In 1984, the officials in this district were concerned about the disparities and low standards in the schools. As a result, they decided to undertake a comprehensive effort to reform the curriculum in each of the city’s 264 schools. They developed a standardized curriculum for grades K-12, which outlined what subjects should be taught and when. They also created a schedule to guide teachers on how much time to spend on each topic. Additionally, they established grading and promotion standards along with standardized tests that aligned with the new curriculum.
After nearly four years of extensive research and development, the new system has been successfully implemented, much to the satisfaction of administrators. However, teachers are not as pleased. This policy has sparked a debate that is expected to occur across the country as districts and states move towards imposing specific academic expectations on students. The main point of contention is how to strike a balance between setting and enforcing standards, while also addressing the growing desire for professionalization within the teaching profession.
In Philadelphia, the discontent with what one critic calls the district’s "façade of reform" suggests that finding a compromise between these conflicting demands will not be easy. School officials and parents argue that the district has a responsibility to ensure that all students have access to high-quality instruction and content. They believe that the district’s policy has successfully provided this for its 200,000 students.
On the other hand, teachers believe that this policy represents a regression at a time when other reform-minded leaders are discovering that the most effective changes come from within individual schools. They question whether the best approach to improving the school system is through top-down mandates or by involving teachers, who are responsible for delivering education, in the decision-making process.
The officials in the district maintain that their objective was simply to guarantee that all students graduating from the city’s schools have mastered essential skills and knowledge. They argue that all students deserve the opportunity to engage in rigorous academic studies, echoing Secretary of Education William J. Bennett’s recent proposal for a core curriculum in high schools. According to them, this policy addresses the issue of equity and ensures that every child in the district, regardless of their school or socioeconomic background, receives what they are entitled to.
Superintendent of Schools Constance E. Clayton believes that they have made more progress in this direction than originally anticipated. However, many teachers are skeptical of this assessment. A survey conducted by a high school teacher revealed that high school teachers in Philadelphia rejected the policy and either ignored it or adapted it to fit their classroom needs. Although the policy has been revised since then, teachers remain unconvinced.
Jack B. Steinberg, special assistant to the president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, explains that any policy imposed from the top-down will face resistance, regardless of its merits. He argues that one policy cannot possibly cater to the needs of 264 schools and thousands of classrooms. Judith F. Hodgson, executive director of the Philadelphia Partnership for Education, emphasizes the tension between the authority held by the system and the autonomy of teachers. She believes that both are necessary to maintain order and effectiveness in the education system.
In conclusion, the reform efforts in this district, initiated in 1984, aimed to address disparities among schools and raise standards overall. While the policy has been successful in the eyes of administrators, teachers are dissatisfied. The debate surrounding this policy highlights the struggle to strike a balance between setting standards and allowing for teacher autonomy. Furthermore, it raises questions about how to ensure high-quality instruction for all students while respecting the expertise and input of teachers.
According to the speaker, the initial premise was that as long as students attended class regularly and didn’t cause any disruptions, they would graduate. However, the current student-promotion policy now requires teachers to assess student performance using a standardized scale, which includes citywide mid-term and final exams, as well as teacher evaluations. If students are not promoted, they are required to attend summer school.
The implementation of this policy was seen as a necessary step to address the chaotic state of the curriculum. Prior to the standardized curriculum, teachers often lacked a clear plan and structure for what they were teaching. This resulted in significant disparities in education, with some schools providing higher quality instruction than others. The policy aimed to rectify this issue.
Chris Davis, the executive director of the Parents Union for Public Schools, acknowledges that there was a perception that certain schools offered a better education. The new policy was a response to this, aiming to create a more equitable system. However, teachers argue that decisions regarding the curriculum were often made by principals rather than teachers themselves. These decisions were often based on studies that identified deficiencies in reading and math skills among elementary students.
The policy also aimed to create more coherence in the curriculum. Previously, students in English classes might encounter the same book in different grades, which was seen as lacking continuity. Additionally, the policy took into account the fact that a significant number of students in Philadelphia transfer to different schools within a year. This prevented students from repeating the same material multiple times.
However, an in-depth study conducted by Gail B. Raznov suggests that the standardized curriculum may not have effectively addressed the issues at hand. Raznov’s study, based on interviews with high school teachers, revealed that the majority of teachers either ignored the mandates or adapted them to fit their own circumstances. Only a small percentage of teachers fully implemented the policy.
Raznov concludes that high school teachers reject standardized changes imposed on them, as they value their professionalism and want to have input into decision-making and collegiality. Richard A. Gibboney, a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the standardized curriculum was ultimately a failure. He believes that the policy was flawed, as it was based on faulty premises and aimed to control teachers rather than promote effective education.
Overall, while the policy intended to address issues of inequality and curriculum coherence, it ultimately failed to fully implement the desired changes and was met with resistance from teachers.
Mr. Silcox from Lincoln High School acknowledges that the study focused on teachers in the first year of implementing the policy. He explains that it takes time for teachers to adapt to a new policy. Moreover, Mr. Mattleman states that the school district has made adjustments to the policy based on teachers’ concerns. For instance, after a districtwide review day where teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the inflexible schedules, the district replaced them with more adaptable instructional planning guides. "We listened to them, and changes were made in the second year of implementation," says Mr. Mattleman.
Despite these modifications, many teachers still oppose the policy. Ms. Herlick from Pratt school expresses her concerns, stating that it diminishes their professional autonomy. She believes that teachers should have the freedom to make individual judgments about the content they teach and how they evaluate it. She argues against a standardized expectation for instruction and believes that the focus should be on what works for each teacher. Ms. Herlick emphasizes the importance of using her own teaching style, humanity, and experience, in addition to staying updated with research and professional meetings.
Ms. Herlick also criticizes the policy for increasing paperwork and reducing her effectiveness as a teacher. She explains that preparation periods are now spent on record-keeping instead of creating materials for students.
Teachers are also critical of the curriculum itself, predicting that it may be too challenging for many students. Maxine Stepman, a math specialist, argues that the standardized curriculum does not account for the need for remediation, causing students to fall further behind. Ms. Herlick adds that even if students are not developmentally ready in 1st grade, teachers are required to follow the curriculum, resulting in potential failure for those students. Ms. Davis from the parents’ union agrees that the policy offers limited opportunities for remediation but acknowledges that this was an issue even before the curriculum was implemented.
According to Ms. Altman, the district has implemented tutoring and summer-school programs to help students who struggle to meet the curriculum requirements. However, she questions whether students take full advantage of these resources. She suggests that in the past, teachers may have spent too much time on topics that some students struggled with, leading to a lack of time for other important subjects. To teach all students effectively, teachers must now be more creative and employ different teaching methods, such as cooperative learning. Ms. Altman believes that teachers need to plan their instruction more thoroughly to ensure that all students receive the required material.
Superintendent Clayton clarifies that although the word "standardized" implies limitations, good teachers still have the authority to go beyond the established curriculum. She emphasizes that teachers have always been responsible for determining their teaching strategies.
Overall, the policy has sparked a debate among teachers, balancing the need for accountability with the desire for flexibility and professional autonomy.
"We do have certain expectations for students," she states. "As a principal, if I have four 4th-grade teachers with similar classes, and three are progressing well while one is lagging behind, that one will become more noticeable." However, Mr. Silcox, the principal at Lincoln High, denies that principals would act in such a manner. "It might occur if we had created a test that could precisely measure which teachers effectively taught the material and which did not," he explains. "But the truth is, the test has not yet reached that level." Nevertheless, Ms. Altman suggests that teachers should be accountable to parents in one way or another. The district provides handbooks to parents, outlining the curriculum, and parents can monitor what their children are expected to study, she points out. Individual schools also provide additional information to parents, according to Martha C. Davis, principal of Prince Hall Elementary School. She mentions that teachers at her school inform parents about major project deadlines. However, Ms. Davis from the Parents Union believes that there is still room for improvement in terms of communication with parents regarding the policy. "When something new is implemented across a large system, there is often some confusion about how things should be implemented," she explains. "For instance, a 2nd-grade student reading a certain book can only receive a B grade unless they do extra work. This is information that parents are not always aware of."
Lead Teachers
Most parties agree that there are other changes needed in the policy. According to Daniel J. McGinley, president of the Philadelphia Association of School Administrators, elementary school principals require administrative support to assist them in working with teachers as instructional leaders. The teachers’ union, currently in negotiations for a new contract with the district, is also advocating for "lead teachers" in elementary schools, who would assume the same responsibilities as department heads in high schools. "One of the challenges in implementing change in a large system is providing instructional leadership at the school level," Mr. McGinley concurs. "That aspect is currently lacking." Mr. Mattleman, the school board president, acknowledges the necessity of administrative support but questions whether the district can afford it. "I have no doubt that everyone would like to have more personnel on site," he remarks. "However, there needs to be a balance between what we want to do and what is financially feasible." The district is also considering some adjustments, such as revising the grading system to reduce the focus on the mathematics achievement test and modifying how grade point averages are calculated, adds Ms. Altman.
District officials are also continuing to work on the content of the curriculum, she mentions. The directives for teachers are easily replaceable as they are "three-hole punched." For instance, the social studies curriculum is about to undergo a complete overhaul. The Philadelphia Alliance for Teaching Humanities in the Schools, a branch of the Philadelphia Partnership for Education, is developing a world history curriculum that will be piloted in ten schools in the fall of 1989. The new curriculum allows teachers much more flexibility compared to other subjects, allowing them to select which topics to cover within major themes. Superintendent Clayton has also announced plans to revamp the city’s comprehensive high schools, with the goal of fostering closer teacher-student relationships. These changes may involve more team teaching or interdisciplinary instruction, which would impact the curriculum, notes Ms. Hodgson. "What the system is attempting to do is strike a balance between the standardized curriculum, which some teachers prefer for its structure, and the autonomy others desire," Ms. Hodgson explains. "They will likely end up with some sort of compromise."
