Auditing how we spend instructional time during the school day is necessary in order to prioritize our goals and build proficiency with the skills and knowledge we deem as relevant and essential for today ‘s students. Meaningful and relevant work, whether we’re talking about, earth science, history or language arts, must be the goal of curriculum and instruction, and often we break curriculum and instruction into discreet skills or standards, which can make the learning disconnected and fragmented.

Not only do we need to update our assessment practices as educators in the classroom, but the relentless drive to measure students and schools based on standardized tests simply will not give our nation the results we are looking for in terms of improving our educational system. We must open the technology that exists in many of our schools, to allow students to expand what engagement and assessment looks like. The ability to learn relevant content using new methods, and illustrate that knowledge in a variety of ways, is essential for our students who find technology and instant communication intuitive and natural. Assessment of reading and writing growth must include monitoring the progress of individual students, to continually move them to read and write increasingly complex work.

Our definition of literacy must be expanded to include the variety of ways we read, write, listen, speak and view, keeping in mind the ways our students consume and contribute to the world of communication every day. However, I would contend that instruction in reading and writing is not as effective as it needs to be in our schools, and upgrading it means taking out much of the skill-and drill work that actually keeps students from engaging in deep reading or writing. Reading and writing are reciprocal processes, as are speaking and listening, and for students to eventually read deeply and critically, they must read often, at a level that they can understand. The same is true of writing. We get better at anything we attempt to learn through practice, and if we want strong readers and writers, we must make sure we are providing time and the expectation that students will read and write independently during the school day, coupled with expert instruction and feedback. Often we have so much contrived reading and writing work in school, that the meaning has been squeezed out of it, and there is little time left to actually allow students to read and write.

The ability to read and write well in the many forms available in the 21st century must be the cornerstone of our work in school. This is one area where we must expand the venues in which we allow students to take in information, as well as express themselves. But, we must also make sure we have what students need to grow as readers and writers… access to tons of quality books that they are interested in reading, from pre-school right through to high school. They don’t all have to be on paper in a traditional binder, but for now, compelling quality literature still essential. It is surprising how many of our schools and classrooms are lacking in these foundational, but essential literacy tools.

Reading is thinking, and assessing thinking is complex. Complex doesn’t often fit well inside of a bubble.

The critical thing I find about upgrading curriculum is that it also requires a decision to eliminate those things that are no longer relevant to a 21st century learner. Eliminating curriculum and practices that no longer make sense is the hard part. For example, I always found the framework put forth by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills somewhat impractical, as it layered skills on top of unchanging content requirements. Where do we get the time to do this? Can we overload students any more than we have and expect better results?

When our leaders think that a “race to the future” is simply doing more and harder work based on the past, they put our students at risk in the fast changing world of the 21st century. If we think a successful educational system is one that focuses entirely on moving our kids up in the international PISA rankings, it amounts to sending the message that we want our students to compete in the past.

So, upgrading the curriculum seems to me to be both a process of addition and subtraction... adding those things that we know, as educators, will prepare our students for the future, while eliminating those things that no longer make sense in the future. We are not our fathers’ learners.