchy daily lesson plans.
LikeLike
If you were on a deserted island with ten other people, would you want each of those ten other people to have had the exact same education that you had?
LikeLike
This discussion stimulated a set of, probably naïve, questions for me. Ignoring for the moment the issues of a nation wide national curriculum and focusing on the unit of the school. Why should a school have an explicit curriculum? What should the curriculum minimally contain? What are the likely similarities and differences in the architecture of the curriculum for Math, Science, English and Social Studies.
LikeLike
The curriculum should be explicit so we know the school isn’t Hogwarts. As to WHAT it contains, we need to ask what the jobs require. The jobs that matter are in Science, Business, and Law, and they require thinking, inference making. My university calls its undergraduate division LS&A. Literature, Science, and the Arts. Those who are not academically smart enough for college can do other essential jobs in the culture, and should get paid enough to live on for them. But the real rewards go to the “knowledge workers.” Just a fact.
LikeLike
“The jobs that matter…?”
Science, Business and Law are well-paid jobs, but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones that matter. these are a number of jobs we need to live. Nobody really needs lawyers, MBAs and PhDs more than they need plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, electricians, farmers, doctors, nurses, firefighters, police officers, paramedics, cooks . . . I’ll stop there, but it’s a pretty long list.
Personally, I’d go so far as to say that if every lawyer and MBA disappeared today and was replaced by an artist, we would all live better lives.
Full disclosure: I am trained as an engineer and that was my first career, now I teach science at the high school level. I will be the first to say that what I teach does not matter more to the average student (or to society) than what the wood shop or art teachers teach.
“smart enough…?”
Have you ever seen a lawyer try to fix a car? How about a hedge fund manager try to plumb a toilet drain? I picked up a summer job as a carpenter and thought that after 10 years as an engineer I would walk onto the job and be a rock star from the first day. What a shock! Those guys have a whole different brand of intelligence and there is a reason people are willing to pay them $50+ per hour.
LikeLike
Your point is well taken, and clearly I over simplify. I meant to differentiate between the jobs that require high level linguistic and mathematical ability to even begin to do them and jobs such as burger flipping and table waiting and bartending which almost anyone I should think could do. Or to be more concrete, jobs which even I could do. But most bartenders CANNOT do what I do, which is read Shakespeare and tell you what the lines mean. Every job is worthwhile, in my view, and contributes to society, even the man who sweeps under the pine trees on a beach shore to pick up the doggy poop, but ANYONE could do that job. Even I could do that job. Not ANYONE can be an engineer or go into court, whatever the deleterious effect on the society of the class action tort bar. I definitely WANT the young man who comes each year to check my furnace to totally know what he is doing. And I value it highly since my family’s and my life depend on his doing it right. But being a dog walker is NOT the same as knowing how to run a nuclear reactor. ANYONE with the right attitude can do the former. Very few can do the latter. The man who rakes my leaves in the fall, quite literally saves my life, because if I tried to do it myself, most likely I’d have a heart attack. But ANYONE can rake leaves. Not everyone can do heart surgery.
LikeLike
Harlan:
My question is not about the content of the curriculum nor what future employment opportunities are targeted. My questions are far more basic since much of the push back is around the existence of a curriculum per se. In the UK there have always been more or less standard curriculums set up by regional bodies around the UK. My wife, who is a teacher, tells me that before the late 60s there was more or less a standard curriculum with standard books, etc.
I am still puzzled by a lack of published cross walks of extant State Curriculums to this new Common Core.
LikeLike
There did used to be (at least in English) a sort of standard curriculum called by analogy to the Council of Nicea’s stipulation at Constantine’s insistence of what books were “in” the bible and what weren’t, “the canon.” Shakespeare was canonical. Milton was canonical. Dickens was canonical. But then in the 60’s opposition to religion, to authority, to any stipulations of any sort, made it unfashionable to talk about the literary canon because that was somehow elitist and undemocratic. The Advanced Placement Literature program uses the phrase “a work of acknowledged literary merit,” and even about that from time to time we AP English Literature teachers get our proverbial knickers in a twist. A few AP Lit teachers even teach “graphic novels” now, such as MAUS. There is no longer, as far as I can tell, any sentiment among academics to different books by anything so nebulous as artistic quality. What has become of paramount importance is the ideology of a book. In such a political climate, it does not suprise me that links from state curricular to the common core are absent, because, in a sense, ALL state curriculae are by this time totally arbitrary and whimsical. To push Shakespeare would be, as the academic illuminati say, to “privilege” an author who is deeply loaded with the sins of respect for morality, with the depiction of women as unfree, and with the depiction of people of color as flawed. And Milton? Fuhgedaoudit. Christ? Satan? Adam? Eve? and “sin,” a thought no longer thinkable. So, the Common Core implementors have to sort of make it all up again from de novo. They have to act as though there never were any widely read, cultured people who, heaven help us, ‘discriminated’ between good, better, and best. That would be soooooo unmulticultural. To think otherwise you’d have to some sort of authoritarian Christian, and we can’t have that, can we? It’s SOOOOOOO out of style to start with Beowulf and end with T.S.Eliot? Why even Thomas Hardy wrote in the tradition of Christian Europe, of European culture. So we are left with clandestine unplatonic CCSS abstractions in search of manifestation in the realm of ‘texts.’ But where everyone is entitled to his own gospel, and is ready to fight for it, no wonder Constantine compelled the feuding christian sects to go orthodox and managed to get the residue burned (except for a few hidden in Egypt in Nag Hamadi). But there is no literary Constantine. Harold Bloom tried to become Emperor of Western Literature a few years ago with a book attempting to reestablish a sort of ‘canon.’ It didn’t succeed. And conservatives are NEVER going to accept “Vivisectionist Feminism as an aspect of Post-Colonial Carribean Morphology” as sensible literary study, we are on our own. Wheee. We’re Freee. Hi day, hi day.
LikeLike
Dr. Hirsch gave me the courage to not use our system’s English curriculum, but to follow the Core Knowledge content sequence. I made up my own work sheets and tests, and my students were the obviously most informed students. They even bragged about what they were learning. They said their friends outside of our class never heard of the word idiom, let alone knew what one was. They soaked up the knowledge in a very straightforward and honest way. I didn’t have to think up tricks. Knowledge was my students’ reward.
LikeLike
This entire discussion has shocked me. I came to teaching “later” in life than Cleo, and I didn’t have a famous grandfather to hand me ready-made “instructional suggestions” or “one of the thick, grade-by-grade teacher handbooks produced by the Core Knowledge Foundation,” and I still was able to teach. Yes, it took time, effort and even blood, sweat and tears.
I had state guidelines and objectives (since replaced by the DEVELOPMENTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR MY KINDERS – yes, I’m shouting – Common Crud). I had experienced colleagues nearby. I had supportive or less-supportive principals and other administrators. I had the internet! I had libraries, books, articles, media, etc. I had ideas that I brought from my amazing college program. I tossed some terrible teacher guides into the back of my closet. I gathered and sorted ideas from all kinds of places. And I TALKED to my kids. I worked hard to develop my lessons. I adjusted them when they didn’t meet my kids’ needs or connect to their lives.
I never wanted to be handed a canned, one-size-fits-all “handbook.” My kids are not one-size-fits-all and neither am I.
Was my first year difficult? Of course. Has every year since been difficult? Yes, but mainly because the “game” has changed every year with new mandates and changes to the curriculum. But I am willing to put in the work.
It was brought up by Hirsch and others that mentors would help new teachers. As others have stated above, many mentor programs have been cut. Why? Well, how else are we going to pay for those standardized tests? How else are we going to pay Pearson and others for programs, technology and support? Choices are made at levels far above our heads and things like mentors, professional development, recess, paper, etc. are cut to be sure that the testing machine does not lose momentum.
Hirsch mentioned the need for “more time available for students with special needs.” Oh, how we wish. This problem will not be solved by curriculum guides. It will be solved by compassionate politicians who drive our instruction and fund (or don’t fund) our needs.
Again, I just cannot see how “thick grade-by-grade teacher handbooks” will solve the problems in our schools.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Speaking from a musicians point of view. The ideas of the common core (when done in a content rich and coherent manner) is that all people learn the same BASE knowledge. Obviously students here in Iowa will likely know more about farms than those in Arizona. Those in Nevada will likely know more about deserts than those in Washington state. That is just simply as a product oft heir environment. There are local bubbles of knowledge that all places have, but there is also a set of knowledge that we all need to know to be considered culturally literate. Meaning, we can understand each other and have conversations with one another even if we come from a thousand miles a part.
So as a musician the idea of not learning the base set off nowledge about music would make it almost impossible to learn new music. It would be undeniably difficult to discuss the structure and importance of the Tristan chord, or the polyphonic motives in Byrds “Haec Dies.” I need to know what a staff, the notes and their values, pitch names, and articulation symbols all mean to be able to decipher what is on the page. Every student in an elementary class not only needs to be able to crescendo but they need to know what it looks like symbolically on the page. If I were to go to a festival and conduct a choir, but they didn’t know the various musical vocabulary /concepts involved, and looked at me as though I was speaking a foreign language … well that would be a problem. To avoid that issue and be able to make the best possible music, and have the most coherent intellectual conversations, we all have to know a broad set of content knowledge. We can’t communicate properly if we are not literate in the topic at hand.
That is why I fully support a common curriculum. SO LONG as it is based on content knowledge, the coherent scaffolding of that said knowledge and the appropriate application and assessment of that knowledge. It’s great if you can pronounce French words fluently, but good luck encoding and decoding it if you do not know the vocabulary of the language
LikeLike