Eduwonk and Eduwonkette are fighting about whether No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on reading and math has narrowed the curriculum, crowding out social studies, science and other untested subjects.
NCLB is driving schools to focus only on reading and math, writes Eduwonkette. Incentives matter.
Quality of teaching not the quantity, responds Eduwonk. Low-performing schools that aren’t capable of teaching reading and math without devoting the whole day to it weren’t likely to be teaching social studies effectively in pre-NCLB days, he adds.
In Wonk vs. Wonk, Core Knowledge Blog’s Robert Pondiscio acknowledges that Eduwonkette is right on curriculum narrowing but dumping NCLB is not the answer.
It would be a mistake to simply say the accountability medicine is worse than the disease, so therefore we should go back to living with the disease. If the cure is worse than the disease, then find a better cure.
In response to Eduwonk, he writes:
To frame the issue as quality vs. quantity of teaching is to remain silent on the quality and quantity of the curriculum. Forgive me from straying from the standard homily about a good teacher being the most important factor in student achievement. A good teacher delivering a bad curriculum is, I believe, no more effective than a bad teacher delivering a good curriculum. The content being taught matters at least as much as how well it’s being taught, and both matter more than how much of it is being taught.
At D-Ed Reckoning, Ken DeRosa leans toward Eduwonk’s side: Why argue about how much time should be spent on social studies till schools have figured out how to teach social studies effectively?
. . . properly taught, social studies should teach critical background knowledge that could aid reading comprehension, a tested NCLB subject. However, it is not right to assume that social studies, as it was being taught in these failed schools, was actually teaching this critical background knowledge. I do believe that civics, history and geography are important subjects, but I’m not so sure that social studies, especially poorly taught social studies, is an adequate substitute.
If half the day is spent on reading, there should be time for students to read about history and science. If kids need more time on math, they can be using math to analyze scientific data and historical trends. Good schools do this. Low-performing schools need to learn how.
<<<If half the day is spent on reading, there should be time for students to read about history and science…Good schools do this. Low-performing schools need to learn how.
Hear, hear! Wish I’d said that.
The real question for wonks and wonkettes is that can this country ever accept any national program than impinges on local “priorities”. Or do we want all local programs with the resultant extremely uneven results but the locals are satified because its “local”?
Conversely, if the kids can’t read the text books, you are not going to succeed in teaching them social studies or science. Math is also critical for understanding many parts of these subjects.