Calls for shared curricula for the have triggered renewed debates about who decides what students learn, and even about varied meanings of the word 鈥渃urriculum,鈥 adding layers of complexity to the job of translating the broad learning goals into classroom teaching.
The most recent calls for common curricula came from the American Federation of Teachers and the Albert Shanker Institute, a think tank named after the late aft leader. Many others are working on pieces of that puzzle鈥攁n array of instructional resources for states, districts, and teachers. But the calls for 鈥渟hared鈥 or 鈥渃ommon鈥 curricula have sparked particularly heated conversations.
Scholars, bloggers, and activists are exchanging fire about whether shared curriculum means lessons dictated from afar. They鈥檙e worrying that the public could lose a voice in shaping what children learn, and asking whether the federal government is overstepping by funding curriculum development.
The common standards in English/language arts and math, devised by states and content experts under the guidance of governors and state education chiefs, have been adopted by all but seven states.
Part of the debate about common curriculum for the standards is driven, observers say, by the multiple meanings of the word 鈥渃urriculum.鈥
To some, that term can mean a scripted, day-to-day lesson plan, while to others, it鈥檚 a lean set of big ideas that can be tackled in many ways. In some states, a textbook becomes the de facto curriculum. In others, standards and broad outlines called frameworks, with or without model lesson plans and other resources, are rolled together as 鈥渟tate curriculum.鈥 Some school districts purchase off-the-shelf programs they refer to as curricula, and others craft their own.
<bsp-image data-state="{"image":{"bex.rteImporter.imageIngestedUrl":"/media/2011/03/28/26curriculum_cohen92.jpg","bex.rteImporter.imageIngestedDate":1606011479804,"file":{"storage":"s3","path":"5b/2c/38d5c20da79979d56cb1d9f83365/26curriculum-cohen92.jpg","contentType":"image/jpeg","metadata":{"Huffman":{"Number of Tables":"4 Huffman tables"},"width":66,"File Type":{"Detected File Type Long Name":"Joint Photographic Experts Group","Detected File Type Name":"JPEG","Detected MIME Type":"image/jpeg","Expected File Name Extension":"jpg"},"XMP":{"XMP Value Count":"27"},"JPEG":{"Component 3":"Cr component: Quantization table 1, Sampling factors 1 horiz/1 vert","Compression Type":"Baseline","Data Precision":"8 bits","Number of Components":"3","Component 2":"Cb component: Quantization table 1, Sampling factors 1 horiz/1 vert","Component 1":"Y component: Quantization table 0, Sampling factors 2 horiz/2 vert","Image Height":"92 pixels","Image Width":"66 pixels"},"JFIF":{"Resolution Units":"none","Version":"1.1","Thumbnail Height Pixels":"0","Thumbnail Width Pixels":"0","X Resolution":"1 dot","Y Resolution":"1 dot"},"height":92,"http.headers":{"Content-Length":["7053"],"Content-Type":["image/jpeg"],"Cache-Control":["public, max-age=31536000"]}}},"_id":"00000175-edbe-de5b-a77d-ffbe66fc0000","_type":"ce92fd90-6aed-3dc0-880e-f485361c67c1"},"_id":"00000175-edbe-de5b-a77d-ffbe66fc0001","_type":"23ac712d-8839-31ed-81b0-4bf6cfff37a2"}">Image</bsp-image><br>Says the PARCC consortium is not working 鈥渋n a cubbyhole鈥 to craft instructional resources
Some observers worry that lack of clarity about the meaning of terms like 鈥渃urriculum,鈥 鈥渇rameworks,鈥 and 鈥渃urriculum guidelines鈥 risks muddying a public dialogue about an important issue.
鈥淐urriculum is not always easy to define. But it鈥檚 crucial that we have clear understandings of what we mean by terms like this,鈥 said J. Wesley Null, an associate professor of curriculum and the foundations of education at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. 鈥淥therwise, we have curriculum being implemented that doesn鈥檛 do what states or districts hope it will do.鈥
Local Control
As controversial as standards can be, curriculum can make people even more nervous because it edges closer to the classroom and to defining content, some experts say.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 where dicey decisions need to get made. And curriculum, done really well, is going to involve some pedagogical decisions,鈥 said Kathleen Porter-Magee, a former curriculum director for a charter school network who now oversees the standards program for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank. for a 鈥渃ore curriculum鈥 was attacked in some quarters as a threat to local control over what is taught. The 200 signatories advocated crafting one or more voluntary, broad outlines of key knowledge and skills, not dictating daily lessons or pedagogy.
Such distinctions are meaningless, said Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. Decisions about even 鈥渂ig ideas鈥 in curriculum will mold what happens in classrooms, he said.
鈥淭he whole point of having national standards is to drive curriculum,鈥 Mr. McCluskey said. 鈥淲hen they start talking about curriculum, they鈥檙e putting meat on the bones of the standards. That gets closer and closer to the students.鈥
Additionally, Mr. McCluskey argued, the common assessments being developed with federal funds by two consortia of states will shape the curriculum. 鈥淭hose tests will have to test something,鈥 he said. 鈥淲hen they test specific readings, we will see that we now have a national curriculum.鈥
Some of the heat in the curriculum debate stems from questions about the degree of granularity at issue. Does 鈥渃urriculum鈥 mean a high-level outline, or the content of a six-week science lesson? That affects the conversation, and it isn鈥檛 always clear.
Michael W. Stetter, Delaware鈥檚 accountability chief, said he thinks of curriculum on two levels: the 鈥渕acro,鈥 or big ideas, in documents such as state standards or frameworks, and the 鈥渕icro,鈥 or what鈥檚 taught in units or marking periods. What sets people off, he said, is talk of managing the micro curriculum.
鈥淲hat rings alarm bells in people鈥檚 minds is this notion of who would be the august body who decides what is worth teaching and what is not,鈥 he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 worse when discussions about curriculum don鈥檛 make clear what it is we are actually talking about.鈥
Some think the debate is too black and white. Heidi Hayes Jacobs, a Rye, N.Y.-based curriculum consultant, said it is possible to agree on central ideas for standards and leave schools to teach them their own way. It鈥檚 a crucial distinction, she said, between guidelines and 鈥渙perational curriculum.鈥
鈥淲hat鈥檚 stirring everything up here is the word 鈥榗ommon,鈥 鈥 she said. 鈥淚t suggests everything is the same, when people know that curriculum has to be responsive. But we can think of 鈥榗ommon鈥 as more like a town common, a place where we all meet.鈥
Public Input
For some educators, concerns in the shared-curriculum debate center on a shift away from the traditional curriculum-development process, in which states most often craft standards and broad outlines and leave districts to design classroom-level plans.
With public entities making those decisions, community members typically have a chance to provide input as boards or committees are shaping them. Some worry that 鈥渟hared curricula鈥濃攈owever high level or close to the classroom鈥攃ould circumvent public access by cutting out the public鈥檚 role.
鈥淎t what point will all these materials be available for public review? When they鈥檙e final?鈥 asked Sandra Stotsky, who helped shape Massachusetts鈥 standards and curriculum frameworks when she worked in the state department of education. 鈥淭he point of a public, civic process is to allow time for public input, feedback, and revision.鈥
Some privately financed efforts to build instructional resources for the common standards are already using an open, iterative process. Curriculum maps created by the Common Core organization in Washington, for instance, are posted on the group鈥檚 website and are undergoing constant revision as teachers and others examine and react to them, said President Lynne Munson.
鈥淭here is a certain unease about curriculum creation because it connects to content, and there have been various wars in recent decades about reading lists and such,鈥 said Ms. Munson. 鈥淲e are trying to navigate those admittedly difficult waters. ... We would be fools to create materials in a process that doesn鈥檛 draw on the tremendous wisdom of a public-review process.鈥
Leaders of both state assessment consortia鈥攖he SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, or SBAC, and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC鈥攖old Education Week that their array of instructional resources will be available for review, feedback, and revision while they are being written.
Michael Cohen, the president of Achieve, a Washington-based group that serves as PARCC鈥檚 managing partner, noted that the content frameworks, model instructional units, and other products are being created not by private staff members 鈥渋n a cubbyhole,鈥 but by the states themselves. Joe Willhoft, the executive director of the SBAC, said that consortium鈥檚 exemplar curriculum units, prototype formative assessments, and other tools will undergo a process of creation, use, feedback, and revision.
Federal Meddling?
Some in education policy circles have questioned whether the state assessment consortia鈥檚 plans to produce instructional resources violate restrictions on federal involvement in curriculum.
While federal grants have often supported curriculum development, sections of federal law bar the government from dictating what is taught.
Responding to questions about the use of federal funds for curriculum work, a senior official from the U.S. Department of Education said the department awarded supplemental Race to the Top money to the state consortia to help them transition to the common standards and assessments.
The official noted that the department did not dictate or control how the states planned to make that shift, but accepted the consortia鈥檚 proposals for doing so. Additionally, department officials said, no state is obligated to use the consortia鈥檚 materials because the funds are part of a discretionary grant.
