Erica Jacobs: In education, everything old is new again
By: Erica Jacobs
Examiner Columnist
October 14, 2009
"Standards-based curriculum" is the buzz phrase in education, and has been for a long time. When I started teaching college in the mid-'70s, the curriculum was based on readings chosen by the instructor, who never thought about "standards." Students were expected to read great texts and be able to write with clarity and insight.
In the mid-'80s, when I began to teach high school in Fairfax County, "standards" had to be met. All the books we chose to teach fit into the curricular "strands" of reading, writing and speaking. County benchmarks were lists of vague prescriptions like "Students will be able to read in multiple genres from a variety of prose sources."
We justified our choices of books and films by producing paperwork that linked the standards to what we were doing. If I taught "Hamlet" and showed the film, I quoted phrases like "Students will read drama from a range of historical periods," and "Students will participate in viewing activities related to the readings."
It was a game teachers played so we could teach what we loved and thought would kindle student enthusiasm. Citing a "variety of genres" or a "range of periods" could justify reading classics by "dead white guys," or modern poetry by Linda Pastan. Twenty-three years of paperwork illustrates links between everything I taught and the required standards -- but none of it changed what I would have done anyway.
Now the nation is on the verge of adopting a set of guidelines that are intended to put all schools on the same curricular page. The Common Core State Standards Initiative's first recommendations for English are, not surprisingly, the same ones Fairfax County adopted a quarter-century ago. Students still need to read, write and speak in English classes. Listening and technology have been added, as they were in Fairfax 15 years ago. Technology is one of the media requirements designed to support student oral reports.
I have no argument with the soundness of the standards. Yes, students should be taught to read insightfully, write clearly and concretely, give oral reports with appropriate technological supports, and listen carefully and critically. But there's nothing new there. Adopting these national standards will not improve curricula in weak school systems nor alter, for better or worse, schools in strong school systems. Teachers and administrators are what make the difference in schools, not standards or the paperwork generated to justify current teaching practices.
What English teachers at Oakton High School did will be precisely what teachers nationwide will do: They used the language of mandated standards to justify what they taught. Excellent teachers with good instincts for effective teaching practices continued to deliver a high-quality education. Teachers with less passion and poor judgment on effective practices continued to bore students, who continued to spend class time hoping for a fire drill. To those students, it didn't matter that their class was, in theory, helping them read, write, speak and listen effectively.
Theory is just that: theoretical. What education needs is a way to attract smart and enthusiastic teachers, not give all teachers more uniform paperwork to fill out. Improving schools is a flesh and blood endeavor, not a list of standards.
Erica Jacobs, whose column appears Wednesday, teaches at George Mason University. E-mail her at ejacob1@gmu.edu.
More from Erica Jacobs
- Erica Jacobs: What no teacher can prepare for
- Erica Jacobs: Horace's Hope: My educational journey
- Erica Jacobs: I am Horace: More thoughts on Theodore Sizer's progressive Educational Philosophy
- Erica Jacobs: I Am Horace: How Theodore Sizer nailed what really happens in high school
- Erica Jacobs: When words fail us
