How well I recall a day in 1987 when Teachers College, Columbia University, was celebrating its centennial as our nation's premier school of pedagogy. One of the events marking this grand occasion was a panel discussion of the topic: "Do we need a national curriculum?" On one side, arguing the affirmative, was Checker Finn and a Teachers College faculty member. On the other side, opposing the idea, were two other faculty members. A large crowd filled Horace Mann Auditorium to hear the debate.
Finn argued for a set curriculum that consumed not more than half the school day in basic academic subjects, and he pointed to various other nations as exemplars. But as Finn made his case, a strange thing occurred. The person who was supposedly on Finn's team decided that he, too, opposed a national curriculum, and so it was Finn against the other three panelists.
As it happened, there were four other people seated on the stage near the panelists - all of whom had received medals of distinction from the College on its anniversary - and they, too, jumped into the discussion. Soon the debate raged heatedly between Finn on one side, and seven people on the other. The latter team opposed any set curriculum, whether set by city, state, or nation, and the Teachers College audience clearly shared that view.
Later the same evening, I voiced my dismay to the College's President, suggesting that his institution had not distinguished itself by presenting such an unfair "debate." (I was at that time a member of the TC faculty.) He shrugged and laughed, not at all disturbed by the one-sided goings-on.
I mention these long-ago events as backdrop to a startling turn of events in New York City. On February 10, 2003, one hundred professors of education from Teachers College, Bank Street, City University of New York, New York University, and other teacher-training institutions in the city signed a joint letter declaring their whole-hearted support for a mandated curriculum for the city's public schools. Furthermore, and no less surprising, they endorsed "a universal program for systematic phonics instruction."
The untutored observer might be moved to sing praises and hosannas for this spontaneous if belated conversion. At first glance, one might cry out, "The culture wars are over! The battle between phonics and whole language methods of teaching reading is finished!" Imagine the headlines: "100 Education Professors Support Phonics Instruction!" "TC and Bank Street Applaud Mandatory Curriculum!"
Surely, the wary onlooker must say, there is more here than meets the eye. And the wary onlooker is right.
The background to the declaration of the 100 Education Profs is this: In January, school chancellor Joel Klein announced that he intended to impose a single reading program and mathematics program on 80 percent of the city's approximately 1,000 elementary and junior high schools; only the "top" 200 or so would be exempt from his mandate. The specific programs that he selected were Month by Month Phonics and Everyday Mathematics.
The initial reaction to these choices was muted, for a variety of reasons. One reason was that the recent re-centralization of the school system concentrates a huge amount of power in a very few hands, and wise heads know not to alienate those who control this $12 billion enterprise.
However, on February 4, 2003, a group of seven prominent reading researchers from local universities sent a joint letter to Chancellor Joel Klein and his top deputies warning them, ever so politely, that Month by Month Phonics was a weak reading program and urging the city school leadership to reconsider its choice. The reading researchers offered to help New York select better programs that had produced strong results in other cities. To avoid embarrassing the schools' leadership, the reading experts opted to keep their letter a secret, in hopes that the city might accept their offer of assistance.
Six days later, quite miraculously, the letter from the 100 Education Profs appeared, strongly supporting the top-down centralization of the school system and effusively praising the mayor, the chancellor, and the deputy chancellor for their "vision," their "bold plan," their "brave and inspired effort," and their "leadership."
Why were they so enthusiastic about Month by Month Phonics? Because, they said clearly, it was not Open Court or some other "scripted" program that the federal government was "pressuring local areas to adopt." They were pleased that the program has no textbooks (which they describe as a "script"), but rather that it relies on children's literature and on teachers as "informed decision-makers."
So here is the paradox of the new program: It is a supposedly a phonics program yet is strongly supported by education professors who abhor phonics; it is a mandated program that is strongly supported by education professors who abhor mandated programs.
Of course, some will hasten to find ulterior motives: Won't the system be required to pour tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, into professional development? Aren't the enthusiasts from the education colleges the very same people who will supply the required professional development? Isn't there a tad of self-interest on display?
No, that cannot be the case. I do not believe it. I refuse to believe it. I insist that the culture wars are over. One Hundred Education Professors have said so, declaring themselves in favor of "a universal program for systematic phonics instruction." I take them at their word. They now see the wisdom of a citywide curriculum. No doubt they have also changed their collective mind about a state or even a national curriculum. We may assume then, that when the next mayor is elected (Giuliani again?), the faculties of our leading colleges of education will once again endorse that person's preferred curriculum and phonics program, having so enthusiastically put their views on the record in 2003.
Diane Ravitch is a Research Professor at New York University and a Trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
