The Progressive Case for a Common Curriculum
Today, Robert Pondiscio once again writes to Deborah Meier.
Dear Deborah,
This may be a first for Bridging Differences. I make a progressive argument and you push back with a conservative response. I want schools to give the children of the poor and marginalized the base of knowledge the privileged take for granted; I want the disenfranchised to command the language of power, and your response is that if any single best practice dominates schooling, "it undermines liberty, democracy, and progress, in general." My friends at the libertarian Cato Institute will surely agree and applaud.
How did this happen? We have not bridged any differences. We have passed each other mid-span heading in opposite directions!
I am making the case for common curriculum as indispensible to teaching for social justice, educating for democracy, and maximizing personal liberty. With the utmost respect I must hold your feet to the fire here, Deb, and ask you again: Do you believe there is any content in any subject that every school should teach and that every child should know? If so, please cite some examples. And if not, why not?
I confess I'm not surprised you rejected my suggestion that we start with the U.S. Citizenship Test. It's obviously nowhere close to cataloging all one needs to know to be an active, engaged citizen. But its mere existence establishes an important principle. Americans, through our democratic, representative process, have decided this is the rock-bottom baseline of factual knowledge for citizenship. We may not agree on the test's content, but we must respect the rule of law. Do you believe we can morally and lawfully make knowledge demands, however trivial, of one
