I’ve followed your thoughtful posts on a number of topics.

I think my reference to curriculum reform was “comparatively fast,” not “quick.” I couldn’t agree with you more that too many people peddle too many quick fixes.

I imagine a solid curriculum would feature a fair amount of teacher input. When Randi says there is not enough time for this, I presume she means between 8-3 when kids are in school? Like you, I took work a “day job” and have to do my reform reading and writing after my kids are in bed. And alas I get no ‘comp” time or per session payments.

If the ideal curriculum is both “organically built” but “uniform throughout the school community” I’m confused. Is that therefore “centrally designed”? Or do all curriculum designers agree on the same ideas? I know this seems a snarky reply, but I am honestly confused.

France uses a curriculum so centralized that my friend’s son who attends the French school here in New York was able to visit a former classmate in Paris and pick right up where he left on in his school the day before. Finland and Singapore are also pretty centrally-determined curricula, at least from what I have read. Horace Mann was apparently wowed by the Prussian state system, which I think was equally centralized.

In any case KS, as I said previously to Mr. Fullam, I don’t propose we abandon our interest in better defining and then judging teacher quality. I just want to see reformers spend at least as much of their time thinking about the content delivered to our children and how we can improve that too.

And I agree with Diana that the over-emphasis on reading strategies is deadening.

A real literature curriculum puts literature at the center. Such a curriculum would include British, American, world literature; ancient literature and mythology; lots of Shakespeare. It would involve close study of comedy and tragedy, of epic and lyric poetry; of literary nonfiction; of rhetoric and logic; of grammar and composition. A curriculum like this would not be easier to teach; it would require extensive preparation and thought. But how much more interesting, how much more beautiful, how much more challenging than strategies!

I’m not strongly for or against those materials… I think they can be immensely helpful in providing continuity to kids who do not have a stable school experience and in providing resources and tested (hopefully, ideally) ideas to new and even to experienced teachers. On the other hand, lots of teachers seem to hate these materials. The resistance to giving up one’s favorite unit or lesson or whatever can go too far at times, but the truth at the core of it is that the best teachers modify to suit the students in front of them, and we resist being asked to conform. Some seem to think that there’s no “best way” that any organization or company could ever come up with, which is bogus… kids do make predictable mistakes as they learn and with research and testing there should be more proven materials available so that we do not each have to learn these lessons on our own as teachers.

Anyway, when I’ve had curriculum materials to use, my job has been easier on a day-to-day basis but less intellectually challenging (a bit), because I like planning and thinking about how to present material. I learned a lot from the materials I was asked to use, though, and have taken a lot of ideas and continued using them in my new setting.

Certainly, a clear, consistent scope & sequence seems helpful. But these exist already, in many of the subjects.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and kind words.

Certainly I am influenced by my experience as an elementary school parent. I would not want to be so prescriptive as to say “We favor Dystopians, and Chekov, Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller need not apply.”

Certainly introducing children to great writers early on puts them in a much better position to be able to appreciate the choices their teachers make as they get to high school, and perhaps middle or elementary schools would want to be more prescriptive. Certainly if you yourself do not love your subject matter it is quite a challenge to make your students appreciate it. So yes indeed, drama for the drama queens and Koestler for the teachers for whom the glass is half empty.

But the bigger picture is we are more alike than different. Surely there are not 300 paradigms you face as a teacher; you’ve got your high achievers, the ones who struggle, the group in the middle, your recent immigrants, etc. Of course this is all a simplification but I find it hard to believe any teacher out there is struggling with a challenge that at least a few hundred other have faced. Why not use well thought out curricula to help teachers meet that challenge most efficiently?
A lot of concern about ‘prescriptiveness’ comes out when we discuss literature and writing. I wonder if math and science teachers feel differently? It would seem to me that we ought not to struggle too hard to determine the three or four most effective routes for teaching the the Pythagorean theorem? Everyone needs Algebra, right?

Either way I repeat that my primary concern is less with the specific curricula that would emerge from an informed inquiry, and more with the belief among some reformers that by focusing on teacher quality alone we can achieve the results we all desire. In this set of exchanges alone I think there has been more thoughtful discussion than I’ve heard in several years of following and participating in the reform “debate”

You asked: “Were NYC to put a stake in the ground and say that 20th century dystopian authors like Huxley, Orwell and Koestler were important and that your kids should understand them and their influence, would that offend your sense of independence?”

I would have to answer, Yes. As much as love the authors you mentioned, I am certain that they would become stale and dead after being included in a standardized curriculum and taught year after year at a specific grade level. Not to mention the fact that there are thousands of authors worthy of study in addition to the three you mentioned above. I teach AP English and regular 12th Grade English; and I think the College Board and the NYC DOE, respectively, are right to not prescribe texts for these classes. They offer “suggested” reading lists, but teachers ultimately have the freedom to choose what they teach.

So, I agree with Principal Kitchen Sink: curriculum should develop organically at the level of the school. When teachers have this freedom of curriculum, they can 1) choose texts that work best with their particular students (culturally responsive teaching) and 2) choose texts that they (the teachers themselves) are most passionate and knowledgeable about.

The second point above is more important than people sometimes assume. Here’s an example of why: my students often tell me about an English teacher they had who loved Drama. This teacher loved Drama so much, the students tell me, that everything they did in this teacher’s English class was related to Drama: they read plays, acted out plays, etc. The students, in fact, called the class “Drama Class,” despite the fact that it was listed generically on their transcripts as “E7″ or “E8.” It was obvious to me that this teacher loved Drama so much that it rubbed off on the students and they had a positive learning experience as a result. Shouldn’t we let this teacher have her Drama Class?

I myself am like the Drama teacher in a sense, except I have different areas of interest and expertise. I love philosophy and social theory and I usually teach literature that I can situate in a context that is friendly to those disciplines. My high school students have studied Plato, Nietzsche, Feminism; they’ve studied social issues including homelessness and the achievement gap; they’ve read literary authors as diverse as bell hooks, Dostoevsky, and Emerson; and I’ve even used lyrics to popular rap songs in lessons. And I don’t teach the same units every year, either. That would be boring. I want to learn new things, too, along with my students.

Thus, the thought of having to conform to an official curriculum has always been a most unpleasant one for me. I do, however, understand your point that a standardized curriculum could serve as an anchor for new teachers until they are comfortable enough to be more creative. The problem with that, though, is NOTHING works that way in the school system. The message we teachers get is, Do it or watch out! Everything is mandated; conformity highly valued and deviation punished.

Of course, I am writing from the perspective of a high school English teacher. Maybe your suggestions apply more to the lower grades? To subject areas other than English? I’m not sure yet. But in any case your article has given me a lot to think about so thanks for that…

I suggested that an average teacher should require minimal supplementary training. I was writing about someone who already could teach. And I was writing about training beyond the training to become a teacher.

For those of you curious, certainly Investigations (TERC) would have failed this test.

Re “but the reform conversation is not about you, it is about those 35% who are not yet “above average” but who, with support and time, could be. ”

a) Note per Lake Woebegone that the average would move. Zoiks!

b) I question the goal that education, even public education, should be about “meeting standards.” It should be about maximizing each student’s potential. The standard should be a reference pont — neither a floor nor a ceiling.

c) And what of the other 15%?

She misread.
me: “If it is good, it should require minimal supplementary training”
DS: ” “If it can be delivered with minimal training, it is good”

These are not the same idea. Not close.

I believe this comment is loaded with assumptions and certainly belongs in the land of utopia.

When Randi Weingarten is complaining about teachers not having authority over reform, she is (I hope) talking about their direct involvement in writing, revising and planning from sound curriculum. And I agree with her, tempered by the belief (from experience) that to be most effective curriculum must be both organically built (using a coherent and comprehensive process) at the school level and uniform throughout the school community.

So when Randi says teachers don’t have enough time to collaborate, she’s also right about that.

Good curriculum is NOT centrally planned and it is NOT cheap. In fact, good curriculum and good teaching are interrelated. Teachers who are involved in planning and revising curriculum, together with their colleagues who teach other subjects and grade levels, are more invested in the content they are delivering and gain valuable insight that they cannot access simply by reading a teachers’ guide.

Finally, unfortunately, quick fixes are usually not sustainable ones.

Having come from outside education, I was comfortable with the idea that you hire qualified people to perform a specific set of tasks, then hold them accountable for the results. Of all the cues and lessons we are supposed to take from the world of business, it’s a little surprising this one hasn’t gained traction. Or even been considered.

As you and your students know, covering a complex topic in 950 words is tough.  If I was not as clear as I could be, I apologize.

Teaching literature, reading, and writing will always involve instructor choices. So no, I do not imagine that Joel Klein telling you that Brave New World is superior to Animal Farm is a good use of his time or your skills. But were NYC to put a stake in the ground and say that 20th century dystopian authors like Huxley, Orwell and Koestler were important and that your kids should understand them and their influence, would that offend your sense of independence? As I see it you would still need to determine the best way to deliver this knowledge, to modify or differentiate it for your different classes and children. 

The specific point I want to make is that a standard curriculum provides a scaffold for teachers. But it doesn’t mandate that the building they construct has to be wood on the first floor, stucco on two through five and brick thereafter.  For experienced teachers this may be superfluous – maybe they love Ray Bradbury, or their kids will respond better to  science fiction, so they will modify.  For newer or less successful teachers, I would expect it can’t hurt.

The bigger point that I am driving at is a mono focus on Teacher Quality as the only solution is rather like “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad.” Pleasant in its simplicity but given what we know today and can sell politically, unsuitable for resolving the challenges we face on its own.  Curriculum reform on its own is not a panacea, but it deserves better consideration than it gets at present.  

For folks like yourself who are at the top of your game, curriculum may all seem elementary, but the reform conversation is not about you, it is about those 35% who are not yet “above average” but who, with support and time, could be. 

In today’s political climate, one simply cannot bring up that topic in good faith without understanding you are a) contributing to the bloodsport du jour known as “teacher bashing”, and b) ignoring all other variables — outside the teachers’ control — that affect student performance.

It’s easy to imagine any particular teacher being successful in one environment (wealthy kids in small classrooms with experienced principal and supportive parents), and less so in another (at-risk kids in overcrowded classrooms, etc., etc., etc.)

Besides, per the theme of this essay, if curriculum matters so much, how many of the hypothetical 15% per author’s comment above would suddenly look like 85 percenters, perhaps displacing some other 85 percenter who had been successful with a curriculum that worked for them and for that teacher’s set of students?

In sum, again, I am interested in looking at ALL components of student success. But even “curriculum” keeps the focus too narrowly on teachers (or worse, sets them up to simply be the “curriculum deliverers”), and lets off the hook many other variables in the DOE’s control, including school overcrowding and class size.

Next, I am leery of introducing the notion of “taxpayer value” here. What next: are we going to slip into a debate over teacher quality… on a point-per-dollar basis? Our current public education system’s philosophy of “competence” over “excellence”, if combined with “teacher value”, would make for a risky brew, especially in a tight economy.

e.g.
(All other things equal, same school, same grade, same pool of kids — with same prior year scores — etc.)
Teacher A gets paid $100k and her kids averaged 3.3 ;
Teacher B gets paid $50k and his kids averaged 3.2 .
Teacher C gets paid $50k and her kids avergaged 3.2…. but with a wider range than Teacher B (a bunch of 4′s offset by a bigger bunch of 2.9′s!!!)
“Taxpayer” perspective?: Get me two B’s and help Kleinberg bash the union. Teacher C left too many below “competency”, and Teacher A is too pricey.

Last, what about teacher-pupil “chemistry?” In my own experience back in the day as well as my family’s current experience, that has been critical, and there’s been a big range, even amongst well-regarded teachers within a given grade in an excellent school.

I would suggest that if your kid “connects” with his or her teacher, that’s “priceless.” If Teacher D gets my kid to love going to school, has control of the class environment, and inspires creativity, curiosity, and citizenship… the rest is gravy. How then to reward Teacher D when the following year Teacher E inherits a kid who previously had Teacher D?