In the Sunday, February 10, New York Times, David L. Kirp reported on the success of the Union City, New Jersey school system with improving itself to a "first rate" education for students.  Mr. Kirp is a professor of public policy at the University of California, as well as an author of a new book with a long title on the rebirth of a great American school system and a strategy for any school to achieve the same.

Here's why I'm so confused. To achieve their miraculous transformation, apparently, Union City schools did the following:

        • provided 3- and 4-year-olds with early education

        • helped kids with "do things" lessons, like make a recipe, for example

        • used "teachable moments" such as asking kids to describe an ingredient, to describe it (bland, for example, or fiesty)

        • helped students imagine "what if?" they put foods in a processor...and then experimented with that

        • focused on letter sounds, for example, in words such as Pimento, PePPer

        • tried to teach the kids the way they would their own children at home

        • used real objects, such as bread, to demonstrate concepts such as short, long, broken

        • did pie charts to record polls over, say, the best-tasting food they tried

        • helped the kids to think things through, to wonder, and to ask questions

        • talked about their own community, school, etc.

        • discussed character, the right things to do, and not to do

        • wrote in journals

        • read and discussed the meaning of what they read

There's more, but this list is an example of what the teachers, students, and school did.

It seemed to work.

It seemed to work very, very well.

When I was in school, ALL of the above (and more, just as Union City "did more") was called by this innovative term: SCHOOL.  This was school.  We read, we wrote, we did, we discussed and debated, we scooted easily from one subject to the next, eagerly, enthusiastically, and teachers were not nonplussed by our incessant segues  into one related educational arena then another.  It was...it was...it was educational.  It was learning.  It was school.  It was...no big deal.

We had tests, we passed tests, but it was never about teaching to the tests.  It was never called Common Core or anything else (that I was aware of)...it was just...school.  

Today, as an educational author, I am told that I have to write for "Common Core."  I have to focus on primary resources, on asking questions, on discussions and debate, on "reading for information" (as opposed to what, exactly?), to incorporate writing "prompts," and to shoot for "higher-order thinking."

I'm so confused.  I have been writing for children for 40 years.  I have written fiction, nonfiction (or I guess that's what it's still called?), curriculum, and I know that kids read my books, "did stuff" that I suggested in them (whether that was writing a poem or making a craft), and explored the who, what, when, where, how, why, and why not behind whatever the subject was, whether the Wright Brothers, the American Revolution, or, well, or anything else.

I have praise for Union City.  I have no real objection to Common Core.  I just don't understand "what happened" that created such a disconnect between my school of the past (when we also had Latin, recess, and discipline), and my teachers (I loved them all:  great, not so great, cranky, fun, funny, and especially, the weird ones), and tests were just tests.  We had loads of homework, and in high school, many of us also had after school jobs.  We also had plenty of time for exercise/sports, and fun.  Fortunately, as a future writer, I even had time to—don't faint!—daydream, but perhaps that was because I did not have mandatory practice of "a paid sport" six days a week.  

I have praise for Maria Montessori, who thought she invented the kind of school I went to, or rather, that style of teaching.  Perhaps she did.  But I also have admiration for Pat Conroy, who did the same thing on an island right next to where I now live, long ago, when he was a young teacher, and Ron Clark, who today, dances on desks as he raps and turns low-level students into—TADA!—great students and international travelers.

I'm so confused.  Do I continue to write as engagingly, honestly, unbiasedly, dramatically, and educationally, as I always have?  Do I continue to add QUESTIONS in my writing, so kids can think for themselves and not just say what they think they should say, or that their parents might believe, or their teachers find politically correct?  Do I continue to encourage kids to write from their head and their heart, even if it means they end up writing really compellingly, if not so grammatically?  Do I keep sticking challenging words in books, because, really, it's so disrespectful to write down to kids?  Do I add enrichment, fascinating, indeed, flabbergasting facts, even humor?  Do I write to engage, enchant, and educate, and make it as much fun for me (and the teachers!)  as for the kids I'm writing for? 

Do I call it all Common Core?  (Or Common Bore, if I have to change my ways, which is what I'm seeing in so many new new "gotta be CC" texts.)  Honestly, are schools really sure they are ready for kids to discuss and debate?  What if they know more than the textbook?  (Read "Lies My Teacher Told Me.")  What if they—GASP!—disagree, perhaps even passionately?  And are, uh, right? 

Are we really ready for kids to actually learn to think critically?  You know, because if they do, they might just drop out of school and study online, or get a job as a sous chef, where they can actually do something, feel it, taste it, try it, fail at it, love it, share it, declare it, embrace it, invent it, and just generally get up to their elbows in flour and milk primary sources, until—EUREKA!—whether it's cooking, or physics, or writing, or accounting, they not only have learned, they have achieved the Holy Grail—they have learned how to learn on their own steam.

I've been a student all my life; I love to learn, and I don't give a fig for anything "Common."

I just don't think kids do either.  I believe the next educational reform, when and if it comes, will be called STUDENTS DEMAND.  Students of all ages will just expect and demand the best, the fastest, the truest, the timeliest, the multi-engagingest, the "let me do it-est," the "move over and let me learn my way" way.  They won't call it anything, of course, but they will think critically, and they will be in a hurry.  They will have no time, or interest, in anything but that.

These are the kids I wrote for, write for now, and intend to continue to write for—I am on a mission, and it has little to do with labels, no matter how alliterative.  I think many teachers feel the same way.  Most of them know why they got into teaching and know how, if they were allowed.  We may all be renegades, but, hey, it goes with the territory of Wild About Learning.  Hmmm, kids might could chow down on a educational reform by that name?  

Truly, there's a revolution underway.  Today, in adherence to Common Core, I add instructions for kids to take their BYOT and research this, photo that, etc.  And I wonder...When will they figure out that they could stay home in their pj's and teach themselves via online classes, and rip-roarin' chat room debates, and actual field trips to the real place, and Skype interviews with a real author or CEO, or, well most anything else?  That's what I would have done.  But I didn't need to.  And I hope, really hope, that they don't need to.  But want to?  I can picture the day.

I think it's time for me to get back to writing.  After all, I am no longer confused.