As far as I can observe, the buzzwords in education right now are ‘Alignment’, ‘Outcomes’, and ‘Curriculum’. Everybody wants to make sure that you have a solid Curriculum, that it has clear Outcomes, and that your classroom instruction is Aligned with those Outcomes for that Curriculum. So, what exactly does all of that mean? Well, the irony is that as far as I can observe this all boils down to the fundamental question of, “Are schools actually doing what we think they’re supposed to be doing?” And it’s a fair question! A lot of money and time goes into these institutions that are presumably safeguarding the future generations of humanity, it makes sense to care about whether or not they’re actually doing what they’re supposed to be doing! The irony of asking this question, especially right now, is that it’s the same exact question we’ve been asking about mainstream education since the creation of mainstream education. Does the school have a plan, does it know what that plan looks like, and is it doing that plan. Is it not a little bit interesting that we’re still obsessing over this question? Isn’t it a little interesting that we’re dedicating a huge amount of time and effort to cleverly rephrasing this question and armoring it with the language of modernity? Does the fact that we’re still asking this question not suggest that maybe the question is a little bit misguided?

OK, that’s a hot take. Or at least it deserves some unpacking. I would argue that we’re in the middle of a not-so-much reactionary time in education as a tradition and fundamentals time in education. We were leaning this was ever since No Child Left Behind and with the COVID crisis we’ve fully fallen into it: the way to move schools forwards is to make sure they’re doing more of what they already do. Really, think about it for a second, Alignment Outcomes and Curriculum isn’t exactly a bold new take on how education should work. To me, another layer of ultimate irony is that the assumption behind needing more Alignment Outcomes and Curriculum is that we at any point didn’t have these things or didn’t have enough of them when any amount of time sifting through ANY federal, state, or prestige private curriculum will show IMMEDIATELY that these ideas and tenets haven’t receded a single inch since… well since ever, really!

Take math education in AP Courses (the vanguard of modern excellence in traditional education) for example. In modern AP Math courses you’re going to sit for lectures, complete pre-planned exercises on pre-planned worksheets on pre-planned problems, you’re going to take quizzes and tests and you’re going to get a grade at the end that symbolizes you being able to do math. 300 years ago in the old Prussian system, guess what, you’re going to sit for lectures, complete pre-planned exercises on pre-planned worksheets on pre-planned problems, you’re going to take quizzes and tests and you’re going to get a grade at the end that symbolizes you being able to do math. A reductive example? Yes, undoubtedly. A representative example of what I’m getting at here? Yes, I think so!

I stated earlier will argue here that the whole obsession with creating a curriculum, creating outcomes, and aligning those outcomes is misguided. I don’t think it’s bad, necessarily, don’t get me wrong, there are tonnes of amazing educators out there doing great work in these fields, I do think that in the face of how information, society, and modern economies work it just isn’t enough. Think about it this way, what’s the most dreaded question you can get in the classroom? I can all but guarantee we’ve all heard it and I’d wager significantly that the vast majority of us have actually asked it, in good faith, as well.

“Why do we need to learn this?”

It’s a staple of modern American education. Usually found in its natural habitat of math classrooms although it has been sighted in the humanities as well. It’s a big question! It strikes at the core of everything we do in the classroom and in school in general! And, really, it’s the same question that I’ve asked of Alignment Outcomes and Curriculum! Why do we need to learn this? Do we need to learn this? Do we need to learn? Well, yes, that last one is a big yes, but the how and the what are still open for questioning.

Curriculum design, any choices made whatsoever about what you intend on teaching young people, is a gamble. It always has been. It’s been a safer gamble in the past, teaching Prussian schoolboys Geometry and German Literature is a pretty safe bet for building a better military. In modernity, the stakes have never been higher and the odds never more unsure. Think about your high school experience. Was what you learned there useful? Was it immediately useful or did you have to work at it? Did you have to work at justifying for yourself just now whether or not is was useful? Was what you learned actually part of your curriculum and course work or was it a byproduct of your circumstances? Now think about young people today. Do we really think we’re able to accurately able to predict what will be useful for them in four years? In eight? In their lifetimes? Don’t take this for defeatism, the answer is actually a resounding yes! It’s just a different ‘yes’ than the one espoused by Alignment Outcomes and Curriculum.

I don’t think we can accurately and appropriately predict and bet on content outcomes at all, I just don’t. I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect a young person to drill and memorize, or even holistically explore, any set and rigid discipline based content pool. We don’t know what next month is going to look like and require of us, can we really look years into the future and say, “Students will need to be able to complete multiplication tables and have read three Shakespeare plays”? (I actually really like using Shakespeare in the classroom, but it takes some work and it isn’t for everyone) If the ultimate intention of our education system is to prepare individuals for gainful participation in a Democratic society, we need to let go of our traditional ideas of Alignment Outcomes and Curriculum. Now that I’ve written that, I actually think that we need to let go of all of it except for one: Students need to be able to gainfully participate in Democratic Society. There’s your outcome. What is entailed in that? Well, a lot. You need some knowledge of history but really you need to be able to understand History as an idea and as an act. You need to know what the Constitution says but you really need to be able to interpret and decipher how your representatives act in your behest and what you can do if they don’t. You need a lot, and a lot more that we aren’t going to know until it happens, so really, really what you need is to be able to figure out what you need and how to go get it.

Modern education design is focused magnitudes more on the what than on the how or the why of learning. You need all three, don’t get me wrong, but a Curriculum of Methodology places the emphasis on why first, how in a close second, and trusts that my doing to the what not only will follow naturally but will do so with more authenticity and immediacy than any executive school planning committee could ever create. A Curriculum of Methodology starts with teachers, students, and communities and asks them what they need and what they want. It starts with relationships and values and never let’s them out of its sight. A Curriculum of Methodology by nature and necessity changes with every year, every event, every new student that joins. It grows, evolves, and adapts to what is happening RIGHT NOW and tries to understand why it’s happening, what we want to do about it, and how we can go out and do it.

The Curriculum of Methodology has the courage of conscience to admit that it doesn’t what what you’re going to need to know, or what you’re going to need to know how to do. It’s willing to make a few bets here and there (media literacy, web interface and design, organization communication and other executive function skills) but it’s relying on you to identify and fill in the gaps. The Curriculum of Methodology by nature belongs to its students and its teachers and acknowledges that those roles are useful as far as they are useful and that its hierarchies and power relationships can never be preserved for the sake of their own preservation lest it lose sight of its ultimate goal: gainful participation in a Democratic society.

I’ll be writing more on how this could work and how I’ve seen it attempted in my experiences, for now walk away thinking about the following: In what kind of society do we want to live? In what kind of society do we want our children to live? In what kind of society do our children want to live? And ultimately, what is more important: that our schools have answers to these questions, or that they start by asking them?