Arguments about the canon have been going on for centuries. And I would agree that there is a body of recognized classic literature and all students would benefit by studying examples. But I’m not sure that there is an optimum reading list for all 10th graders in America–or that kids who don’t read Beowulf are second-class citizens, intellectually. (I feel the same way about Moby Dick, BTW.)

I was once on a national committee to develop a standardized assessment for music teachers. Several of the teachers on the committee attended Historically Black Colleges. When it came to developing an assessment around music history, we could not develop a list of must-know composers and works. There was a major division– was it more important to know specifics about the Mannheim Rocket and Monteverdi (the Western canon, taught in most schools) or the rhythmic and melodic elements born in African cultures that ended up shaping about 75% of the music all our students were listening to (which half our committee knew little about, but constituted the foundation of music history studies at HBCUs)?

We lost committee members in the bitter arguments that ensued– which changed my mind forever about what I “knew” about what all students should know. Not knowing about Scarlatti, Hayden, or Liszt–cornerstones of the Western canon–would not prevent “engagement in civic life,” but the ability to create and perform forms of popular music (frowned on by the classicists) might not only pay the rent, but offer life-long pleasure.

Not arguing. But sweeping statements about kids’ eventual life outcomes, based on their mastery of a traditional, classical curriculum might be extreme.

To treat all disciplines the same is not necessarily…necessary! Being “fully literate and conversant in our own culture” is an admirable and rewarding goal, but I have never been convinced that it’s what English is about, at least on the high school level. I feel that it IS, however, essential to have a firm and content-rich grounding in certain other disciplines. “Equal” isn’t always “fair.”

(To be honest, the thing that I’d most like to see is to have every high school teach interdisciplinarily, but that’s a topic for another day, I guess….)

Like science and social studies, our language and discourse is full of literary allusions, expressions and references that literate speakers and writers fully expect their audience to know. Is it important for every student to know the Great Gatsby? Maybe, maybe not. But I would hope every student would be familiar enough to understand what it means if something is described as Gatsbyesque (a word I saw in the NY Times just recently). I’m not arguing that shallow knowledge is better that deep knowledge, merely that there is a place for both if we want to be fully literate and conversant in our own culture.

Being specific about content gives educators hives because it smacks of codifying a canon. But rarely do we consider the price of not doing so: it consigns an unacceptable number of children to something like intellectual second-class citizenship, and prevents them from full participation and engagement in civic and literate life.

It occurs to me that one big advantage of specifying books is that it would enable teachers within and among schools to talk about teaching specific books instead of general teaching strategies. Twelve years into this career, I don’t think I’ve had a single professional development experience that focused on actual content.

Acknowledging my limitations as a standards-writer, I would still imagine that CoreKnowledge would be reasonably happy with a standard something like that even if it doesn’t mention a book or individual. Robert may win his bet with Nancy and that probably would not upset me much. I am thrilled to have my students read “The Great Gatsby” and “Their Eyes Were Watching God” but I have seen too much brilliant American literature — and know that there’s a ton I haven’t seen — to accept that a great American Lit curriculum can exist ONLY if those books are on it.

On the other hand, I agree that to say that NO books need be taught, or no details be recalled, or no texts of merit be expected, is far worse. This is why I included the terms “context” and “world-historical” in my stab at a standard two paragraphs ago. The polar positions strike me straw men, though. Nancy wrote, “I think that rich standards can be written, outlining broad content and skill goals–and that teachers can learn to creatively apply those standards to the kids in front of them.” What terminology/phrasing and accountability strategies have worked in your districts? Would Robert call my example “unspecific”?

I’m not just arguing here. I have my opinion, of course, but as my district gears up for rewriting curriculum I really want to know what the CoreKnowledge community thinks. I want to bring your ideas to our table.

Which is a shame. I do think programs have a tendency to attract people of similar philosophical bent–which depresses honest dialogue and scholarship. I can’t tell you how many times colleagues in my department asked why I was studying Ed Policy and not Teacher Education. After all, I was a teacher for 30 years–what business did I have in Policy? Which is also a shame. When you can’t examine assumptions and arguments honestly, and it’s only about winning, it’s hard to make good public policy–or prepare teachers, or develop leaders, or whatever it is universities are supposed to be doing.

Carl, I absolutely agree that there is no relevance without content. And I agree that HS students should always be exposed to a range of political and cultural forms and ideas. That scares the daylights out of most education thinkers. They don’t trust teachers to present controversial ideas neutrally, and probably don’t trust students to (ahem) think critically and come up with preferable solutions. But learning complex subject matter always involves the development of critical judgment–literature, science, the arts.

Back to standards, then. It’s hard to figure out how to combine skills and content in standards when you haven’t clearly delineated what a standard is and what it’s supposed to do. Many people think national standards will look like a grade-by-grade national curriculum, which can be transposed into teaching materials and cheap, easy-to-administer tests, measuring content memorization and only the most low-level skills.

I think that rich standards can be written, outlining broad content and skill goals–and that teachers can learn to creatively apply those standards to the kids in front of them. In fact, they’ve already been written in some disciplines. I don’t think that’s what we’re going to get, however. I think we’re going to get lists, prescriptions, detailed outlines, and mountains of tests.