A National Curriculum

On the subject of a national curriculum from Matthew Yglesias

There are a lot of virtues to this kind of planning. For one thing, if teachers of 7th and 8th grade can know that the national standards for grades five and six dictate that students will “come to understand various ways of dividing history into eras; they will use the concepts of prehistory; history, antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern era correctly” then they can rely on the fact that most incoming 7th graders will be familiar with these ideas. And even better, since teachers across the country are working toward similar end points, it’s possible for people to collaborate, to share knowledge, and to avoid re-inventing the wheel. There’s more than one effective way to teach sixth graders about “Finland under Swedish rule” but there’s not an infinite variety of ways. By putting boundaries on what subjects are going to be covered, you create a situation where a new teacher isn’t expected to do everything from scratch but can, instead, pick up on one of a variety of tried-and-true approaches already in use.

It’s also worth noting that this choice isn’t neutral in its distributive impact. National standards strongly favor the interests of children whose parents move around. That disproportionately means low-SES children. National standards are also useful for children whose parents have relatively little cultural capital. The current patchwork system works okay for most families because most parents are able to do an okay job of filling in most of the key “gaps” that may emerge in their kids’ knowledge. But those families that are unable to do the gap-filling most effectively are disproportionately the poorest ones and, more generally, the families whose kids need the most help.

In my job as an archaeologist I was fortunate enough to work for a non-profit company that specialized in public archaeology, often working with schools. I also spent some time working with museums and historic sites to develop programs  for school children that visit. For many of these institutions field trips are the lifeblood that keeps them afloat.The revenue supports the institution and the word of mouth and interest generated with the kids cements the importance of these places in the community. Often kids will bring their parents back for future visits.

The greatest part of this school / cultural institution symbiosis is the role that the institutions play as educators. Outside-the-classroom education, when done correctly, is an extraordinarily effective tool. Kids that have no interest in science or history often change their minds when they can see and touch the subject of study in these fields. Telling a kid about archaeology is one thing. Putting a trowel in his hand and watching his eyes light up as he pulls an artifact out of the ground is something else entirely.

I can say from experience that one of the more frustrating aspects of public education is dealing with varying curriculums from school district to school district. If you live in a metro area with a few museums and a zoo the best you can hope to draw from is the surrounding counties because it is simply too hard to tailor your programs beyond that geographic base. A national curriculum would change that.

The idea of a national curriculum was discussed by myself and others in the comments of an E.D.Kain post here.  Solid arguments were made both for and against the idea. Today Kain’s fellow League member Mark Thompson has a short piece discussing a new initiative by actor Richard Dreyfuss to get civics curriculum back in the classroom. Dreyfuss should be commended for realizing a gap in the learning for our kids and I think this is a prime example of why we need a national curriculum, at least in certain subjects. Civics is the path to good citizenship and in that respect no other subject matters as much at the national level.

Some say that a national curriculum would stifle creativity and new teaching techniques. To the contrary, I believe it would spur innovation as teachers begin to think of the educational experience in terms of collaboration, knowing that her kids could visit museums on the other side of the country online for ‘virtual tours’ and would be getting curriculum-specific information. Teachers in Rhode Island could work with teachers in Oregon on joint projects. I find it very hard to believe that would not be a rewarding experience.

A national curriculum is not the same as national testing. It simply means creating landmarks on the map of education that all students must visit. The route they take in-between those landmarks would remain the choice of their teachers. If we begin to think of education this way, and as a national effort, I believe we can open a lot of doors that are currently closed to education professionals.