by Diana Senechal
At age fourteen, I took interest in curriculum—specifically, Soviet curriculum. My family went to Moscow for a year, in 1978–79; my parents were on sabbatical, and my sister and I attended Soviet schools. Before our trip, I learned that students in the ninth grade read Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and other nineteenth-century Russian authors. That settled that: I was determined to enter the ninth grade (comparable to grade 10 or 11 in the U.S.). I wanted to read all of these literary works in the original; I knew it would take some effort, but that didn’t deter me. My wish came true; I was allowed to enter the ninth grade. I took to my responsibilities with fervor, participating eagerly, often clumsily, in class and poring over my reading at home. By spring I was reading Dostoevsky without a dictionary, carrying Crime and Punishment with me everywhere, living the phrases.
The literary works saved the curriculum from being dreadful. Despite the ideological slant of the textbooks, the curriculum tacitly acknowledged that the literature mattered in itself. This acknowledgment was hard won. Even in 1978, well after the Khrushchev Thaw, many works were still banned (including Doctor Zhivago), others hard to find, still others taught with narrow political interpretations—but the literature would not give into these limitations, nor would the readers. Many Russians and other Soviets read avidly, memorized poems, went to great ends to obtain books, published and distributed censored works through “samizdat,” and spent evenings arguing about favorite authors and works. (Yes, this stereotype has been exaggerated, but there is truth to it.) Literature was a serious matter for them, and the school curriculum reflected this.
In American education discussion, we generally treat literature as an afterthought. To insist on this or that work, many say, is to “impose” one’s values on others or to demand that all children learn in “lockstep.” People shy away from recommending a particular work; instead, they refer to “text complexity” or some other generic feature that the book should possess. While short of censorship, this amounts to something similar: a concession to the flat culture of “whatever.” The priorities shift: the point is not for students to read Irving, Melville, Poe, or Twain, but for them to locate a central idea, trace an argument from start to finish, or engage in paired and small-group conversation about a text—any text at all, so long as it meets certain criteria. The Common Core State Standards make a gesture toward literature, but the very fact that is a gesture shows how touchy the matter is. The greater gesture is toward “informational texts,” which are considered essential for “college and career readiness.”
In a manner very different from that of the Soviets, we have created our own regime of jargon: “college and career readiness,” “text complexity,” “reading strategies,” “scaffolding,” “targeted assessments,” “differentiation,” “value added,” and so forth. Yes, these terms have a meaning and serve a purpose. All the same, when we surround ourselves with them, we lose touch with the language that makes all of this worthwhile, such as the lines from Othello, “’Twill out, ’twill out! I peace? / No, I will speak as liberal as the north, / Let heaven and men and devils, let them all, / All, all, cry shame against me, yet I’ll speak.” Of course education discussion cannot subsist on Shakespeare alone; of course it needs some terminology. But without any discussion of the things worth learning, it’s hard to make any sense of “achievement” and “improvement” and other such words.
There are several related issues here. First is the importance of subject matter to education discussion. Be it physics, history, or literature, the subjects themselves illuminate what we do. Second is the matter of a specific curriculum. At some level, the curriculum must lay out a good portion of what students will learn (including the literary works they will read). Without such specificity, curriculum discussion becomes personalized (“I don’t find Shakespeare developmentally appropriate for my students, but I’m not telling you what to do.”) Without common ground within a school, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build on what one is doing. Third, there is the value of literature itself. Teachers may disagree about which works are important, but the importance is there. To make it all a matter of opinion is to trivialize it. It is preferable to fight for a beloved work than to remove specific works from the curriculum.
Is a national literature curriculum the solution? Probably not. But there are other ways to honor literature in the curricula and schools. A district or state curriculum could specify a few works and leave the rest to the discretion of teachers and schools. Or it could lay out a sequence of works and authors but allow for some substitutions. (Many high schools do this as a matter of course; elementary and middle schools could follow suit.) In any case, works of literature and literary nonfiction would be at the center, and skills would take their place around them. This would do more than prepare students for college and career; it would give them something to carry through their lives. It would give them a sense of language that goes beyond the usual. Students would learn to see past the jargon of the day, whatever it might be. They would become aware of aspects of life that push beyond assumptions, that don’t quite add up—in Frost’s words, “formulae that won’t formulate—that almost but don’t quite formulate.” They would learn, through repeated readings, that one’s initial understanding often isn’t the best—that it takes time for a work or concept or historical event to reveal its character. This awareness is no frill. It keeps the mind alive.
Diana Senechal has written for American Educator, Education Week, Educational Leadership, American Educational History Journal, and numerous blogs. She holds a Ph.D. in Slavic languages and literatures from Yale and taught for four years in New York City public schools. Her book, Republic of Noise: The Loss of Solitude in Schools and Culture, will be published by Rowman & Littlefield Education in November.
Diana, this is an excellent posting. Your recounting of your ninth grade year in Moscow brought to mind conversations I’ve had over the years with immigrants from the former Soviet Union. The quantity and quality of serious books that were and still are required reading in Russian schools dwarf almost American school. Few American kids read anything serious, with even the most vapid teen lit being regarded as acceptable for high school courses. I mean, who’s to say if Dostoevsky is really better than the latest pulp fiction with the shiny cover?
I’m blessed to live reasonably close to a charter school that will offer a rich liberal arts curriculum, including lots of serious literature. This school uses Core Knowledge for grades K-8, and a classical Great Books approach for humanities in grades 9-12. I considered the local high school which has an extensive AP curriculum, but I like the Socratic seminar approach used at the charter school.
This brings me to my main point. Without the charter school, my kids would not have any opportunity to learn from the Core Knowledge or classical curricula. Hell will freeze over long before the traditional public school district in my area gets rid of the vacuous progressive education nonsense.
Some supposed supporters of CK, however, now essentially oppose all charter schools – Diane Ravitch most prominently among them. What realistic hope do non-affluent parents have for schools with rigorous curricula and standards if charter schools are abolished? Where do Ravitch’s true loyalties lay: with the public school establishment and teachers unions, or with the kids who need the content-rich curriculum she allegedly still supports?
Don Hirsch needs to weigh in on this issue. If the anti-charter crowd has its way, the number of Core Knowledge schools will be greatly reduced, and the influence of CK on curriculum elsewhere will be greatly reduced. Dr. Hirsch, please put your friendship with Ms. Ravtich aside. Where do you stand on this matter?
Comment by John Webster — July 8, 2011 @ 9:24 am
John,
Thank you for your comment. Given a choice between a school that taught fluff and a school with a classical curriculum, I would choose to teach at the latter, provided I liked the other aspects of the school as well. And that would be true whether the schools in question were public, charter, or private.
That said, it isn’t quite the case that charters and only charters will offer curricula like CK. I taught at a public Core Knowledge school. It was (and still is, as far as I know) sincerely committed to CK. It was also committed to Balanced Literacy, which I do not hold in high regard. But then, many charters, including CK charters, have adopted Balanced Literacy as well.
There’s another twist to this: some high-profile charter supporters, such as Joel Klein, were the very ones to mandate Balanced Literacy and the “workshop model” throughout New York City. How can you weigh down a school system with a time-consuming non-curriculum and then praise charters for their freedom to depart from it?
One of the main problems is that education leaders avoid or misunderstand curriculum. Bloomberg and Klein actually thought Balanced Literacy was a curriculum, from all that I have gathered. If it is a curriculum, it is not a literature curriculum; it treats “literacy” as a generic competence apart from any particular literature. If there were more recognition that the substance of the learning mattered, that it was important to read and know certain things, we could get somewhere.
This is not lost on teachers and principals in the public schools. In May I was invited to speak to a network of principals and teachers in NYC. They had been reading my articles and wanted to discuss them with me. I presented for three hours to the principals (with discussion) and two hours to the teachers, and the time went by too fast. They were clearly interested in bringing more serious literature into the classroom. They were interested in more intensive instruction–departing from the “workshop model” and doing what the topic or subject demanded.
So I really don’t see this as a public/charter question. I see this as a more fundamental question of what we’re seeking to teach. As long as the “what” is submerged, other things will take precedence. Now, it would be unrealistic and probably unhelpful to expect all schools to agree on a single curriculum. But at least the curriculum should be in the forefront of discussion, not an afterthought.
Comment by Diana Senechal — July 8, 2011 @ 10:19 am
Diana,
I agree 100% with you. The legal structure of a school – traditional public, charter, or private – is a matter of indifference to me. The most important thing is what students accomplish. That’s why we agree that curriculum is so important.
I know there are many bad charters, and there are a small percentage of excellent CK traditional public schools. I would happily send my kids to the local public schools if they offered great curricula, instead of sending them away from our neighborhood on a 45 minute bus ride each way. Unfortunately, persuading large public school districts to change curricula is nearly impossible, as every proponent of Core Knowledge knows. Progressive education, anti-knowledge theories largely dominate traditional public schools, at least where I live.
Speaking as a parent and layperson who has followed education issues closely for over 30 years, my sense is that the older the kids being taught, the more supportive the teachers are about a content-rich curriculum. To take an example, a good high school history teacher knows that before a student can write a coherent essay about the American Revolution, she needs a solid grasp of lots of relevant facts. Likewise with any other history or science courses. The focus on process seems to be more appealing to elementary age teachers, most of whom frankly never had a solid liberal arts education themselves.
About charters, I’ll reframe my question. If traditional public schools won’t offer CK and classical curricula, what are non-affluent parents to do? Just send their kids to the regular public schools so they can feel good about supporting teachers unions? Sorry, I’m like wealthy liberals who send their own kids to private schools while preening over their willingness to give their lives for public schools, if necessary. My own kids are MY top priority.
Comment by John Webster — July 8, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
I’ll way in briefly to say that CK is platform agnostic, as it were. We work with public, charter and private schools in roughly equal numbers. Curiously, I just gave a talk at the ECS conference in Denver on this exact issue — the dominant, content-free approach to elementary literacy instruction in U.S. schools. The talk was to a group of state elected officials and ed reformers and my point was precisely that reading is not a transferable skill, but the insistence on a content-free, skills-driven approach to literacy dominates BOTH public and charter schools, is practiced by BOTH “good teachers” and “bad teachers” and is the orthodoxy in union districts AND union-free districts. In short, policy makers are essentially blind to the systemic problems in early reading instruction, and that all of our policy prescriptions are either agnostic or indifferent to curriculum. Thus I’m with Diana. This is not a charters vs. public issue. This is a challenge for American education at large.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — July 8, 2011 @ 2:00 pm
There is no disagreement here. I concur – this is not a charters vs. public issue. My previous posts obviously infer this.
The main problem in education is the lack of focus on the most important issue: exactly what do we want students to accomplish? Merit pay, tenure, school uniforms, school choice, class size, etc., etc. are worth discussing, but these are only means to the end of student achievement. That’s why I was dismayed over the shallowness of the “Waiting for Superman” hysteria. There wasn’t a single word about what students should learn. Everything was about process, i.e. charters are nirvana regardless of what is done in the classroom.
But my original point still stands: some supposed supporters of Core Knowledge now want to force all non-affluent kids into traditional public schools that will NEVER abandon progressive education methods. Doing this will prevent lots of kids from having the rich CK curriculum. Are Don Hirsch and the CK Foundation OK with this?
Comment by John Webster — July 9, 2011 @ 9:57 am
I don’t follow the logic at all, John. You start by framing this as A vs. B. This is clearly not valid. Then you say, in essence, “You’re right. It’s not A vs. B.” But in the next breath, you say, “But back to my original point, whose side are you on, A or B?”
I do not accept your framing of this issue. The first charter law was passed by Minnesota in 1991. This is five years AFTER the founding of Core Knowledge. The curriculum exists for the benefit of parents, educators and children who choose to avail themselves of it. The fact that the curriculum has been successfully implemented by all manner of schools and that the Foundation works directly with all manner of schools answers your question fully.
If you live in a community where the schools–public, charter, et al.– are resistant to the idea of a coherent, sequenced, content-rich curriculum, your argument, it seems to me, is properly with those who run those schools. The idea that one particular brand of school inherently favors Core Knowledge while another inherently opposes it is not borne out by the evidence.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — July 9, 2011 @ 11:50 am
John,
Like Robert, I don’t follow your logic. People who support CK may support or oppose the expansion of the charter sector. They may support or oppose any number of initiatives that are not directly pertinent to curriculum. What they have in common is their support for the CK curriculum and the principles behind it.
Why should CK have to confront its own supporters over charters? There is no need for such a squabble. It would do harm, not good.
Comment by Diana Senechal — July 9, 2011 @ 12:53 pm
Year and years ago Nashville Davidson County adopt Core Knowledge — actually I believe it was the state of Tennessee that adopted it. I ran out and got the books, we worked with the kids and then…the state dropped it. One of the worse decisions Tennessee ever made in education. Anyone surprised TN was 49th in education and has, I believe only moved to 41. Really very, very sad!
Comment by tim-10-ber — July 9, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
I’m baffled by the last two responses. In comment 3, I wrote “I know there are many bad charters, and there are a small percentage of excellent CK traditional public schools. I would happily send my kids to the local public schools if they offered great curricula, instead of sending them away from our neighborhood on a 45 minutes bus ride each way.” In comment 5, I refer disparagingly to the Waiting for Superman hysteria that preached that charters are nirvana. I obviously don’t think that all charters are good, and that all traditional public schools are bad. Heck, I’d love for my kids to be able to walk to the local public schools, instead of having long bus rides twice a day. But the local school district – whose union is affilated with the AFT, which has long praised CK – won’t even consider using CK.
Also, this remark: “The idea that one particular brand of school inherently favors CK while another inherently opposes it is not borne out by the evidence.” Where do I broach this idea? I acknowledge that there are traditional public schools that use CK, and bad charters that don’t. I wrote that the legal structure of a school – traditional public, charter, or private – is a matter of indifference to me.
Enough abstract arguments. Here is the practical reality: I live in the Twin Cities. Almost all the CK schools here are charters; there is a handful of tradtional public schools that use CK, none close to where I live. If all charter schools close, my kids and thousands of others will never have the benefit of CK and classical curricula. The traditional public schools are dominated by progressive education theories, and won’t change before my kids are grown up, if they ever do change.
It’s wonderful to support CK in theory, but if kids can’t have CK available in reality, what good is it?
Comment by John Webster — July 9, 2011 @ 3:37 pm
<<< but if kids can’t have CK available in reality, what good is it?
I suppose we are doomed to continue to baffle each other. CK predates charters. So the idea that charters are a necessary precondition for children to have CK simply makes no sense to me. If you're suggesting that charters are going to disappear anytime soon, taking a whole lot of great CK schools down, then I'd agree that would be something worth getting exercised about. Fortunately, I don't foresee that happening. Charters are not going away (except when they perform poorly and are shut down and that is exactly what should happen) The larger fact remains that education at large is dominated by progressive ed theories, including charters. The proper battles are over effectiveness, not structures. I fight those battles with people who work in charters and traditional schools and will continue to do so.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — July 9, 2011 @ 5:15 pm
Robert,
I’m scratching my head. You write “So the idea that charters are a necessary precondition for children to have CK simply makes no sense to me.” I agree – exactly where do I state or infer otherwise? I also agree that most charters are no better, and often are worse, than traditional public schools. That’s largely because they embrace the same progressive ed nonsense that you and I detest.
Here is a fantasy of mine. Randi Weingarten, President of the AFT, flies into the Twin Cities. She spends a few days in my local school district visiting with AFT members and members of the school board. She strongly advocates that the district adopt Core Knowledge for all kids in grades K-8, with an option for kids to have classical curricula in grades 9-12.
Ms. Weingarten is so persuasive that the school board adopts her suggestions, which the AFT teachers enthusiastically support. I enroll my kids in the district, where they will be able to walk to and from middle school and high school, and have a lot of school friends in the local area.
Other Twin Cities school districts quickly imitate my kids’ schools, and adopt CK and classical curricula. CK charter schools announce that they will have to close down, as traditional public schools are now meeting the curriculum requirements demanded by involved parents.
Alas, the Minnesota Vikings will win a Super Bowl before anything like this fantasy becomes reality, i.e. never.
Comment by John Webster — July 9, 2011 @ 6:04 pm
Oh my…
You started this thread with a call for Don Hirsch and CK to denounce charter opponents on the grounds that a world without charters is a world without Core Knowledge. That’s not CK’s battle, and it’s a bit pointless, IMHO, since charters are now a fixed feature of the education landscape. If what you’re really after is advocacy for CK in Minnesota, my bags are packed. One of my articles of faith is that successful movements seek converts while unsuccessful movements hunt down heretics. I’m always happy to help win converts. If I can further the goal of bring CK to the Twin Cities, I’ll be on the next plane. Seriously.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — July 9, 2011 @ 6:33 pm
Robert,
I keep trying to agree with you, and you keep misunderstanding what I’m saying. I did not call for anyone to “denounce” charter opponents on the grounds that a world without charters is a world without Core Knowledge. Without charters, CK would exist in some (very limited) places – just not where it would be accessible to my kids.
In fact, I’ll concede that Dr. Hirsch has already commented on this issue publicly, but not recently, to my knowledge. In his book “The Making of Americans” he expresses gratitude to the charter schools that make CK available to kids. So he clearly sees the need for charter schools – effective ones.
I appreciate your offer to come to Minnesota. I’d love to meet you in person. If the Twins are in town, we could go to Target Field, enjoy the beautiful stadium, and discuss education issues.
You are a great advocate for Core Knowledge, but unfortunately your advocacy wouldn’t have the publicity benefit or the influence that a visit by Randi Weingarten would. I would be happy to facilitate a trip by Ms. Weingarten to my local school district to campaign for Core Knowledge. If any CK blog readers have contact with her, please pass along my offer.
Comment by John Webster — July 9, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
John,
As I see it, critics of the charter movement are not trying to get rid of charters. They mainly object to the push for more charters and the preferential treatment given them.
As for bringing Core Knowledge and other high-quality curricula into regular public schools, it requires some supportive leaders and teachers (they do exist) and good teacher preparation. It would be great if even a handful of education schools focused on subject matter and curricula.
Also, schools that adopt CK need relief from certain state mandates, so that they can give the curriculum its full life. When teachers have to fulfill both CK and state requirements, they often find themselves rushing through material. This should not be so. I have spoken with teachers who felt overwhelmed not by CK, but by the sheer number of topics they had to squeeze in for Everyday Math, which they found mediocre anyway. A school that has CK should not have to use Everyday Math.
So, there are ways that district and state leaders (and education schools) could make it much, much easier for schools to adopt CK. You’d still have schools that resisted it, but you’d also have more schools that wanted and adopted it.
Robert, please jump in if anything I’ve said here is incorrect or contradicts your experience.
Comment by Diana Senechal — July 10, 2011 @ 7:52 am
You all are making me dizzy. Support CK; end of discussion.
Comment by Paul Hoss — July 10, 2011 @ 7:08 pm
Diana,
You are partially right. Some critics of the charter movement aren’t trying to eliminate all charters; they want to reform them and oust the shysters and charlatans. I’m all for that.
However, plenty of other people would shutter every last charter if they could. Most of these people are leaders of and activists in teachers unions, and their allies among elected Democrats. Where I live, school districts throw up every possible ostacle in the way of charters buying or leasing unused facilities from the regular district. Two blocks from my house a former public school building sits empty with no plans for the district to ever use it again. The school board has publicly stated that they won’t allow any competitor – private school or charter – to ever use the building. There are many similar stories in this metro area and nationwide.
I’ve heard that charters are given preferential treatment; I wonder which states do that. I served on the school board of a CK charter for three years here in Minnesota, and learned a lot about public school finance. I spoke recently with a local CPA who is a recognized expert in public school finance issues in Minnesota for both traditional public and charter schools. He said that the school funding formulas are incredibly complex, but when everything is boiled down charters in MN receive at least $3000 less per student per year, with a $4000 disparity being the more likely figure.
This disparity has negative consequences for charters. I’ve seen several excellent teachers – all enthusiastic CK supporters – leave my kids’ school to take much better paying jobs in traditional schools. If I were appointed benevolent dictator, I’d ask for at most $2000 more per student, not the full disparity. With $2000 more, I would make charter teachers by far the best paid teachers in the state. Teachers would knock down the doors trying to work at charters. Maybe traditional districts would streamline their bloated bureaucracies and give the extra loot to teachers, most of whom deserve it.
Your point about CK schools needing relief from state mandates is right on; I’ve heard CK teachers say that before. Your comments about Everyday Math are 100% accurate. Fortunately, my kids have had Saxon, which most charters in these parts use, with a few using Singapore. Almost all Twin Cities metro schools use Everyday Math or something similar, which is yet another reason why I’m so passionate about ensuring that charter schools survive.
Comment by John Webster — July 11, 2011 @ 9:08 am
John, you said “It’s wonderful to support CK in theory, but if kids can’t have CK available in reality, what good is it?”
1. Supplement your children’s education with Core Knowledge – this is what we did initially, because we lived in a rural area with limited school options.
2. Homeschool – I know there is a large CK homeschool community that is active online.
3. Start a charter school using Core Knowledge – we didn’t start one, but we helped build it after it was approved. We did everything we could to make it successful for our kids but also for the larger community. Today, our 2 sons are graduates, but we still donate money, proctor exams, and help in any other way we can, and the school has 500 students K-12, with 1000 on the waiting list.
4. Advocate for curriculum reforms at your local traditional public school – I ran for my local school board, and will run again. If I get on, one of my main concerns will be improving the curriculum.
Comment by Mia Munn — July 11, 2011 @ 11:54 am
I have been enjoying this exchange–but I do want to point out that the original piece is about neither charters nor CK.
Admittedly, I was thinking of CK, among other things, as I wrote it. One of my favorite things about the CK sequence is that it’s so darned interesting and includes excellent literature.
Comment by Diana Senechal — July 11, 2011 @ 9:37 pm