2008 March 14 Archive at The Core Knowledge Blog

Everybody on the bandwagon. Instructivism is en fuego!

Sure, Daniel Casse of the White House Writers Group, a Washington consulting firm, writing in the Weekly Standard is merely catching up to Sol Stern’s City Journal piece and the attending sturm und drang. (Aside to Petrilli: See?) But it’s national ink for an important idea, which Casse credits to E.D. Hirsch, Jr.: you either make curriculum content part of the agenda, or you leave it to “bureaucrats, textbook writers, and political activists” to have their wicked way with what gets taught. “That’s not only what parents really care about,” writes Casse, “it is the thing that matters most to educational achievement.”

“That’s why the next political agenda for school reform, if it ever emerges, will be one that figures out how to redefine the notion of the public school so that traditional school authorities lose their grip on local school systems,” Casse concludes. “In other words, school reform will have to be about not just the way we think public schools ought to be organized, but also what we want them to teach in the classroom at every grade level. Neither the incentivist nor the instructionist side of the debate has been willing to take on both sides of the argument. But Sol Stern’s second thoughts suggest that a successful political movement for better American schools will have to do just that.”

I could kiss Michael Petrilli on the mouth.

A perennial, frustrating blind spot among ed reformers, with their monomaniacal focus on systems, structures and accountability, is curriculum. Trying to build good schools without looking at curriculum is like trying to build a winning baseball team by focusing on the parking lot, the stadium and the vendors and assuming the “baseball people” are the experts on the game. My new hero Mr. Petrilli gets this. Read his take in the Fordham Foundation’s Gadfly on the NY Times piece How Many Billionaires Does It Take to Fix a School System?

“In a 5,000 word forum on education, these words did not appear once: instruction, curriculum, reading, math, history, literature,” sayeth Mr. Petrilli, with the clarity of the child pointing out the Emperor is naked. “This ‘incentivist’ thinking is a fair reflection of the state of the ‘new’ education philanthropy. Staffed mostly by smart MBAs and obsessed with structures and systems and processes, their ignorance about the stuff of education leads to agnosticism. And, predictably, to trouble. (See Joel Klein’s embrace of Diana Lam and Lucy Calkins as Exhibits 1 and 2.).” As Petrilli sees it, to remain agnostic on curriculum and pedagogy is “like sending in nation-builders who can’t speak Arabic and never studied Iraqi history.”

He wraps up with a thought exercise. What if a billionaire wants to focus his philanthropy on smart instructionist investments? Petrilli offers three: Support the development of national standards and tests; create a voluntary national curriculum; and fund thousands of high-quality summer workshops.

Not a bad start. Bravo, sir! Discuss among yourselves, billionaires.