Standards don???t mean a thing without that curriculum-swing


Photo by Katherine Johnson

In case you hadn’t heard, a group of 140 (and
education leaders—including Fordham President Chester Finn and some
unlikely confederates (Randi Weingarten and Linda Darling-Hammond, for
two)—have proposed the creation of voluntary common curricular materials.
Federalist eyebrows rise in unison because, inevitably, this sort of thing gets
dubbed a “national curriculum” even though there could be many of them and
they’d all be voluntary for states, districts, schools, and teachers to use as
they see fit. (In fact, our friends at Common Core have already produced a terrific specimen of such
for ELA.) As Finn told Catherine Gewertz of Education Week, providing quality curriculum materials that states,
schools, and teachers may choose to utilize, augment, or ignore shouldn’t rile
people up. The fact that too many of our nation’s students attend schools
teaching content-deficient curricula should. So should the fact that many
teachers have been pleading for sound curricular materials to accompany the
standards they’re charged with bringing to students.

Click to play

Click to listen to commentary on common curricula from the Education Gadfly Show podcast