Indeed, Greg. We can see the same thing happening in Europe. I live in Spain. With each change of government, there is a major overhaul of the educational system. Many of us find this frustrating. Moreover, there is no dialogue between public and private (and semi-private) teachers. I'd like to think that our classrooms are neutral territories (obviously within a socio-political whole) and we have to share what is done well in each to explore new possibilities.
Excellent article. This would be great for a big discussion about schools and schooling, teaching, and learning as well as where our country is headed educationally.
What students learn today is being heavily politicized. Yes, there are people on all sides of the political spectrum complaining about what policymakers choose to "allow" to be taught or "disallow". I am most disturbed by the politicization of the social studies/history curriculum and also the banning of books by right wing groups that affects everyone just because they don't want their children to read them. Teachers are in a bad place now - open to losing their jobs because they teach a broader curriculum.
Social studies needs and needed to be broadened to include all who have contributed to the America we have today - the good, bad, and ugly. White-washing our history is not good. Those on the right who have called this broadening as race-shaming is totally ridiculous. As an adult who reads extensively, and because of my extensive reading, I now know more about our history and all its successes and warts, which I should have learned in public school.
Whether teaching content is seen as a Republican "thing" and not a left-wing thing does not hold up for me. What is going on is just a reflection of the politicization of schooling, unfortunately coming a lot from very far right politicians. If people have approached you this way, saying that because you support the teaching of content to children, you are a Republican, it is their loss and very sad. Kids need content and that is going to come from the teacher and how the teacher teaches. As for co-constructing with students what happens in the classroom, co-constructing is usually not about content but about projects and activities from which students can choose. You are exactly right when you state "but you can’t choose to learn about a topic if you don’t know it exists, and unfortunately many students are unaware of a lot of topics they need to learn about in order to do well academically and in life." Teachers must teach, expose children to knowledge - but accurate knowledge, broad enough for a much fuller "picture" that we have done.
If our nation keep going in the direction we are going, we will have a generation that does not know our history, its origins and the philosophies that drove our development.
If I may, I'll add the observation that there's an undertone in the argument you reference (that knowledge is somehow "left" or "right") that is also anti-instruction. "Brilliantly Obvious" just offered an excellent debunking of that idea, I think.
An additional observation: I've know Don Hirsch for 30 years. I seriously doubt that I've heard him harbor warm feelings for conservative political causes.
One thing I didn't mention about Don Hirsch: When I was interviewing him for the book, he told me: "You don't like to be falsely accused, especially of being a Republican." I imagine he feels that way now more than ever.
Brings me back to my inner city high school in the late 1969s. We sat in the round at tables(not desks) and the teacher was the “facilitator “. I thought if I know as much as you (ie you don’t need to teach) , why are you being paid and not me?
Thank you for this reflection. I think some might continue to push a potentially even more extreme position, jumping off the word "accountable" in your last paragraph. I'd be interested to know how you would write the next paragraph if the header question was, "(Why) Is it necessary to hold students accountable for this knowledge?"
Whom should "we" hold accountable? Is the learners (those little f'res), the teachers (those under-appreciated and under-paid do-gooders), or the policy makers who scape-goat ideas about curricula.
Given those three choices, I'll take the last of them.
I should have explained more about what I meant about students being held "accountable," but I thought I'd gone on long enough!
I don't mean it in the sense that the government or some other entity is officially holding students accountable for what they've learned, they way they have held schools or teachers "accountable" for low test scores, etc. I certainly am not advocating for that. I'm referring to less formal modes of being held accountable that can be even more punishing.
For example, when students can't understand the passages on standardized tests, they may feel like they should know a lot of things that for some reason they don't, and that's demoralizing. Similarly, if the texts they're expected to read at upper grade levels have a lot of vocabulary and syntax they can't understand, they're being held accountable in an informal way for knowledge they haven't been given access to. I could go on: If they get into college and they can't understand the course materials, if they get a job and can't understand the instruction manual, if they try to read the lease for an apartment and don't know what it means, etc.
Maybe "accountable" isn't the right word because of its other connotations, but what I mean is that if the world assumes you have a certain kind of knowledge that you don't actually have--through no fault of your own--that can have enormous negative consequences.
I've taught every grade level K-12, and my hardest job was preparing third graders for their state assessment. I wrote about in this piece: From Play-doh to Plato: All Students Need to Grapple with Grade-Level Text.
Right. "Accountable" has nuances. Thank goddess, I have enough background knowledge to know that there are shades of meaning to it, and to appreciate your clarification.
My first blush response to this is that Core Knowledge is not very relevant to young children. Humans need to see themselves I. Their learning to stay engaged. A nearby urban district is using CKLA, demographics are 50% Hispanic, 29% African American, 11% White, 7% Asian. Attendance is a major concern. Would more relevant topics get students more excited so they could put pressure on their parents to get them to school? We work so hard to create rigorous, relevant, and real-world learning in our classrooms. Lessons on the human body? Relevant. Lessons about the 5 senses? Relevant. Usable info. for young learners. Complex American History? Not so much. What will they even remember by the time they read about it again in middle/high school? Loved everyone’s thoughtful responses.
Brilliant article. As a high school teacher in Australia, I'm mostly just gobsmacked at how sophisticated that year 2 curriculum sounds.
Only thing I'd quibble with is the idea that this is an idea that "The Left" holds. I don't think the average trade unionist or socialist organiser has strong opinions against a knowledge rich curriculum. This is an opinion of education academics and academic-adjacent professional opinion-havers. It's important not to assign these people more popular support than they really have outside of their carefully curated twitter feeds.
Intelligent working class people the world over value the knowledge they have and want their kids to have the same.
I think you're right about "The Left" -- I'm really talking about those within the education world who consider themselves politically progressive.
I'm reminded of a remote presentation I did for a US organization that supports knowledge-building curricula--an excellent organization, by the way. During the Q&A, several staff members--all of them white, all of them appearing to be in their 20s or 30s--raised questions about "whose knowledge" should be taught. After a while, an older Black woman--a member of the support staff--raised her hand. I was a little apprehensive about what she might say, but it turned out to be this: She made sure her son took Latin when he was in school, because she knew it would help him with his vocabulary. I silently thanked her!
I don't know where she placed herself on the political spectrum, of course, but to me it illustrated a possible divide between those earnestly working on behalf of historically disadvantaged groups and some actual members of those groups, in terms of what they feel the solution to the problem is.
First, I want to thank you for the continual work that you do to defend common knowledge in the interest of all American children and their/our future. There are so many aspects of this article I want to touch upon with support, but I won't for fear of blabbing. The pushback is jaw-dropping though.
I find it perplexing that everything we know about common knowledge is supporting by the vast amount of research that has been carried out over decades to give us the Science of Reading, and yet, there is still push back. I just don't get it because it seems so logical to me.
Great article. The conflation of teaching methods or curricula with politics is a frustrating and ongoing feature of the education debate.
Indeed, Greg. We can see the same thing happening in Europe. I live in Spain. With each change of government, there is a major overhaul of the educational system. Many of us find this frustrating. Moreover, there is no dialogue between public and private (and semi-private) teachers. I'd like to think that our classrooms are neutral territories (obviously within a socio-political whole) and we have to share what is done well in each to explore new possibilities.
Excellent article. This would be great for a big discussion about schools and schooling, teaching, and learning as well as where our country is headed educationally.
What students learn today is being heavily politicized. Yes, there are people on all sides of the political spectrum complaining about what policymakers choose to "allow" to be taught or "disallow". I am most disturbed by the politicization of the social studies/history curriculum and also the banning of books by right wing groups that affects everyone just because they don't want their children to read them. Teachers are in a bad place now - open to losing their jobs because they teach a broader curriculum.
Social studies needs and needed to be broadened to include all who have contributed to the America we have today - the good, bad, and ugly. White-washing our history is not good. Those on the right who have called this broadening as race-shaming is totally ridiculous. As an adult who reads extensively, and because of my extensive reading, I now know more about our history and all its successes and warts, which I should have learned in public school.
Whether teaching content is seen as a Republican "thing" and not a left-wing thing does not hold up for me. What is going on is just a reflection of the politicization of schooling, unfortunately coming a lot from very far right politicians. If people have approached you this way, saying that because you support the teaching of content to children, you are a Republican, it is their loss and very sad. Kids need content and that is going to come from the teacher and how the teacher teaches. As for co-constructing with students what happens in the classroom, co-constructing is usually not about content but about projects and activities from which students can choose. You are exactly right when you state "but you can’t choose to learn about a topic if you don’t know it exists, and unfortunately many students are unaware of a lot of topics they need to learn about in order to do well academically and in life." Teachers must teach, expose children to knowledge - but accurate knowledge, broad enough for a much fuller "picture" that we have done.
If our nation keep going in the direction we are going, we will have a generation that does not know our history, its origins and the philosophies that drove our development.
Wonderful essay. Thank you.
If I may, I'll add the observation that there's an undertone in the argument you reference (that knowledge is somehow "left" or "right") that is also anti-instruction. "Brilliantly Obvious" just offered an excellent debunking of that idea, I think.
An additional observation: I've know Don Hirsch for 30 years. I seriously doubt that I've heard him harbor warm feelings for conservative political causes.
JohnL
One thing I didn't mention about Don Hirsch: When I was interviewing him for the book, he told me: "You don't like to be falsely accused, especially of being a Republican." I imagine he feels that way now more than ever.
Sounds exactly right. Wisdom and wit are two of his long suits.
Brings me back to my inner city high school in the late 1969s. We sat in the round at tables(not desks) and the teacher was the “facilitator “. I thought if I know as much as you (ie you don’t need to teach) , why are you being paid and not me?
But then again, I was a pretty snotty kid
Thank you for this reflection. I think some might continue to push a potentially even more extreme position, jumping off the word "accountable" in your last paragraph. I'd be interested to know how you would write the next paragraph if the header question was, "(Why) Is it necessary to hold students accountable for this knowledge?"
Good note. Thanks, Craig!
Whom should "we" hold accountable? Is the learners (those little f'res), the teachers (those under-appreciated and under-paid do-gooders), or the policy makers who scape-goat ideas about curricula.
Given those three choices, I'll take the last of them.
John Wills Lloyd, Ph.D.
UVA Professor Emeritus
Founder & Editor, https://www.SpecialEducationToday.com/
Co-editor, Exceptional Children
I should have explained more about what I meant about students being held "accountable," but I thought I'd gone on long enough!
I don't mean it in the sense that the government or some other entity is officially holding students accountable for what they've learned, they way they have held schools or teachers "accountable" for low test scores, etc. I certainly am not advocating for that. I'm referring to less formal modes of being held accountable that can be even more punishing.
For example, when students can't understand the passages on standardized tests, they may feel like they should know a lot of things that for some reason they don't, and that's demoralizing. Similarly, if the texts they're expected to read at upper grade levels have a lot of vocabulary and syntax they can't understand, they're being held accountable in an informal way for knowledge they haven't been given access to. I could go on: If they get into college and they can't understand the course materials, if they get a job and can't understand the instruction manual, if they try to read the lease for an apartment and don't know what it means, etc.
Maybe "accountable" isn't the right word because of its other connotations, but what I mean is that if the world assumes you have a certain kind of knowledge that you don't actually have--through no fault of your own--that can have enormous negative consequences.
I've taught every grade level K-12, and my hardest job was preparing third graders for their state assessment. I wrote about in this piece: From Play-doh to Plato: All Students Need to Grapple with Grade-Level Text.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/play-doh-plato-all-students-need-grapple-grade-level-text
Right. "Accountable" has nuances. Thank goddess, I have enough background knowledge to know that there are shades of meaning to it, and to appreciate your clarification.
My first blush response to this is that Core Knowledge is not very relevant to young children. Humans need to see themselves I. Their learning to stay engaged. A nearby urban district is using CKLA, demographics are 50% Hispanic, 29% African American, 11% White, 7% Asian. Attendance is a major concern. Would more relevant topics get students more excited so they could put pressure on their parents to get them to school? We work so hard to create rigorous, relevant, and real-world learning in our classrooms. Lessons on the human body? Relevant. Lessons about the 5 senses? Relevant. Usable info. for young learners. Complex American History? Not so much. What will they even remember by the time they read about it again in middle/high school? Loved everyone’s thoughtful responses.
Brilliant article. As a high school teacher in Australia, I'm mostly just gobsmacked at how sophisticated that year 2 curriculum sounds.
Only thing I'd quibble with is the idea that this is an idea that "The Left" holds. I don't think the average trade unionist or socialist organiser has strong opinions against a knowledge rich curriculum. This is an opinion of education academics and academic-adjacent professional opinion-havers. It's important not to assign these people more popular support than they really have outside of their carefully curated twitter feeds.
Intelligent working class people the world over value the knowledge they have and want their kids to have the same.
I think you're right about "The Left" -- I'm really talking about those within the education world who consider themselves politically progressive.
I'm reminded of a remote presentation I did for a US organization that supports knowledge-building curricula--an excellent organization, by the way. During the Q&A, several staff members--all of them white, all of them appearing to be in their 20s or 30s--raised questions about "whose knowledge" should be taught. After a while, an older Black woman--a member of the support staff--raised her hand. I was a little apprehensive about what she might say, but it turned out to be this: She made sure her son took Latin when he was in school, because she knew it would help him with his vocabulary. I silently thanked her!
I don't know where she placed herself on the political spectrum, of course, but to me it illustrated a possible divide between those earnestly working on behalf of historically disadvantaged groups and some actual members of those groups, in terms of what they feel the solution to the problem is.
Hi Natalie -
First, I want to thank you for the continual work that you do to defend common knowledge in the interest of all American children and their/our future. There are so many aspects of this article I want to touch upon with support, but I won't for fear of blabbing. The pushback is jaw-dropping though.
I find it perplexing that everything we know about common knowledge is supporting by the vast amount of research that has been carried out over decades to give us the Science of Reading, and yet, there is still push back. I just don't get it because it seems so logical to me.