Curriculum 21

Essential Education for a Changing World

Heidi Hayes Jacobs

• Publisher: ASCD
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781416612247
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

"What year are you preparing your students for? 1973? 1995? Can you honestly say that your school's curriculum and the program you use are preparing your students for 2015 or 2020? Are you even preparing them for today?"

With those provocative questions, author and educator Heidi Hayes Jacobs launches a powerful case for overhauling, updating, and injecting life into the K-12 curriculum. Sharing her expertise as a world-renowned curriculum designer and calling upon the collective wisdom of 10 education thought leaders, Jacobs provides insight and inspiration in the following key areas:

* Content and assessment--How to identify what to keep, what to cut, and what to create, and where portfolios and other new kinds of assessment fit into the picture.
* Program structures--How to improve our use of time and space and groupings of students and staff.
* Technology--How it's transforming teaching, and how to take advantage of students' natural facility with technology.
* Media literacy--The essential issues to address, and the best resources for helping students become informed users of multiple forms of media.
* Globalization--What steps to take to help students gain a global perspective.
* Sustainability--How to instill enduring values and beliefs that will lead to healthier local, national, and global communities.
* Habits of mind--The thinking habits that students, teachers, and administrators need to develop and practice to succeed in school, work, and life.

The answers to these questions and many more make Curriculum 21 the ideal guide for transforming our schools into what they must become: learning organizations that match the times in which we live.

Chapter 1

A New Essential Curriculum for a New Time

by Heidi Hayes Jacobs

I often wonder if many of our students feel like they are time traveling as they walk through the school door each morning. As they cross the threshold, do they feel as if they are entering a simulation of life in the 1980s? Then, at the end of the school day, do they feel that they have returned to the 21st century? As educators, our challenge is to match the needs of our learners to a world that is changing with great rapidity. To meet this challenge, we need to become strategic learners ourselves by deliberately expanding our perspectives and updating our approaches.

In Understanding by Design (2005), Wiggins and McTighe reinforce their well-respected axiom that we should determine "what it is we want students to know and be able to do" before we start short-sighted activity writing for the classroom. They are asking us to stop, reflect, and make intelligent choices, and to engage in "backward design" by beginning with the end in mind. They are asking us to be deliberate and forward-thinking as well. Designing backward does not mean going backward.

What concerns me is that when the crucial step of looking forward is missed, we are restricted by "what we know" and "what we are able to do." In a sense, many schools and leaders compose well-intended but antiquated mission statements reminiscent of the past century. Running schools and using curriculum on a constant replay button no longer works. It is critical that we become active researchers and developers of innovations and new directions.

To provide a context for the chapters in this book, I would like to share some problems, themes, and counter-themes regarding the reason we sometimes seem stuck during what should be a dynamic and exciting age in education. I will also touch on a few of the critical points to be discussed by our remarkable team of writers.

The Cavernous Curriculum: Old Habits Run Deep

What are the roots of our school-related habits and dated curriculum? The Committee of Ten, appointed at the meeting of the National Educational Association in 1892, shared their findings at Saratoga Springs, New York, on December 4, 1893. (The report is available at http://tmh.floonet.net/books/commoften/mainrpt.html.) With the move away from agriculture and the advent of the industrial revolution, more children were going to school. By the late 1800s, educators across the United States had identified a need for educational standardization.

It was a contentious time, with competing viewpoints, pedagogies, and approaches regarding how school should be organized and the nature of the curriculum. Some educators favored critical thinking, whereas others preferred rote memorization. One philosophy considered high schools in the United States solely as institutions that would, from the start, divide students into college-bound and working-trades groups (sometimes based on race or ethnic background). This preference was in contrast with another viewpoint that attempted to provide standardized courses for all students. On the curricular front, debates took place over whether classical Latin and Greek or practical studies should be at the core. All this debate led to the final report from the Committee of Ten that recommended that all students—whether college bound or work oriented—should be taught the same curriculum. Schooling would take place over 12 years—8 for the elementary grades (in which we now include middle school) and 4 for high school.

The effect of this 19th century committee is seen to this very day. The academic program was predicated on English, history, civics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics on the high school level. In practice, this focus led directly to the decisions made in elementary school as a means of reaching the high school curriculum. This was not a developmental approach. It is noteworthy that famed developmental psychologist Jean Piaget was born in 1896, too late to redirect the committee's notion of who children are and what they can learn.

In fact, schools were not designed for children. Rather, they reflected the factory model of organization resulting from the ascension of industry and economic expansion between 1897 and 1921, which ultimately was applied to education as well as business (Feldman, 1999). With roughly 180 instructional days based on an agrarian calendar and a six-hour day with eight subjects, the standardization took hold. It still holds children, teachers, and communities in a fierce grip.

Although we have had a century of fascinating innovation, experimentation, and exciting ideas since the committee issued its report, the artifacts speak. Simply by picking up a school catalogue or guide, one can see clearly that the Committee of Ten reigns. The concept of what a school is does not need reform—it needs new forms.

Currently, there are legislative and educative efforts that, on the surface, appear to attack the problem of responsible education for our nation's students. Prominent among them is the standards movement.

Fifty Countries: Which Standards Movement?

In the United States, one dominant influence in schools during the first decade of the 21st century has been the focus on establishing clearly delineated standards as a means of setting high learning targets. I have often heard the catchphrase "standards, not standardization." The implication is that teachers need latitude to help individual learners reach proficiency targets. Yet, in practice, classroom experience too often locks in rigid standardization with an overemphasis on low-level testing and dated standards. The intention may be to help schools reach for targets, but the reality is that often educators feel that teaching to the test is what counts, and the tests are often suspect in terms of value.

A prevailing myth is that the standards movement exists to prepare students for their future. I wonder which particular standards movement we are talking about? There is no national movement for standards in my country; there are, in effect, 50 countries. Imagine that 50 basketball teams are playing, and every court has the basket in a different place and at a different height. How would you rank the teams? How could you even tell the winners from the losers? The disparities between states on the number of standards, the actual standards themselves, and the graduation testing requirements are so vast as to be startling. It often seems that in mathematics, the overwhelming majority of the actual assessment items are reductive copies of what came out of 1950s textbooks as multiple-choice items.

Consider this finding from one of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports, which compared state proficiency standards to the NAEP standards:

There is a strong negative correlation between the proportions of students meeting the states' proficiency standards and the NAEP score equivalents to those standards, suggesting that the observed heterogeneity in states' reported percents proficient can be largely attributed to differences in the stringency of their standards. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. iii)

These disparities have direct and mighty repercussions on the testing that emerges.

To be blunt, some states have lower standards than others in order to meet No Child Left Behind (NCLB) expectations. In an article in the New York Times, Susan Saulny (2005) points out that the disparities between the NAEP and the individual states are critical: "The comparisons suggest how widely the definition of ‘proficient’ varies from state to state, as each administers its own exams and sets its own performance standards."

When it comes to education, the United States are not united. The state systems are in parallel universes. But there is a larger question. It is not only the wide-ranging standards that are problematic, but also the focus on highly reductive testing in many of the states. Whereas one state may have archaic approaches in almost every field of study, a neighboring state might have a more contemporary approach. Let's say Johnny has been steeped in three years of learning his state's history when his family moves across the border and he enrolls in a new school, where he will engage in two full years of global studies, learning about political, economic, and historical issues from all parts of the world. Which state will best prepare him for his future?

We need to make choices. Policymakers and education leaders do make choices, and these affect whether Johnny will be a literate, aware, and prepared citizen of his country and his world. As Tony Wagner emphasizes, preparation for future work situations requires teaching learners "to use their minds well" rather than testing them reductively (Wagner, 2008, p. 8). I do not support the notion of one national curriculum, but I do believe there are other possibilities, such as a national array of thoughtful, well-articulated curriculum options. The extraordinary amount of effort and energy that goes into each state's efforts is pointedly redundant.

Signs of Progress

There are some interesting new directions in motion as the Council of Chief State School Officers has commissioned committees to develop potential national standards in reading and mathematics. In addition, a workgroup is developing a set of global competencies for potential adoption by the states. All these groups will produce documents in the next few years that undoubtedly will receive careful review. Nonetheless, as long as the United States views education as a state area of focus, our public schools will find that geography is destiny and that the local school board has exceptional power over the direction an individual school will take. In some ways, it appears that each state education department will ultimately have the greatest influence over school boards and policies in the years ahead. Having established some concerns, it is important to acknowledge some promising signs of state education departments showing 21st century leadership in curricular policy development.

In New Jersey, three specific goals have been set to ensure that the new standards (1) address global perspectives; (2) employ 21st century digital and networking tools; and (3) identify salient interdisciplinary linkages for real-world applications. There has been an impressive emphasis in their rethinking of curriculum frameworks and standards to thoughtfully clarify work based on a range of meaningful principles of practices including enduring understandings, meaningful essential questions, mapped vertical articulation, balanced literacy, formative assessments, and future career proficiencies.

Another example is the state of Rhode Island, with its innovative and forward-thinking portfolio requirement for graduation. Each student develops a digital portfolio of self-selected work that matches standards. The work evolved from the 2003 Board of Regents high school regulations and became standard practice in 2008. This requirement means that before receiving a diploma, each student will have shown that it was earned with work going back to kindergarten. (See Chapter 9 for more about this innovative approach to accountability.)

The Hawaii State Education Department was a leader long before other states in providing all of its schools with a common Internet-based program with the proper infrastructure for communication. In part because of the state's geography, the Internet provided a marvelous alternative to costly air travel for state education meetings. Years before any other state, the Hawaii State Education Department was creating video modules for professional development and videoconferencing "bridges" between the complexes (districts) on all of the islands.

There are certainly other pockets of innovation, but many standards documents seem strikingly dated. Given that the focus of education is local in the United States, this book attempts to charge the debate with specific ideas for consideration as we open the menu of options and approaches for the 21st century.

Upgrading Curriculum and Developing New Versions of School

The word essential comes from the Latin esse, meaning "to be." When combined with Webster's definition, "to distill to the core," the application to curriculum making is clear. New essential curriculum will need revision—actual replacements of dated content, skills, and assessments with more timely choices.

The steps and strategies presented here can focus a faculty on upgrading specific elements of the existing curriculum with more engaging and powerful selections. It is a nonthreatening approach that can be worked into the school culture gradually. Rather than a change model, it is a growth model. Change in schools can often feel trendy and superficial, whereas growth is positive and deep. All members of a professional learning community should arguably be committed to growth, and the model described in this book has proven to be a useful set of practices to develop a 21st century curriculum.

The Need for New Versions of School

A dynamic look at what needs to be new and essential in curriculum necessitates a corresponding, bold reconsideration of "the place called school." Four key program structures affect curriculum: the schedule (both short and long term); the way we group our learners; personnel configurations; and the use of space (both physical and virtual). Because curriculum is housed in these programmatic structures, they hinder or support implementation as well. Curriculum changes will not be enough. Frustration abounds among educators as some try to amend, adjust, and revise within the tight confines of 19th century structures. These efforts can actually make the problems worse as dissatisfaction arises among teachers and students. Education is about growth, not designed malaise.

If we are attempting to move to a more essential set of choices for curriculum, then we need to make corresponding shifts in these four structural areas. To me, a major change in these structures is the more challenging task. For example, as creatures of habit, we are used to 13 years of school, kindergarten through 12th grade, although I hope to make the case that this structure is dated, inhibiting, even negative. The fact that teachers and students come to school for the same hours every day supports a kind of entrenched monotony. The actual design of the physical space limits the types of learning experiences that students can have as well as how frequently teachers will have opportunities to interact with one another. We know that multi-age groups, accompanied by thoughtfully grouped personnel for our young learners, have proven to be extremely effective, yet we isolate our teachers within self-contained classrooms. Frankly, the phrase itself suggests a kind of narcissistic alcove cordoned off from others (a self-container). We are accustomed to the isolation. It is part of our school habit. And perhaps this isolation from the larger world is why too many of our students drop out and leave school. Many of them who stay in school leave mentally. The old habit of school structures needs to be altered to match the time in which we live.

Form should support function and not lead it. These very forms that we put our curriculum into have a great deal to do with the difficulties curriculum planners have in developing contemporary and riveting opportunities for our learners. We have 1930s schedules, grouping patterns, and spaces; and so the curriculum follows. Form should follow function. And now more than ever, we have genuinely new forms to work with that do not seem to be breaking into and replacing these restricted structures. The very fact that I can access e-mail, curriculum maps, and plans at my convenience from anywhere in the world is astonishing. Yet we still see curriculum binders holding reams of paper on a shelf in a principal's office.

I would ask that we examine some attitudes and assumptions prevalent in our communities and in ourselves as we take on the task of designing new curriculums and new schools.

Myths That Shape Our Operational Visions of School

At our best, we operate on beliefs and values that show in our organizations and clearly in curriculum and instructional practice. I would like to point out three prevailing myths that often prove to be genuine obstacles in creating viable changes in the curriculum and our school programs. In turn, in the following chapters we propose tenets to replace those myths as operational points of departure to take action for the 21st century curriculum.

Myth #1—The good old days are still good enough. Adults tend to have positive memories of school and to feel comfortable re-creating the same setting for each subsequent generation. Perhaps keeping schools in time-check allows us to remember our youth and our childhood. We recall our own experiences, good and bad, and reason that we will know how to prepare our children for school because we have been there before. New kinds of schools and new kinds of curriculum create some insecurity, though I would argue that the real insecurity comes from not growing or changing. Schools stay the same, and communities collude. Schools often are mirrors of what a culture values and aspires to. Those communities that have been able to create and sustain engaging innovation want growth, not nostalgia. There are real dangers in glorifying the good old days and clinging to our schools' myths and stories. How can we grow the curriculum if schools are shackled by memories?

I certainly know that rethinking the curriculum, however boldly, will prove insufficient. It is not enough to shape and reshape epistemology. Economics and community views of schooling restrict or enhance possibilities. Education is a practical field, a place where hopes and dreams for the young are realized or lost. Real children with real parents, in real places, with real teachers, real bus schedules, real buildings, and real budgets determine how the curriculum is put into operation. Parents, school board members, business leaders, policymakers, and community members care deeply about their children, and many of them bring a necessary perspective to education concerns. These groups are critical to successful learning and are becoming increasingly involved with breaking out of the shackles that confine genuine progress. There will also be those who hold onto the 20th (if not the 19th) century. I ask only that the mission statements of the latter be altered to reflect their choice. Be honest with the children.

Myth #2—We're better off if we all think alike—and not too much. America has a love/hate relationship with being educated that is also reflected in our schools. There are those who use the word elite in a pejorative sense when referring to a well-educated person who has made a significant accomplishment. Societal attitudes of a country and a culture directly affect its education systems. As we consider choices for our learners, we need to think like anthropologists and historians for a moment. We need to consider the attitudes that dominate our systems and our nation.

With fierce intellect and focused passion, Susan Jacoby in The Age of American Unreason (2008) dissects the underlying forces that have shifted the original tradition of argument, debate, soaring rhetoric, and vigorous exchange that was the basis for the United States. Countervailing forces breeding narrowness, dogma, and fear of ideas have grown stronger and stronger, with frightening results. For those who want to cultivate a deeper and more reflective view, she points to the fact that the current tendency is to limit ourselves to those with whom we already agree. The greatest American tradition is to deliberately expose ourselves to those with whom we do not agree.

I believe we need a return of the contrarian tradition in our curriculum choices. Our greatest political leaders have been thinkers who could convey direction and provide comfort. But those we venerate the most are those who challenged us to grow and to consider new ideas and possibilities as well as to fight for those notions that needed protection. Whatever one's personal political views, certainly the ideas of Lincoln, Adams, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Stevenson, King, Kennedy, Goldwater, Arendt, and Sontag are worth examining. Start your own professional community list of thinkers whose ideas will provoke innovation and reflection.

In our 21st century, there is still a prevailing attitude that to be intellectual is to be effete. Jacoby makes the stark point that the tradition of the rugged individual who makes it on his own is more widely regarded if that person is not educated. Intellects are scoffed at in the United States. They are viewed as snobs or outsiders in the worst type of stereotyping. The fact that our founding fathers were brilliant intellects has had its obvious benefits. A genuine and engaging emphasis on ideas is necessary in determining the curriculum. We should be fearless about ideas and openly engage in discussion and debate about what should matter in the subject matter.

Myth #3—Too much creativity is dangerous—and the arts are frills. In his book A Whole New Mind, Daniel H. Pink (2006...