Core Curriculum
David Coleman will be the next president of the College Board.  What is the College Board?

From a NY Times article:

. . .  a membership organization of high schools and colleges that administers the SAT, the Advanced Placement program and other standardized tests, helped design the standards — an outline of what students should learn in English and math from kindergarten through high school — meant to ensure that all high school graduates are prepared for college.        

David Coleman has been influential in advancing core curriculum standards that are being adopted in nearly all 50 states.

What is core curriculum?
In 1812 a group of educators (The Committee of Ten) was formed by the National Education Association to answer some educational questions and establish standards.  The questions included:

• Should wrote memorization or critical thinking be emphasized?
• Should high school should prepare all students for College, or it should divide them into College-bound and working-trade groups and educate them differently.
• Should standardized classes for all students should be the classics, or they should be practical studies.

As is common in our society, each position had it's divisive backers. The Committee of Ten issued a report which recommended twelve years of education wherein all students would be taught, regardless of their future education plans.  Further conferences for the establishment of curriculum standards were also recommended.  Over time the movement has snowballed with some help from Columbia and Chicago Universities and now has been adopted by nearly all of the 50 states.

In 1999 the University of Chicago announced it would roll back some of its curriculum requirements to offer a wider range of educational experience. The National Association of Scholars responded:

It is truly depressing to observe a steady abandonment of the University of Chicago's once imposing undergraduate core curriculum, which for so long stood as the benchmark of content and rigor among American academic institutions.

Good or Bad?
Getting kids ready for college . . .  good thing.  Learning how to think through exposure to classics . . good thing. Giving direction to all the hours and effort spent in education . . . good thing.  General education on varied subjects to aid in cross subject connections and resulting in a "well-rounded" scholar . . . good thing. However, there is one reason that core curriculum is not a good thing.   It teaches subjects not students.

Core curriculum places familiarity with specific subjects as learning objectives which may at first seem correct. "Learning by Design" by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe is an instructional design textbook for one of my classes. Chapter 1 is titled "Backward Design".  The thrust is that whatever you want to achieve is where you start. So if you want to achieve cognitive facility, then start there and aid students to have an learning experience that achieves that.


First Things First
Still not concerned about core curriculum?  I don't blame you.  Here is why you should be: thinking skills such as prediction, modeling, planning, determining causality, are higher order learning objectives than core curriculum. So are social skills such as teamwork, persuasion, and clear communication.

Many autodidacts show the value of individuals who pursue their learning interests.  Without the influence of core curriculum or formal education Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer, Ben Franklin learned to write and persuade, Ansel Adams learned the art of photography, Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, Ted Turner made millions, and George Washington became the Father of the nation (a list of Autodidacts including Chuck Yeager, Abigail Adams, Jane Goodal and more).   Which classics were written by college graduates?  Not many.

We may consider, "our k-12 schools are hampered with many classroom management issues, lack of funds, or other problems unrelated to curriculum and the system and therefore we don't see the results we want."  However, the problem is not unique to k-12.  Richar Arum and Josipa Roksa followed 2,300 students at 24 universities for four years. The study measured improvement in critical thinking and writing skills, as well as  how much they studied and how many papers they wrote for their courses.  There results are detailed in the book  Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. The result?  Over a third of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills after four years at a university.

Once the right objectives are placed first, then we can begin to design a proper learning system.