Open the door to new worlds: Poor kids have a right to Shakespeare, Bach, Plato
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jun 2
- 1 min read
There is nothing compassionate about teaching an easier, more familiar, "culturally relevant" curriculum to disadvantaged children, writes Mark McCourt on EMaths, a British blog. It's condescension.
Speaking the language of care, some argue that children in poverty "should be shielded from the rigour of canonical texts, or complex scientific ideas, or abstract mathematics, he writes. "That Shakespeare is beyond them. That Bach is meaningless to them. That the laws of thermodynamics belong to someone else’s world."
School "is meant to offer new worlds," writes McCourt. "It is meant to take the child by the hand and lead them to places they never knew existed, places beyond their post code, places they have every right to belong."
To offer a demanding, powerful curriculum to every child is not elitist. It is egalitarian. It says to the child: You are worthy of this knowledge. You are capable of wrestling with complexity. You deserve access to the accumulated wisdom and accomplishments of those who came before you. This is your birthright and it is now yours to own and protect.
"A great teacher meets a child where they are, but refuses to leave them there," McCourt writes. "They build the bridge across the gap," and refuse to pretend that there is no gap.
Educators are "not gatekeepers," he concludes. "We are door openers."
To have a "Ta demanding, powerful curriculum to every child" means accepting higher failure rates and larger achievement gaps. That is a politically impossibility in current U.S. politics.
I can see why the attitude Mr. McCourt describes is wide spread among members of the educational bureaucracy. It appeals to their laziness and their sense of superiority. It gives an excuse for their failures. Actual teaching takes hard work.