Usually, when the conquered becomes the conqueror, the outcome is far from bloodless.
When Christianity became legal through the Edict of Milan 313 under the Roman emperor Constantine, it provided for the religious freedom of pagan faiths as well, the same faiths that worked to persecute Christians for centuries.
Yet over time, as Constantine chose to eliminate his rivals, what was a potentially newly tolerant society simply replaced one orthodoxy for another, as Christianity became THE state religion of the later empire. Now it was the pagan’s turn to feel the whip and the fire…and no one learned anything.
In education, this cycle of persecution is alive and well—and a good group’s work could be casualty of it all.
Although it took time for me to warm to it, the Core Knowledge Foundation has really become a system I’ve embraced more and more. Founded by former University of Virginia professor E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Core Knowledge is a philosophy that strives to improve education not just through how children learn, but on what they learn. According to their guiding principles:
“For the sake of academic excellence, greater equity, and higher literacy, elementary and middle schools need to teach a coherent, cumulative, and content-specific core curriculum.
The persistent gap in reading achievement in U.S. schools can never be reduced until the knowledge gap is reduced. And the knowledge gap will not be reduced unless broad, rich content knowledge is integrated into the many hours devoted to language arts instruction.”
A long time ago, I did a column on Core Knowledge, critiquing its insistence on certain baskets of knowledge as artificially constricting and inherently subjective—that content needed to drive skills to find further content, and especially critical thinking. It’s flaws notwithstanding, CK has strengths in advancing content knowledge along with language and math skills. It is rigid, to be sure, but allows room for growth due to its ability to be woven into literacy blocks and natural progressions into subject areas that the class can pursue independent of the program.
Core Knowledge seems useful—which is why I was dismayed when I learned that New York City will be pushing for Core Knowledge to be the curriculum of grades K-2.
Maybe this was CK’s goal all along: to make their system mandatory district by district until it becomes the new dogma. I really hope not. History reminds us that when innovation becomes codified in law, it often loses its original intent for other, more sinister goals.
Ask Lucy Calkins, for example.
Her workshop model, designed at Teachers College, was, like Core Knowledge, considered controversial. It stressed too much free writing. It didn’t teach grammar effectively. It didn’t for children to grow in their writing, much of it stuck on writing about how children “feel.”
Then came the Bloomberg administration, and like Constantine of old, the persecuted was allowed into the palace. With little checks from on high, Calkins and her minions had almost free rein in training teachers, designing workshops, creating massive new models of planning and learning that became (and in many cases, still is) the only accepted model of instruction in this city.
What happened? The original model morphed into concepts, models, plans, curriculum maps—most strayed well enough from the original idea of Calkins that it became something of a joke. Add to this the new pressure of standardized tests, and the dream of creating child prodigal writers turned into factories of learning rote models of answering essays, writing about poems and fairy tales, anything to drive up scores.
It was not designed to make kids more knowledgeable, to be sure. But even Calkins has to admit the veneer of official sanction twisted her original goal to the ends of people less than enamored with student success.
This is my ultimate fear for Core Knowledge.
It’s a great system, and used correctly, it can be a lifesaver for kids who struggle with basic skills. Yet the mandate can very easily pervert Dr. Hirsch’s original intention—and it’s already happening.
The alignment of Common Core-based assessments with the CK program already seems like the handwriting on the wall. As the first results are released and the stats show less promise than expected, how will Core Knowledge address the problem? Is it designed to address the problem?
Or worse, will CK be yoked to the Common Core as a beast of burden?
Core Knowledge is too valuable to be left to the education reformers to be slaughtered.