Eduwonk and Russo question the NY Times’ “narrowing the curriculum” spin on the Center for Education Policy report, which says schools are spending somewhat more time on reading and math to meet federal targets under No Child Left Behind. In addition, The Quick and the Ed points out that low-performing urban schools usually didn’t offer “rich” classes in art,music, science, etc. pre-NCLB.
3 Responses to “Spinning the narrowing”
Comments are currently closed.
Narrowing the curriculum seems to me to be a big mistake — especially in low income schools. If my middle class child shows promise in art or music, I can get her outside lessons so that she can progress. If a child is in a family that can’t afford that, exceptional skills in art or music could decline while the child is trying to master grouping in math.
NCLB requires only basic proficiency in math and reading. States need to define basic proficiency reasonably. Then, in judging schools, state reporting should include measures of art, music and science proficiency and involvement as well as the math and language measures required by NCLB.
If your middle class child shows promise in art and music but is illiterate, what’s your first priority?
That’s the situation that more closely approximates the reality of large urban school districts and the same priorities ought to apply. On the basis of the statistics though, they don’t.
As a responsible parent, there can’t be much doubt about your action or the urgency you’d attach to it. If your middle class child can’t read then they’re screwed. Probably for life. If they can’t play a musical instrument they aren’t. Why should kids in low income schools have a different set of priorities?
I’d personally welcome some sort of narrowed national curriculum. Create a new national HS degree that is evaluated by a series of standardized tests, and require that all schools receiving Federal money offer it. Allow the schools to offer their own state or local degrees, but eventually the national degree will take hold since it allows colleges and employers to compare easily. The testing and policy making should be well enough above the level of parents and school boards that there will be no pressure to ease the requirements.
A national curriculum would also serve to bring all the teacher prep programs into line, as they all would have to address the same curricula in their training.
Now, I’m not saying that every student should be forced to go for the national degree, they should have the option of going for whatever degree that state or district normally offers.