Update: Kitchen Table Math picks up the thread here and here. Likewise Diana Senechal, guest blogging at Joanne Jacobs, here.
If you’ve spent any time at all on this blog, you’ve been treated—OK, subjected—to occasional rants about mainstream education reform’s blind spot on curriculum and instruction. Teaching is a management issue; something to be measured by standardized tests. And curriculum? Hey, in the hands of a great teacher, every curriculum is great. Or something like that. With charters to build, tests to administer and performances to judge reformers remain largely agnostic, incurious or just plain indifferent about what happens inside the classroom. This myopia informs policy: Race to the Top enshrined 19 different fixes for American schools. Curriculum didn’t make the cut. If you were in charge of fixing America’s schools, could you find 19 things for your To Do list before you get around to curriculum? Seriously?
A fascinating email found its way into my inbox last week describing a visit to a high profile, “no excuses” charter school. The email was written by someone who is solidly pro-reform and strongly pro-charter. She spent the morning visiting Big Name Charter and pronounced herself aghast. “The school is fantastically well run, and the kids are on task —- and it is all fuzzery all the time. The reading curriculum is Fountas and Pinnell; the math curriculum is so bad it has sparked parent uprisings across the country,” she writes.
“Teachers aren’t allowed to use direct instruction for longer than a few minutes; then the students must repair to their pods and discover knowledge. After they discover knowledge, which means solving ONE problem, they return to the rug and explain their “strategies” to each other. Although the school prides itself on efficient use of time, the students I saw were spending a lot of time doing nothing at all while they waited for the other kids to finish so the whole group could migrate back to the rug.
“Everything was ordered and timed and assessed, yet the curriculum is crap,” the observer concludes.
How can this happen, she wanted to know, in a school that prides itself on data-driven decision-making? What kind of data, she asked, did they use when it came time to choose a curriculum? Tellingly, she notes it was the one moment where her host “suddenly sounded like a regular denizen of public education.”
“Tests can’t tell you that much about whether a curriculum is good because some of the kids taking the tests might have been tired that day; the only way you can decide on curriculum is to go into the classroom and ask a child a question and get his response. That’s how you “know.”
“This is a data-driven school, and they don’t use data to choose curriculum,” she fumed. I wish I could say I’m surprised. When it comes to curriculum and instruction, a field that can’t reach consensus about anything suddenly treats what children should learn and how they should learn it as settled. If your primary concern is measuring teacher perfomance, you are assuming–are you not?–that what is to be taught and learned has been established. All that’s left to do is separate good practitioners from bad ones.
If you had a time machine and put a team of leading ed reformers in charge of the Edsel at Ford Motor Company 50 years ago, they would set to work energetically measuring the productivity of assembly workers (because we know—we know—that great assembly workers are the most important contributor to success in manufacturing). They would put a bonus plan in place to reward them when sales improved. And when that failed, they would shut down plants turning out Edsels that sold poorly and build brand new plants.
To make more Edsels.
Meanwhile, across town, critics point to wages and working conditions and ask how assembly workers can build better Edsels when they can’t feed their families or afford better health care? You can’t possibly fix the Edsel unless you fix that first.
Back to Big Name Charter School. By all available data, the school described above is doing very, very well. That said, the oldest students are still young, and the big challenges lie ahead: Will they avoid the 8th grade slump? Will they keep their low-income, minority students in the fold through high school? What then?
The long view may be slowly, quietly emerging–as it should and must–as the question in education reform. To their great credit, KIPP recently released a remarkable report on the college completion rates of its students. It shows “only 33 percent of students who completed a KIPP middle school 10 or more years ago have graduated from a four-year college.” Surprised? You shouldn’t be. It’s slightly better that the 30% college completion rate of Americans at large, and four times better than the average for the low-income minority population KIPP serves. That’s no mean feat. But the feel-good narrative driven by boosters of these schools — high graduation rates, first kids in their families to go to college, etc. – has tended to obscure how bewilderingly difficult it is to fulfill the mission that schools like Big Name Charter have set for themselves—to get kids not through the next standardized test, but on to college and the royal road to upward mobility and productive adult lives.
How hard is that? Bear in mind that based on the 2010 ACT test results, fewer than one in four U.S. high school graduates (24%) are prepared to do C-level work or better in all four tested areas. That’s ALL college-bound students—not the hard-to-serve students typically served by KIPP and other “no excuses” charters, including the one visited by my correspondent. Seen through this prism, even closing the achievement gap starts to seem like small beer. It means nothing less (and nothing more) than bringing under-represented students up to the very same level of mediocrity that has persisted across the board for decades.
The bottom line: There are undoubtedly process problems in American education. But the biggest problem is the product. And rather than face up to this, many of our most dynamic and energetic education leaders remain committed to the best possible delivery of the worst possible product. Billions of dollars and countless energy expended in search of ways to build the best possible Edsel.
I remain deeply impressed by the purposefulness, energy, positive school tone, etc. of the best of the “no excuses” schools. But to answer the question “Are these schools effective?” will take many more years. My best guess is that absent a much more rigorous course of study, an end to our obsession with skills-focused education, and getting over our long-standing aversion to a content-rich curriculum, you will over time see a fadeout. Many of the kids in these schools will do well, and certainly far better than they would have otherwise. Many more will regress to the mean. And then we will conclude that the issue is poor teaching, lack of accountability, incentives, unions, the inevitable effects of poverty, lack of parental support and blah, blah, blah.
And no one will think to mention the curriculum.
I really believe it’s a blind spot in almost all education research, too. Everyone takes curriculum for granted, when I think the evidence is fairly clear that improving curriculum (content of instruction) is absolutely a necessary (but not sufficient) step for any educational improvement effort.
Comment by Morgan Polikoff — May 20, 2011 @ 11:01 am
Is there some reason you won’t name the school?
Comment by Tom Hoffman — May 20, 2011 @ 12:53 pm
@ Tom Hoffman Fairness. The writer was not invited in a reportorial or evaluative role. It would be like inviting a friend to dinner who happened to be a food writer for the New York Times and waking up the next morning to find your hospitality critiqued in the paper.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 20, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
Robert,
You must have found the exception, not the rule.
At least here in Arizona, without fail, highly performing charters select math and reading textbooks\programs that are not fuzzy and heavy on mastery and DI. In fact I cannot think of one charter school in the state that would touch Everyday Math with a ten foot pole.
And while we are at it, why does Core Knowledge allow the use of its good name at schools that use those fuzzy programs that you refer to. Many schools here are callling themseleves Core Knowledge schools, while in reality they use use none of your recommendations for reading and math. Can an ‘Offical Core Knowledge’ School use these programs and still make it through your screening process?
Comment by MC BURNS — May 20, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
Doesn’t matter which school it is. There are an awful lot of schools like that–regular public schools, charter schools, and private schools.
You make superb points here. My favorite sentence is this: “The long view may be slowly, quietly emerging–as it should and must–as the question in aducation reform.”
Here’s another favorite (or two):
“Seen through this prism, even closing the achievement gap starts to seem like small beer. It means nothing less (and nothing more) than bringing under-represented students up to the very same level of mediocrity that has persisted across the board for decades.”
I suspect that a great many reforms do a decent job of bringing a student at “level 2″ (in New York terms) up to a 3. You can do that with a little push. You can do that just by organizing the school day a little better. That doesn’t mean that it has a whole lot of significance in terms of long-term learning.
Comment by Diana Senechal — May 20, 2011 @ 1:45 pm
@MC Burns Glad to hear it. Come to NY. I have visited several charters that do the same old, same old….but at a really high level! (Hold your applause).
@Diana I think you’re exactly right, Diana. Time on task and diligence, I think, turns 2s into 3s. But “on grade level” as currently defined is an empty trophy. The KIPP study is an eye-opener. In the last year, I have spoken to a number of school leaders at charter schools and advocacy groups who are slowly but surely realizing that there are limits to their reforms. Things change slowly, but I earnestly believe they are indeed changing.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 20, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
Interesting… though not surprising.
When I started homeschooling – no one (except other homeschoolers) asked me about what curriculum I was using. Plenty of people did ask me about “Socialization.” *sigh*
Comment by Laura — May 20, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
[...] the street on the Core Knowledge Blog, Robert Pondiscio reports on an email he received from a strong supporter of charters. She told him [...]
Pingback by Robert Pondiscio: Building a better Edsel — Joanne Jacobs — May 20, 2011 @ 7:22 pm
I think curriculum is very important, however, I think instruction trumps curriculum. A great teacher can teach with a poor curriculum (most likley supplementing), but if you have the best curriculum and a poor teacher, the high achievers will survive just fine, but the struggling students will just get further behind.
I think direct instruction is really important, especially at the elementary level and so is scaffolded instruction.
Comment by Bridget — May 21, 2011 @ 8:22 am
When a public school system has to come up with curriculum for everyone, the need to avoid controversy can end up watering everything down. So the wonderful thing about charters, vouchers, etc., is not that they automatically lead to strong curriculum, but that they at least allow people to choose a place that uses Core Knowledge or the like.
Comment by Stuart Buck — May 21, 2011 @ 9:43 am
<<< curriculum is very important, however, I think instruction trumps curriculum.
I hear that a lot. Let me translate that: Curriculum doesn't matter. It is perhaps the most common false dichotomy in ed reform. Why not say, "I think the left leg is very important, however the right leg trumps the left"?
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 21, 2011 @ 9:45 am
I’m not disagreeing with you, Stuart. I’m merely suggesting that as a practical matter it doesn’t work out that way. The anti-curriculum sentiment is so pervasive in education, that even where choice exists, there is precious little variation in curriculum and pedagogy. And then there is the issue that the vast, vast majority of American families there is no choice whatsover, for reasons of income, geography, etc.
I tend to support choice as a matter of personal conviction. I do not see it as anything other than the longest of long-term “fixes” however.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 21, 2011 @ 9:51 am
I’m not saying that curriculum doesn’t matter, it does. Ideally, you would have a strong curriculum with excellent instruction.
My perspective is coming from someone with a literacy background that works with low-income and minority elementary students.
The fact that curriculum didn’t make the top 19 is ridiculous.
Comment by Bridget — May 21, 2011 @ 10:52 am
I loved the way you started this blog: curriculum and instruction, both matter, very much. They are intertwined. And would-be reformers find them boring, confusing or immaterial. Yes, yes and yes.
Then, you quote someone who confuses Direct Instruction with curriculum (hint: direct *instruction*) and further skews the conversational point by suggesting that charters do/don’t do this/that, this method of teaching is OK, but that packaged curriculum model stinks, we all know that. On and on. Assumption after assumption.
Which opens the doors to let everyone–with all due respect– present their own “truth.” My take: I am in schools across the state constantly, and there is no one template or even trend in curriculum/instruction that you can tie to a school governance model. Nor do I see (sorry) any pervasive anti-curriculum movement, except, possibly, in schools where pressure is so great to ratchet up test scores that they’re running scripted, lockstep test prep pretty much 24/7. Which isn’t anything near rich, comprehensive curriculum.
This is why we have parental choice. So the traditionalists can buy traditional curriculum and instruction, and progressives can tailor curriculum and instruction to student needs and parent desires. The only real question here is who gets to control what the poor kids–the kids whose parents and teachers don’t have strongly held viewpoints–will be stuck with.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — May 21, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
Then, you quote someone who confuses Direct Instruction with curriculum (hint: direct *instruction*)
Sounds like Nancy Flanagan is the one that is confused. I don’t see any reference or allusion to Direct Instruction in Robert’s correspondent’s comments. The observer was referring to “direct instruction” (see Barak Rosenshine and others for an explication of what direct instruction is — basically, teacher-directed explicit instruction in something). “Direct Instruction” is different — it is a commercial curriculum developed by Engelmann and others at the University of Oregon. That was clearly NOT what the person RObert quotes was referring to. He or she was describing math instruction in the snippet given, and said the curriculum used was one that had engendered opposition across the country — which makes it likely to be Everyday Math or one of its look-alikes. S/he clearly differentiated “instruction” from “curriculum.”
The commenter also had a low opinion of Fountas and Pinnell, which is a “curriculum” if a less structured one.
Moreover, Robert’s commenter did not say that “charters” do this or that or the other — s/he reported that THIS charter did specific things, which s/he found disturbing.I didn’t see any of the wild generalizations that Nancy asserts the observer to have made.
Sounds to me like Nancy is the “confused” one.
Amen to the choice motif however. As to who gets to “control” what? If we base instructional decisions on data and proof of effectiveness, that will sort itself out. If something works well,as documented by results, go for it. If it is not delivering the goods, change it.
Comment by urbanteach — May 22, 2011 @ 10:15 am
But results in relation to what? That’s the key question, or one of them.
It’s a matter not only of results, but of teaching what’s important, valuable, beautiful, intriguing, useful. And someone has to dare to decide what’s important, valuable, beautiful, intriguing, or useful. The decisions need not be set in stone–but they need to be made.
In relation to those decisions, results make sense, so long they include different kinds of results–short-term and long-term, obvious and subtle, specific and general, individual and common.
Comment by Diana Senechal — May 22, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Well said Robert. Curriculum matters. I agree that teacher quality is important but curriculum is what makes the real difference. A strong sequenced curriculum can turn an ok teacher into a good one and a good teacher into a great teacher. While most good teachers can overcome a lack of quality curriculum, wouldn’t the time and energy required to design or reconstruct curriculum be better spent, oh I don’t know, maybe, TEACHING CHILDREN! There are only so many hours in a day.
Comment by Mary S. — May 23, 2011 @ 5:10 pm
This mirrors exactly what I found in my study of high performing charters in Boston. No one seems to want to face the challenging question offense these students are learning.
And you know what? That 33 percent college completion rate was based on 209 students in the sample from KIPP. All from Levin and Zfeinberg’s original schools in Houston and New York. The 209 number was no where to be found in the report. It took FOUR emails to the KIPP PR person to get them to disclose the number. Wonder why?
Comment by Kay merseth — May 23, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
If you don’t know stuff, you can’t do stuff. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchy; to analyze and evaluate you must know and understand first. So many teachers bemoan our children’s inability to ‘think critically,’ yet are truly blind to their lack of vocabulary, writing skills, and computational fluency that facilitates ‘critical thinking.’
A more humorous anecdote: Watch ‘The Simpsons’ or ‘Family Guy’ with some adolescents/teenagers, and they will be bewildered at when we laugh vs. when they laugh. We old folks have the ‘background knowledge’ of history and culture to ‘get’ the ‘inside jokes’ of which our young people are clueless because they aren’t learning that knowledge in school, or much of anywhere else.
Comment by Peter Ford — May 31, 2011 @ 10:47 am
Great comment, Peter.
People are going to have to accept the fact that school is a place designed for people to go to PRIMARILY ACQUIRE/GAIN KNOWLEDGE. Until everyone involved in the education reform debate is willing to accept this non-negotiable tenant, our schools will continue to be troubled. All the critical thinking and the problem solving aside, none of it, NONE OF IT, can occur without a rich body of knowledge as the student’s guide.
Comment by Paul Hoss — May 31, 2011 @ 7:31 pm
[...] Pondiscio is annoyed that everyone in the education debate is ignoring curriculum: If you had a time machine and put a [...]
Pingback by Focusing on Curriculum - E.D. Kain - American Times - Forbes — June 9, 2011 @ 12:57 pm
[...] the final product is worthless. (Or, as the Core Knowledge blog put it for an American audience, there’s no point building a better Edsel.) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Pingback by Welsh schools, league tables, and making camera film more efficiently « The Wing to Heaven — January 21, 2012 @ 2:30 pm