I tend to lean toward the “instructivist” school, with one reservation. It seems sometimes that the “constructivist” and “instructivist” schools go to such ends to deride or dismiss each other that we end up with a rather dismal choice between “student-centered learning” and “scripted curriculum.” A scripted curriculum (not the mainstay of instructivism, but one of its interpretations) may be effective, but it may also be deadly to an educated teacher with a passion for the subject matter and ability to teach it without a script. Some sort of synthesis of constructivist and instructivist schools–not a compromise or middle ground but an enlightened integration–seems possible and desirable, if only each side would recognize the elements of truth in the other.

This is one of the reasons I find Core Knowledge so appealing at this juncture. It appeals to my desire for instructional substance, coherence, and rigor, yet it does not squelch a teacher’s initiative or contributions. From what I’ve seen of the curriculum, it’s lively, rich, and challenging. It makes me envious of the students in such a program, not to mention the teachers! In this context, a teacher can be creative (in the true sense) while delivering challenging and structured lessons that fit into a larger plan. I am not trying to flatter CK–I am genuinely heartened by the existence of these schools.

Schools exist not only to bring students to new levels of achievement. They exist also for the beauty of the subject matter. There is nothing like a teacher who joyfully shows different ways of looking at a theorem, or who takes students into a Faulkner novel, the patterns of grammar, or a sonata. These beautiful things give meaning to the teaching. This is a far cry from “facilitating” student “discovery”; and just as far a cry from boosting achievement alone. Achievement of what, for what? Not only for a job, I hope. Most jobs are stressful and dreary, even high-paying ones. A good education gives us the kind of internal life that makes life just a bit more interesting wherever we are.

This ideal is not far-fetched. This year, in addition to my regular teaching, I taught ESL to parents for 10 weeks in the fall and winter. At the outset I asked them what they wanted to learn most. They had no strong preferences, but tended toward the practical. Most of them worked long hours and didn’t have much time for reading. I gave them a combination of dialogues (based on situations they themselves had encountered), grammar, discussion, poetry, and song. On our last day, we read “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” They laughed gently over the lines “He gives his harness bells a shake / To ask if there is some mistake.” In that moment I felt that I understood the lines better than before. One parent told me afterwards that her favorite part of the course was the poetry. She said it helped her match sounds with spelling in a way that she could remember. Thus the poetry was both practical and beautiful.

We must not lose teachers who come (at least in part) for the beauty of the subject and the desire to bring it to others. Extremes of constructivism AND instructivism run the risk of driving such teachers away. We have a severe teacher attrition problem, at least in NYC, and I doubt it’s all because of the chaotic school environments or poor training. Stressful environments wouldn’t be so bad if schools honored subject matter and teachers were expected and trusted to teach it.

Either we develop a bigger educational vision, one that embraces both the practical and the beautiful, or we continue with partially successful movements that insist on themselves and therefore cannot succeed beyond a certain point.