I just ran across a post by Kathleen Porter-Magee about the movement to create a voluntary national common curriculum. Ms. Porter-Magee does a great job writing about this issue in depth here, here, here, here.
Here’s my concern. In an attempt to create a national curriculum that all teachers would teach, the curriculum would be very detailed. Think about it. If you want someone to do something well, then you provide really good directions. I can see the final product of this as a giant 3 ring binder. If you’ve been in a classroom long enough, you will start to gather these three ring binders as new programs are given to you.
As a teacher, I like to actually create materials for my classes. I like to use my own research to engage my students. This is one of the things that keeps teaching interesting. Further, I like to adjust curriculum to fit the needs of different students.
From Karen Porter-Magee:
I remain convinced that it would be a mistake to do so for lots of reasons. Among them, in this debate over curriculum, one thing that we shouldn’t lose sight of is the important distinction between standards and curriculum. Done right, standards define the outcomes—the knowledge and skills that students must master. Curriculum, on the other hand, helps shape the process through which students will learn that content. In other words, curriculum helps shape (among other things) how the content should be organized, how it should be taught, etc. (Pedagogy gets at this as well, of course.)
We all know how long it takes for states to change statewide education policy decisions like textbook adoption, standards, etc. Once states begin to dictate curriculum decisions from the statehouse, curriculum becomes static. This is a problem because, in order to encourage innovation and to ensure that teachers, schools, and districts can nimbly respond to the needs of their students, curriculum needs to be a living, breathing being that schools and districts frequently tailor and improve to ensure that all students have mastered the content outlined in the standards. In other words, while the ends (i.e. the standards) should be fixed, the means by which we help students master those standards (i.e.: the curriculum and pedagogy) need to be flexible.
I would not enjoy having to be on the same page of the same book at the same time as all of the other teachers on my team. This is the threat of a common curriculum that would be “voluntarily” adopted by the state. By the way, the state Department of Education may voluntarily adopt something, but that doesn’t mean that the professionals who do the teaching support it. It’s mandated to the teachers.
The ability of teachers to develop curriculum and share that curriculum is at risk.
Basically, the national already has the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Your state may or may not have adopted them. It is voluntary, as the Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to mandate state standards. So to follow up to the CCSS the Albert Shanker Institute has called for a common curriculum. From the petition:
We therefore applaud the goals of the recently released Common Core State Standards, already adopted in most states, which articulate a much clearer vision of what students should learn and be able to do as they progress through school. For our nation, this represents a major advance toward declaring that “equal educational opportunity” is a top priority — not empty rhetoric.
We also caution that attaining the goals provided by these standards requires a clear road map in the form of rich, common curriculum content, along with resources to support successfully teaching all students to mastery. Shared curriculum in the core academic subjects would give shape and substance to the standards, and provide common ground for the creation of coherent, high-quality instructional supports — especially texts and other materials, assessments, and teacher training.
Equal Opportunity is great. I don’t doubt the sincerity of people who sign the petition. I just would hate to see teachers’ hands tied and the bureaucratic problems created by nationalizing “texts, assessments, and teacher training.”
So What Do I Think We Should Do?
Let’s get the standards implemented. If we are really dedicated to something national, then implement the standards. Right now in my state, they adopted the standards and are working on adopting the standards. According to a two day symposium that recently occurred in my state our teachers will be using the Common Core Standards in 2013 or 2014. (Link to PDF).
As a classroom teacher I was informed of the adoption by my principal but we have heard nothing since. I don’t think that he has any additional information because from what I read from the State of Oregon CCSS site, there’s just high level meetings.
To be honest, there are so many different standard adoptions, I don’t know how they’re going to consolidate all of them. For example, my state will be adopting new social studies standards this year but the CCSS have recommendations for integration with state standards in social studies. Have the social studies standards been written with these in mind? When I look through the draft standards (PDF) I don’t see any of the CCSS explicitly linked. So we have something that will be changing in a few years, but another thing changing right now that doesn’t appear to incorporate the new stuff when we know the new stuff is coming!
Let’s focus on doing the new standards well. Oregon should continue to develop PLCs for teachers to use to increase student achievement. I don’t want specific curricula that is so dry and watered down that any teacher in the nation can teach it at the same time. Think of how boring that would be for the kids! Do you want a classroom with no innovation?
