Education Week noted recently that there’s an increasing demand for bites of curriculum, as opposed to coherent programs: Instead of selecting one comprehensive program, “districts are asking to … mix and match with selections from other content providers, material that teachers and students have created, and open educational resources.” That’s awesome—and a disaster.
It’s awesome for schools that have a coherent, cumulative, grade-by-grade, topic-specific curriculum. Teachers will have the curriculum as a scaffold, and they can search for materials on each topic that best meet their students’ needs. Assuming that scaffold is well developed, the topics will build on each other, giving all students an equal opportunity to acquire broad knowledge and skills.
It’s a disaster for schools that don’t have such a curriculum. In schools that aim to instill skills, without realizing that a broad body of knowledge is necessary to cultivate skills, a tapas-style curriculum will only lead to malnutrition. Whether teachers or students are choosing the small plates, we’ll end up with some students getting mostly fried cheese and bacon-wrapped sausage, while others get mostly sautéed spinach and grilled chicken.
A well-rounded education is much like a well-balanced diet. Kids get plenty of fried cheese outside of school. In school, they need rigorous and rich academics—including history, art, geography, music, and science every year. And they need the topics they study in each of these domains to logically expand and deepen year to year.
In too many schools, the pursuit of personalized learning—with the end goal being each student learning to learn while pursuing individual interests—has caused some educators to lose sight of the bigger picture. As Marc Tucker wrote:
The phrase “learn how to learn” comes trippingly off the tongue these days. But much less is usually said about what makes it possible to learn new things quickly. We know that learning something new depends importantly on having a mental framework to hang it on or put it in. The most important of those frameworks are the conceptual structures underpinning the disciplines.
And much is made of the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge. But that knowledge will do you little good unless you first understand the disciplines themselves, not just superficially, but at a deep conceptual level. As one builds up that kind of knowledge in multiple disciplines, it becomes possible to draw on the knowledge and concepts in those domains to see the connections among them. Learning new things is much easier when you can build on this sort of foundation.
In short, cognitive science tells us that broad knowledge and topic-specific knowledge are necessary for learning and thinking. And both science and common sense tell us that shared knowledge is necessary for effective communication. A tapas-style education might get us there, but only if we remove the fried cheese from the menu and agree to a content-specific plan to guide and balance our selections.
I agree with Marc Tucker that Tapas style education delivery would be disastrous for schools without cohesive, grade-to-grade learning objectives. And I agree with you that broad knowledge and topic-specific knowledge are necessary for learning and thinking.
But the conclusion I reach is different. Schools without cohesive, grade-to-grade learning objectives should fix that as a serious operational deficiency with or without Tapas style delivery.
Personalized learning is a complex process with logistics challenges. Getting the learning objectives in place is a foundational necessity before proceeding.
I am writing this from Hungary during a summer vacation and must say it is clear that there are strong content curriculum models in countries such as Hungary with a long and deep tradition of deep learning that need to be studied and lessons taken from them. Deep, joined-up, intellectually-based, vertical learning is at the core of the curriculum here. Defintely not tapas!
It seems that many of our districts push for more tapas as we move away from the idea of the Common Core. Our district pushed for this and as our current state (Michigan) changes it’s testing system and policy again, we are fading quickly from the Common Core and are encouraged to expose our students to literature (in english classes) that help them learn and not necessarily from any standard other than our own.
How do we cut out the friend cheese?
So, the mental framework needed for hanging ideas on is missing in most students. Do WE set up the framework, or do we assume it will eventually be hung on and keep going with curriculum? Do we slow down to teach the “how to learn” concept and leave out curriculum we need or do we forget that part?
If it is easier to build on a foundation, is it wise to spend weeks setting up concepts, only to then have students still fail mastery on material? Do we have some students that don’t CARE enough to build on concepts? We all know that many students are so filled with apathy that it overwhelms much of what we try to do, yet many teachers I know do not want to verbalize this out loud and admit it. Thoughts?
[…] tapas-style curriculum can be awesome — or a disaster, writes Lisa Hansel on Core Knowledge […]