Tag Archive for ‘narrowing of the curriculum’ at The Core Knowledge Blog

Tag Archive for 'narrowing of the curriculum'

Groundhog’s Day

Published by Robert Pondiscio on March 7, 2008 in Curriculum. 2 Comments

Here we go again with curriculum narrowing. It’s happening…it’s not happening…it’s happening, but the problem is overstated. The edusphere erupts over whether a reported 16% of schools cutting art for more reading and math can be characterized as “many schools,” or whether narrowing under NCLB happens “often” or only sometimes. Still to come, whether “many,” “some,” “a handful” or “just a few” angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether angels dancing on pins is a troublesome, but overstated trend.

The important point continues to go undiscussed: Given that a broad, content-rich education is the key to reading comprehension—hence raising test scores—narrowing the curriculum in any form is not just unacceptable but counterproductive and foolish. If you want to see test scores up, start arguing for curriculum reform. This is the common ground that ought to unite friends and foes of NCLB alike.

Everything else is angels dancing on the heads of pins.

Thinking Outside the Bubble

Published by Robert Pondiscio on March 3, 2008 in Curriculum, Educational Policy and Testing. 1 Comment

Core Knowledge board member Diane Ravitch is advocating testing that goes well beyond simply bubbling in answers to multiple choice reading and math tests. Our pre-eminent education historian is worried about history education. “I also worry about the future of literature, the arts, and all the other subjects that are left out by today’s policymakers,” says Ravitch. “Is the answer to test them all? I would say not. With so many tests, there would be no time for instruction or reading or projects or discussion or activities.”

Writing for the History News Network, Ravitch notes the time available for history and other subjects “is being squeezed by legislative efforts to boost reading and math skills in grades 3-8, as well as the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects in middle schools and high schools.” Hence Ravitch’s co-chairing Common Core, which debuted last week “to advocate on behalf of the subjects that are neglected by the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and by pending STEM legislation.”

“The board of CC is not opposed to testing. We view it as a necessary but not sufficient part of education,” Ravitch writes. “For myself, I would prefer to see development and implementation of more thoughtful kinds of testing than those that are now in general use; in particular, I would hope for new tests that call on students to describe, analyze, explain, and demonstrate what they know and can do, not just asking them to pick a bubble.”

“American education is in serious trouble today,” Ravitch concludes. “The people in the drivers’ seats mistakenly think they are running a business, with a bottom line. They have forgotten—or maybe they don’t know—that our schools are responsible for educating future citizens who will need and hopefully use far more than basic skills.”

Romer on Curriculum Narrowing

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 25, 2008 in Curriculum. 1 Comment

Ed in ‘08 chairman Roy Romer weighs in helpfully (mostly) on the issue of curriculum narrowing and NCLB.

A report from the Center on Educational Policy last year showed 44% of school districts had increased instructional time spent on ELA and/or Math in elementary schools since the passage of No Child Left Behind, cutting time from science, social studies, art and music, physical education, recess, or lunch. According to a followup report this week, districts increasing time for ELA and Math had done so by an average of three hours each week. To make room for the added time, they’ve cut of about two and a half hours each week from one or more other subjects.

“I don’t believe that time should come at the expense of other academic areas like science, history, or the arts,” blogs Romer. “We at ED in ’08 have long advocated for more time for learning in America’s schools. States like Massachusetts have already followed the lead of many other developed nations and put in place a longer school day, and their students are proving all the more successful from it. That extra time is helping to balance out the school agenda so that students all receive the diverse range of subjects – and support – they deserve.”

All well and good, but it would be even more helpful in Governor Romer and others concerned about the narrowing of curriculum would look more closely at the link between content knowledge and reading comprehension, rather than continuing to treat reading as an independent academic subject.

Teaching content IS teaching reading.

The Big Picture?

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 12, 2008 in Education Practice and Testing. 0 Comments

Great instruction and a strong curriculum is the best test prep, right? And research shows “drill and kill” doesn’t work? But look inside a struggling school and you see, well, lots of test prep. “Schools Turn Focus to the Big Picture,” an article from the Baton Rouge Advocate, looks uncritically at Roseland Elementary, which includes “some of Tangipahoa Parish’s poorest students and is one of its lowest performing schools on state accountability measures.” Note that no attempt is made to downplay or hide the big test prep push that’s going on. Indeed, the piece seems to assume that this is what schools are supposed to do. Perhaps school officials do too, since the “big picture” of the title refers to the school’s strenuous test prep effort—the announced “40 Days of Focus,” described as “an intense time of preparation for the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program tests for fourth- and eighth-graders and other tests given in March.”

Wonk vs. Wonk

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 7, 2008 in Curriculum, Educational Policy, Opinion, Teaching and Testing. 1 Comment

I have been watching the renewed hostilities between Eduwonk and Eduwonkette this week over the issue of No Child Left Behind’s impact on curriculum. I feel honor-bound to weigh in, since I inadvertently started the fight. A few thoughts on their posts:

The issue of whether testing has crowded science and social studies off the curriculum is beyond dispute, and I’m not swayed by the argument that if 44% of schools report a narrowing of the curriculum under NCLB, then the legislation is not the culprit, since 56% report no deleterious impact. If 44% of patients reported an adverse reaction to a medication, it would be off the shelves before the sun set. So it’s a problem.

Eduwonk is absolutely correct, however, in noting that good schools focus on curriculum and instruction. “While low-capacity schools may have spent time on social studies pre-NCLB,” he writes, “it’s a safe bet that many of them were not teaching it very well.” But the opposite is also true: most good schools were good schools without any external accountability measures whatsoever, so that’s not where our focus belongs. If the functional structures are in place — strong leadership, good teachers, active oversight, engaged parents who are informed consumers of education, etc. — there are multiple levels of quality control to assure good outcomes. NCLB is all about making bad schools act more like good ones in the absence of those self-policing mechanisms.

Continue reading ‘Wonk vs. Wonk’

Who Do You Believe? Me or Your Lying Eyes?

Published by Robert Pondiscio on January 18, 2008 in Curriculum, Opinion and Testing. 0 Comments

I respect and admire eduwonk, but I have to strenuously disagree with his characterization of the impact of testing and No Child Left Behind as “hysterics.” I wholeheartedly support accountability, and I don’t have a problem with standardized tests. Really, I don’t. But one cannot blithely dismiss the narrowing of the curriculum that has occurred in schools — especially struggling inner city schools — in order to beef up test scores. It’s literacy, math and not much else, despite compelling evidence that content knowledge is the key to reading comprehension. We’re serving students in our most challenged schools a thin gruel that doesn’t meet any reasonable standard for an education. We simply have to do better, not dismiss the critics. The NY Times highlighted a few schools that are aiming higher, but to suggest that this shows testing concerns are overblown is a curious conclusion.

It bothers me to hear a well-respected policy analyst take such a stance, for I fear it could invite other less serious observers to downplay the deleterious impact of testing culture, rather than do the hard work of creating and implementing an accountability strategy that resists being gamed, dumbed-down, or measures only the thinnest slices of school performance. “All that test prep isn’t that bad,” it will be argued. “At least they’re learning something.” Isn’t it pretty to think so?

Make no mistake. There are classrooms where students go weeks, months, an entire school year without social studies, science, art and music. I’ve seen them, been in them, and worked with teachers who, despite great misgivings, felt pressured to run them. It’s neither hysterics nor hyperbole. It’s a legitimate issue that left unaddressed or blithely dismissed, could ultimately stop reform dead in its tracks. The very worst thing that can occur is if people believe the accountability cure is worse than the disease. “Drill and kill” is not the issue. It’s kids who can decode, but can’t comprehend. It’s kids who get to high school and college without the functional knowledge they need to succeed in higher education and as full participants in society. It’s complacency that kids who score on grade level are being educated, when all they’re doing is stepping over a hurdle that is conveniently lowered year after year.

Dismiss it at your peril. It’s real. I’ve seen it, lived it. I’ll introduce you to the students who’ve been damaged by it. Accountability was designed to help them, not do further harm. Good enough is not good enough.

Oh, my. I’m having a Hillary moment….I just don’t want to see us fall backwards.

Update: The redoubtable eduwonk thinks I doth protest too much. Perhaps so. But why use two words when ten will do?

Update II: eduwonkette has my back.

USA Today Op-Ed: Our view on improving education: An illusion gains credibility

Published by CKF on August 6, 2007 in Opinion. 0 Comments

For most, curriculum isn’t narrowing, despite focus on math, reading.

If children aren’t solid readers by third grade — the time students go from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” — their chances of becoming successful students are limited.

… Some schools in low-income neighborhoods have indeed gone too far in focusing on math and science to the exclusion of other subjects. But it doesn’t have to be that way:

Nearly 600 public schools using the innovative “Core Knowledge” program wrap reading and math skills into an unusually rich curriculum that teaches elementary students about everything from Egyptian culture to the Italian Renaissance. At P.S. 124 in Queens, near New York’s JFK Airport, 97% of the students are minorities and 90% live in poverty. And yet this school turns in math and reading scores that rival schools in middle-class areas.

Read the complete article

English, Math Time Up in ‘No Child’ Era

Published by CKF on July 25, 2007 in Research and Reports. 0 Comments

44% of Schools Polled Reduce Other Topics

By Jay Mathews, Washington Post Staff Writer

In the five years since a federal law mandated an expansion of reading and math tests, 44 percent of school districts nationwide have made deep cutbacks in social studies, science, art and music lessons in elementary grades and have even slashed lunchtime, a new survey has found.

The most detailed look at the rapidly changing American school day, in a report released today, found that most districts sharply increased time spent on reading and math.

… But Andrew J. Rotherham, a co-founder of the Education Sector think tank in the District who serves on the Virginia Board of Education, likened the increased hours spent in reading instruction, devoid of history and science, to a diet full of empty calories. “If you have just doughnuts for breakfast, you will be hungry again soon,” he said. “But a balanced breakfast can carry you to lunch.”

He cited the work of University of Virginia researcher E.D. Hirsch Jr., who has said elementary students need exposure to history and science to be able to handle the concepts and vocabulary that make them good readers.

Read the complete article