Curriculum & Instruction

U.S. economy has shed more than eight million jobs since 2008, and has created
only two million new jobs in that same period of time, resulting in not only a
high number of unemployed people, but also a high number of job vacancies. A
recent report by The Hamilton Project
attributes this contradictory statistic to the nation’s schools doing a poor
job of graduating students who are career-ready. With a lack of qualified
applicants, employers are settling for the cheapest employees rather than the
most qualified employees, or worse, leaving jobs vacant all together. Or, as in
the case of Apple and other great companies, moving the jobs to China where the
labor force is ready, willing, and able to do the work.

order to provide students with skills necessary to obtain decent jobs that pay
a middle class wage, the author argues that students need career counseling in
high school that does not simply herd students toward bachelor’s degrees, but
directs them to career certificates or associate’s degrees, as well. College
dropout rates could be lessened if students were...

week on the Core Knowledge blog, Robert Pondiscio called for the end
of seven classroom practices that don’t work
. Four of the seven practices
dealt with standards- and data-driven instruction—or, really, the
bastardization of standards- and data-driven instruction. The crux of
Pondiscio’s argument is right on the money: Standards-driven instruction is
only as good as the standards and assessments that are used to drive
instruction, and reading standards (and/or assessments) that prioritize empty
reading skills over content are sure to steer our teachers wrong.

Pondiscio’s post distracts from that point by deriding some practices that,
when done well, can be used to powerfully drive student achievement.

for example, data-driven instruction. Pondiscio is right that “using data in
half-baked or simplistic ways” is going to do very little to drive student
learning. But the answer is not to abandon data-driven instruction writ large,
but rather to encourage teachers to use data thoughtfully and purposefully.
There aren’t nearly enough examples (or quality PD purveyors) that demonstrate
how this can be done and done well. We need more.

There is no question...

week, a report was released by Education First and the EPE Research
Center entitled Preparing
for Change
. The report is the first in a series of three that will look
at whether states have developed Common Core implementation plans that address
three areas of CCSS implementation:

  • Developing a plan for teacher
    professional development,
  • planning to align/revamp
    state-created curricular and instructional materials, and
  • making changes to teacher evaluation systems.

CCSS supporters cheered at the report’s main finding, which indicated that all
but one state—Wyoming—“reported
having developed some type of formal implementation plan for transitioning to
the new, common standards.” There is cause for excitement—this is a clear
indication that states are taking CCSS implementation seriously and that they
are working to reorient their education systems to the new standards.

said, while developing implementation plans is an important first step, it’s
far more critical to ensure that those plans are worth following—that they
properly identify the gaps in teacher knowledge and skill so that they can

Pretty much everybody favors better “civics education” in
our schools and colleges. Pretty much everybody who thinks about such matters
is alarmed that barely a quarter of U.S. school kids were at or above the
“proficient” level on the 2010 NAEP assessment of civics—and that achievement
at the twelfth-grade level is slipping even though just about all
students “take civics” in high school. Almost everyone has encountered ample
examples of students (and adults!) who cannot answer the most rudimentary
questions about how the government is organized, what “separation of powers” or
“checks and balances” means, how many senators their states have (much less their
names), and more.

is, indeed, a modern platitude that “we must do something to improve Americans’
knowledge of civics and government.”

there is a problem in civics education, a sort of dividing line, about which
there is far less agreement across society. On one side, we find an emphasis on
infusing kids with basic knowledge about government, an understanding of the
merits (as well as the shortcomings) of American democracy, and a sense of what

Earlier this week, the National Center
for Science Education—an organization devoted to “defending the teaching of
evolution and climate science”—launched a new initiative to promote the
teaching of climate change in schools. But they didn't settle for conveying the
solid scientific fact that the climate (almost everywhere) is indeed changing.
They want causality and they enter into policy, politics and civic
. In the Center's formulation, schools should teach children that,
while “climate has changed in the past…now it is changing because humans have
become a force of nature and are altering the flow of matter and energy on the
planet.” What's more, climate change needs to be taught in schools so that
“future citizens to be able to make scientifically informed decisions about the
consequences of climate change.”

But can we really equate people who question evolution with
those who question the science behind what causes (and what, if anything, might
ameliorate) climate change? According to
NCSE’s executive director, Eugenie Scott, “Both [groups] are making a pedagogical argument, that it is somehow
good pedagogy, good critical thinking, for students to learn both. That...

the past decade, education reform advocates on both the state and national
level have demonstrated an almost single-minded focus on various “structural
reforms”: setting standards, adopting assessments, establishing clear
accountability for results, providing school leaders greater autonomy and
flexibility, injecting greater competition and choice into school funding
systems, etc. But, by focusing on structural reforms over getting
classroom-level curriculum and instruction right, are reformers missing the

Jobrack thinks so. In fact, she’s written a book— The Tyranny of theTextbook: An Insider Exposes How Educational Materials Undermine Reform—that
argues, essentially, that it’s curriculum, not structural reform, that has the
greatest potential to drive student achievement.

Standards alone will do little
to drive student achievement if they’re not meaningfully implemented.

has a point—as we’ve long said here at Fordham, standards alone will do little
to drive student achievement if they’re not meaningfully implemented (via,
among other things, a thoughtfully designed curriculum). In fact, few state and
national education reformers would disagree with Jobrack about the importance
of curriculum and instruction in driving student achievement. So why do so few

Hearken back to junior high
and high school for a moment.  What “historical documents” were you taught
in social studies and American history classes?  The U.S. Constitution?
Your state’s constitution?  What about the Declaration of Independence or
the Federalist Papers?  The Northwest Ordinance (especially if you grew up
in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota)?

My entire K-12 education
was in Ohio public schools.  When it came to history, I didn’t take any
electives or special courses beyond whatever was required for me to earn a
diploma.  Yet, I was taught all of these important historical texts,
multiple times, from seventh grade through twelfth.  So I was surprised to
see bills moving through the Ohio legislature that would require
schools to teach what I thought were standard fare for Ohio’s students. In
fact, at first blush it seemed implausible to me that many schools weren’t
already doing so.

My husband, also an Ohio
public school alum (from a quote-unquote better district than I attended), had
a different reaction when I told him about the legislation. He guessed at least
two-thirds of students...

all the excitement in the buildup to the New
Hampshire primary, one important educational
development seems to have gotten overshadowed. Last week, a New Hampshire law allowing parents to demand
alternatives to curricular materials that they find objectionable took effect.
It could have far reaching consequences not just in the Granite State but—if it
catches on—for schools across the country.

the law (which was passed over the governor’s veto) requires all districts to
adopt a policy that:

“…include[s] a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian
to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material
to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative agreed upon by
the school district and the parent, at the parent’s expense, sufficient to
enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular
subject area.”
Do parents not have a right to
ask that assignments not insult their beliefs and teachings?

a post on Curriculum Matters last week, Erik Robelen explained
that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch “said the measure was too vague...

The latest installment of the Fordham Institute’s Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning  series investigates one of the more controversial aspects of digital learning: How much does it cost? In this paper, the Parthenon Group uses interviews with more than fifty vendors and online-schooling experts to estimate today's average per-pupil cost for a variety of schooling models, traditional and online, and presents a nuanced analysis of the important variance in cost between different school designs. These ranges—from $5,100 to $7,700 for full-time virtual schools, and $7,600 to $10,200 for the blended version—highlight both the potential for low-cost online schooling and the need for better data on costs and outcomes in order for policymakers to reach confident conclusions related to the productivity and efficiency of these promising new models.   Download "The Costs of Online Learning" to learn more.

In this first of six papers on digital learning commissioned by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Frederick M. Hess explores the challenges of quality control. As he notes, “one of the great advantages of online learning is that it makes ‘unbundling’ school provision possible—that is, it allows children to be served by providers from almost anywhere, in new and more customized ways.  But taking advantage of all the opportunities online learning offers means that there is no longer one conventional “school” to hold accountable. Instead, students in a given building or district may be taking courses (or just sections of courses) from a variety of providers, each with varying approaches to technology, instruction, mastery, and so forth….Finding ways to define, monitor, and police quality in this brave new world is one of the central challenges in realizing the potential of digital learning.”

Addressing this challenge is the purpose of Hess’s groundbreaking contribution. Use the link to the right to download the paper.