In New York State, the ELA (and even ESL) tests supposedly contain passages from the “content areas.” But because of the fairness obsession and the vague wording of the standards, such passages may have little to do with what the students are learning in class.

This brings up another aspect of Hirsch’s proposal, which I like: this should be a “reading test,” not an ELA test. “So my modest proposal is that reading tests should contain passages about specific topics taught not just in literature, but in all other subjects taught in that grade, except for math.”

A corollary to this is that literature should be its own subject. English language arts, on the other hand, would be a component of all subjects (except math). This would add a great deal of clarity to our curricula, and restore the study of literature to its rightful place. (At present, students are supposed to read not only literature but also biographies, instructional manuals, and so forth in ELA class.)

One question that’s been bothering me: When did we start using the word “content” instead of “subject matter”? There’s something vague and uniform about “content.” I was once told by an education professor, “the content doesn’t matter; it’s a vehicle for teaching the strategy.” If we used the term “subject matter,” such a statement would sound absurd (as it is). “The subject matter doesn’t matter?” Ha!

I didn’t say anything about “creating” a culture, nor did I say anything about “one-size-fits-all,” or about forcing things down throats. I wasn’t even talking about national curriculum here–I’m still puzzling over that issue, though I tend to support it in some form up to some degree. Let’s separate the national curriculum question (for now) from the question of explicitness of standards and curriculum, be it at the school, state, or national level. I don’t think Hirsch’s article is necessarily about national curriculum, but rather about the way we handle curriculum and testing in general.

You point out that schools were not getting any results at all–hence NCLB. Is this true? NCLB came in response to the “achievement gap,” not achievement overall. There have been outstanding schools–not just Boston Latin et al. but neighborhood schools with excellent teachers, books, curriculum, and arts programs. They still exist.

Oh, but those are actually schools for the elite, one might argue. Not necessarily. Many have highly diverse student bodies. Also, there are pockets of this sort of excellence in the hardest-hit urban schools: special programs, teachers teaching real subject matter on the sly; and so forth. I see these pockets of excellence every day.

But a “pocket of excellence” isn’t nearly enough. We agree that a curriculum should be structured coherently. If there is to be a curriculum at a school, then the school should be behind it. There would be no corrupting absolute power in this. Many kids actually want to learn specific things; their parents want this for them, too. I teach students from Muslim, Christian, and Hindu backgrounds, and considerable variation within each. I have spoken with parents who would like more specificity, more challenge, and less of the wishy-washy stuff.

The best thing about real subject matter is that it isn’t “one-size-fits-all.” For one thing, it is not one size. A poem can be understood at many levels, as can Euclidean geometry. If we do not offer these things to children, many will not find them on their own. Many do not read on their own at all, or even have books in the house. Many of my students get so excited about the books we read that they write essays beyond what I assign (one of my students told me today that she is going to write a little book on Antigone and give it to me).

There are certainly complex and troubling questions in all this. I don’t have the solutions and would be suspicious of myself if I did. I see your points about the impossibility of consensus. But is consensus the point? Wouldn’t it be great to have a school where we could debate topics openly, while reading works that helped us understand them better?

I don’t think my life as a teacher will be over until I have taught at a school with a coherent curriculum based on specific, challenging, enduring subject matter. I believe that many of my students would rush to such a school as well.

Likewise. We disagree, but there is no reason we cannot do so amicably. I learn a lot taking to people I share little common ground with, and value the experience.

I agree with you that study of religion would be great.

I’m not talking about a study of comparative religion, I’m talking about a child learning in the framework of a faith tradition. This can’t be done in public school where everyone believes different things.

But why not complement [self-study] with a great education at school?

Because great education cannot coexist with a public school, for the many reaons I’ve outlined. You speak in flowery language, but when the rubber meets the road, and we parse the words, we get something else. For example:

Immediate results are not everything.

The reason schools moved to demanding immediate results is because they failed so miserably at getting any results at all. I know. I went to public school myself, a supposed “good” school. Results were, to my mind, very poor, and I think the majority of the public is starting to agree. Hence, NCLB.

some effects of education take years to show.

Well, I’m 37. Still waiting. Everything I actually learned, I did on my own. I could read and do math when i arrived; school just taught me to zone out and hate learning. I love to read and to learn on my own. I hated school. But forget my experience: the results of our public schools speak for themselves.

How can we as teachers not offer our students the material we find most challenging, beautiful, memorable, unsettling, and luminous?

Because teachers teach away, but only students can educate themselves. Nobody can do it for them. It’s plain hubris to think a teacher can make much of a difference in a student’s education except to inspire the student to learn it on his own. Inspiration from public school teachers? Most teachers are on the gravy train. Heck, it’s union job, and they have no say on what they are teaching. How could they be inspired?

And if we came to agreement on just a few of those works–not all–we’d be giving our students a second gift: a culture in common, an antidote to our isolated and fragmented lives.

Look carefully at what you are saying here: you are suggesting that forcing a one-size-fits-all curriculum down the throats of parents nationwide somehow becomes a “gift” for the express purpose of creating a “common culture.”

Something Lord Acton once said about power comes to my mind.

As for selecting what students should learn: one can easily distinguish quality material from insipid textbooks filled with graphic organizers and “strategies.” How? You can read quality material over and over again, and appreciate it differently each time. Lesser material doesn’t stay on your mind and haunt you. That’s just one criterion. I could name many others, and have ideas for math as well.

I agree with you that study of religion would be great. It’s a shame that schools are afraid to mention religion at all. I took an excellent religion course in high school (in 1979 I think). It didn’t cover every religion, but we looked at things common to most religions, such as transcendence. We read Gilgamesh, Man’s Search for Meaning, Night, and a few other works. We discussed questions such as: do certain manifestations of human cruelty call the existence of God into question? Granted, some might find a course like that offensive, but it could be an elective. We could at least defend the existence of such a course.

About learning on one’s own: of course there’s nothing wrong with it, and of course it can be done. But why not complement that with a great education at school? About science: I agree with you. It is a difficult subject to teach and learn. It involves a curious mixture of logic, observation, experience, and intuition. Nonetheless, even though I didn’t “learn” a whole lot of physics in high school, I still remember details of that class more than 20 years later.

Likewise with history. I was in love with history in high school. I read Hofstadter, Boorstin, and others in my free time, and spent hours in the libraries doing research for my essays. Unfortunately I was terrible at remembering historical facts, and flubbed the AP. It wasn’t the teacher’s fault; it just happened to be one of my weaknesses. Over time I’ve gotten a tad better at remembering facts, probably because the background knowledge has accumulated. I would love to take a tough history course now and see how it went. Still, even though I wasn’t a “success” in history, both the class and the independent reading became lanterns in my life.

All this goes to say: I see school as an offering, a gift for the long term. Immediate results are not everything. We need those, obviously, but some effects of education take years to show. How can we as teachers not offer our students the material we find most challenging, beautiful, memorable, unsettling, and luminous? And if we came to agreement on just a few of those works–not all–we’d be giving our students a second gift: a culture in common, an antidote to our isolated and fragmented lives.

Many logical problems here.

First, just because we don’t have a one-size fits all curriuclum doesn’t mean we have “no curriculum at all.” You have created a straw man.

Second, there is simply an infinite amount of information a child could learn, and I’ve never seen even two people agree on what that information should be. For example, I’m a science guy, and I have never once seen a science text I like (Feynman had the same experience; we don’t think you can’t learn science via curriculum). Another example: religion is a powerful and important motivation in human behavior, and yet we can’t form a national curriulum to match every child’s religion. We can’t even agree to focus on the dominate religions around us we interact with every day. Why is religion not critial to any curriculum that teaches history or literature? In addition, we would have to use curriculum that deliberately prevents chidren from asking the “big questions” – is there a God, etc. To my mind, any thinking person would automatically reject a one-size-fits all curriculum.

Finally, what is wrong with students learning on their own, and studying what they want? I know many students who learned via a “curriculum” yet have zero retention of the information, while many students who follow their own interests w/out curriuculum (say, a hobby) actually learn something for life. Show me some tests results ten years after the curriculum-based class is over, and I think it would pretty much prove it’s a waste of time and cash.

Moreover, a somewhat objectionable curriculum has tremendous power to inspire thought and works. Some of my favorite music and literature I slightly dislike. There’s life in that twinge of resistance.

I have no doubt this is true.

But the logical implication, that because it is true means we should do it, simply doesn’t compute. For example, I’m quite sure most students would benefit from a year or two of hard labor in prison. But this doesn’t mean there are other educational methods that are more productive, nor that we should give up our freedoms to gain this theoretical benefit.

They need an integrated curriculum, full of works like these, but coherently structured.

I agree with you that if you want to make sure a child will learn something over time, it should be carefully thought out and organized. For example, I teach vocabulary over a ten year period, reviewing over and over.

However, I doubt a public schools can ever agree on this sort of thing in the multicultural USA. What’s the goal we are all after? Top-down-government-knows-best attitudes may be common in docile states on the East Coast, but not where I’m from. We like to be free. Too many conflicting opinions, different cultures, students from different demographic backgrounds. Is the Alamo going to be taught in TX with Santa Anna as the villian or the hero? (And don’t make me laugh and tell me it will be taught neutral.) Personally, I think the future of schools is going the other way – towards choice in curriculum, not toward the Borg where we will all be assimilated into one.

Yes! Those “strategies” have literally stepped into the curricular void. If you look at just about any textbook, you’ll see a short, bland reading passage surrounded by strategies. I get queasy whenever I look at them, and have managed to avoid them for the most part.

Those “strategies” would never have taken so much space if the reading selections had substance. It is no coincidence that the reigning constructivist professional development programs tout strategies no end, while barely mentioning curriculum. If they do mention curriculum, it’s in terms of the vague state standards, not specific knowledge or books.

I do off-the-wall unheard-of things like have my students memorize the preamble to the Constitution, read Hemingway, study sentence structure, perform in a musical. No one complains that I’m doing these things; in fact, many support it. It’s nice to be accepted, but I’m not always sure I’m doing the kids a favor this way. They need an integrated curriculum, full of works like these, but coherently structured.

Yes, it would be hard to agree on what should be in that curriculum. But the alternative, no curriculum at all, is far worse than a curriculum that some don’t like. Moreover, a somewhat objectionable curriculum has tremendous power to inspire thought and works. Some of my favorite music and literature I slightly dislike. There’s life in that twinge of resistance.

That’s simple to answer. We can’t all agree on what our “content standards” should be.