New York City! That’s even more impressive than winning the citywide debate contests. The selective high schools have apparently learned that eighth graders from Jeff Litt’s schools will flourish in the later grades. They are not only knowledgeable; they are mature in their ethics and self-
discipline.
Consider the wider implications of these consistent successes. If you lived in the Bronx, and one of Jeff’s schools was your regular neighborhood public school, then your child would love school and not wish to leave.
Your child would be so well schooled that he or she could attend a top high school. Imagine such public schools all over the nation; the fortunes of the United States, both economically and socially would soar. Its unity and competence would rise.
So, what is Jeff’s secret? There are two characteristics that any American elementary school could duplicate. The first is an explicit, planned-out curriculum with the topics clearly defined for all; a curriculum that engages not just the children but also the teachers and the parents. (There’s nothing magical involved.) Any similarly specific sequence of topics would work equally well. To see what Jeff’s curriculum is, you can download it for free6 from the Core Knowledge Foundation. (It’s too massive to reproduce here.) The second characteristic of Jeff’s schools is a low-pressure atmosphere that does not insist on every child reaching the desired goal right away. This aspect reflects Jeff’s special humaneness, and it is the origin of the school’s motto: “Every child is gifted; some just take longer to unwrap.” Indirect social pressure no doubt plays a big role in motivating the child. But the gentle, noninsistent pressure from within that each child feels as a member of the group is equally significant.
A third key element of the schools’ culture is that no class is permitted to exceed eighteen students. That restriction was written into Jeff’s original charter almost twenty years ago. Small classes suggest the communitarian character of Jeff’s vision. That plus rich subject matter leaves no child behind, and keeps no child feeling herself to be a too-slow outsider.
Everyone loves the schools—teachers, parents, kids. Nobody leaves.
And if nobody leaves (even if it requires a long commute), that means the class itself becomes not just a speech community but, more broadly, a social community. It’s no wonder that 25,000 families apply every year. If such schooling can succeed in the Bronx, it can succeed pretty much anywhere.
With seven schools, random assignment of students, and, as of this writing, an eighteen-year track record of success with students with all sorts of disadvantages, the Icahn Core Knowledge schools tell a story that’s been too long ignored.
Jeff Litt is a visionary. He deserves a great deal of respect for what he has consistently accomplished over nearly two decades. But his success is not
unique. The key difference between all seven of the Reward Schools in the South Bronx, and the contrasting results from the hundreds of less
successful schools there and across the country, is chiefly the focus on specific topics shared by all students and an imperative to teach actual content to each grade consistently year to year so that knowledge builds on knowledge and an effective speech community is formed.7
The point of view that dominates elementary education today is individualistic. But life in adult society is communal. The advent of civilization and the division of labor require cooperation among people.
Shared language—social communication—has become the key to a
society’s progress and competence. And we now know with certainty that the basis of effective social communication is shared knowledge starting in the first years of schooling. That doesn’t mean everyone ends up knowing exactly the same things. Of course not; there is always a need for
idiosyncrasy and quirkiness. But democracy and equality demand a rich public sphere where people are able to communicate effectively with one another.
Let’s now get to the root of how, when, and where things went wrong.
Chapter 4
The Problem Starts at Our Teacher-Training Institutes
It’s not just ignorance. There’s active resistance [in our education schools] to the science, too. I interviewed a professor of literacy . . . who told me she was “philosophically opposed” to phonics instruction. One of her colleagues told me she didn’t agree with the findings of reading scientists because “it’s their science.”
—Emily Hanford, “Why Are We Still Teaching Reading the Wrong Way?,”
New York Times, October 2018
Like some zombie that keeps returning from its grave, pure discovery continues to have its advocates. However, anyone who takes an evidence-based approach to educational practice must ask the same question: Where is the evidence that it works?
—Richard E. Mayer, “Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule against Pure Discovery Learning?,” American Psychologist (January 2004)
The education our teachers receive today is determined more by ideology and personal predilection than the needs of our children.
—Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia University, Educating School Teachers (2006)