Calls for shared curriculum 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 curriculum 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, devised by states and content experts under the guidance of governors and state education chiefs, have been adopted by all but seven states.
Some 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, academic standards and broad outlines called frameworks, with or without model lesson plans and other guidance for teachers, are rolled together and referred to as 鈥渟tate curriculum.鈥� Some school districts purchase off-the-shelf programs they refer to as curricula, and others craft their own.
The multiple meanings of curriculum animate discussions about how to teach the standards. And 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 gets one step 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.
In calling for 鈥渁 core curriculum,鈥� , issued March 7, drew criticism from some who saw its proposal as a threat to local control over what is taught. The 200 signatories鈥攍eaders in education, business, and government鈥攁dvocated crafting one or more voluntary, broad outlines of the key knowledge and skills students need, not dictating daily lesson plans or specifying how teachers should teach.
Such distinctions are meaningless, said Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. It鈥檚 impossible to make a plausible argument that decisions about even 鈥渂ig ideas鈥� in curriculum won鈥檛 prescribe 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. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a tricky semantic debate we鈥檙e having, but those 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� (鈥淭ough Work Begins for Race to Top Assessment Winners,鈥� September 14, 2010.)
Macro vs. Micro
Some of the heat in the curriculum debate stems from questions about the degree of granularity at issue. Whether 鈥渃urriculum鈥� means a high-level outline or whether it means the content of a six-week science lesson affects the conversation. And those meanings aren鈥檛 always clear.
Michael W. Stetter, who oversees curriculum and instruction for the state of Delaware, said he thinks of curriculum on two levels: the 鈥渕acro,鈥� or the big ideas, which reside in documents such as state standards or frameworks, and the 鈥渕icro,鈥� or what gets taught marking period by marking period. What sets people off, he said, is when talk turns to management of 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 are frustrated by the black-and-white nature of the debate. Heidi Hayes Jacobs, a Rye, N.Y.-based consultant who trains educators nationwide on curriculum, said it is entirely possible to agree on central ideas for the common 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�
In the medical field, doctors might consult guidelines for the field鈥檚 expertise in treating appendicitis, but still base each case鈥檚 course of treatment on the patient鈥檚 specifics, Ms. Jacobs said.
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 in their creation.
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 was a state board member there. 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 already are doing this in 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. Teachers are worried about being scripted, and for good reason. 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 澳门跑狗论坛 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, the Washington-based group formed by governors and business leaders 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. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, for instance, says that federal officials may not 鈥渕andate, direct, or control鈥� a state鈥檚, district鈥檚 or school鈥檚 鈥渟pecific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum or program of instruction.鈥�
Responding to questions about the use of federal funds for curriculum work, a senior official from the U.S. Department of Education said that the department awarded supplemental Race to the Top assessment 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 proposed to make that transition, but accepted the consortia鈥檚 proposals for doing so. Additionally, department officials said, no state is obligated to use the materials the consortia create because the funding is part of a discretionary grant.
