(http://blog.coreknowledge.org/, April 19, 2011, Private School Student, Public School Reformer)

This blog discussed the differences in curriculum between private and public schools. In the opening paragraph, it talked about how a recent New York Times article criticized education reformers because many of them went to private schools. The author of the New York Times article, Winerip, apparently believed that since many of the reformers went to private schools, they may be turned against public schools and "poison their perception of them."

Robert Pondiscio agrees with Winerip, saying that those reformers who went to private schools may not understand how to improve public schools. However, he believes that they may not understand for different reasons. Pondiscio believes that many who grew up in private schools may take for granted the content of their education. He believes that they may not understand that their broad education that covers many different subjects is not universal. In many public schools, Pondiscio says, those subjects that are not emphasized on testing, such as history, geography, music, science, and art, are not covered as well in the public schools. Pondiscio says that "you are not guaranteed a thing."

Pondiscio used to teach at a low-performing South Bronx school. He would, however, take his daughter to a private school in Manhattan. He believes that the biggest difference in the two schools was curriculum and a "first rate, purposeful school tone." He went on to say that he believed that many of his colleagues were better teachers than those at the private school, but based on the economic differences, were unable to compete.

This blog relates to our class discussion on NCLB as well as our discussions on standardization of curriculums. In the article Pondiscio talks about how under-performing schools are dropping their history, geography, art, music, and science classes. I believe that this is certainly due to standardized testing and schools attempting to get funding. In order to get the funds that the school needs, they must do well on the standardized testing. The only way this under-performing school can improve its scores is by focusing on the subjects that are vital to the test, namely, numeracy and literacy. In this way, students in poor public schools are falling further behind those in good private and public schools. In order to get funding, they must narrow their curriculum. In narrowing, their curriculum, those students don't get a well-rounded education that those students in private schools are getting.

I agree with the author that it would be hard for reformers who grew up in wealthy private schools to understand the plight of poor public schools. If they are ignorant to the fact that not every curriculum is as well-rounded as theirs was, they will miss vital reforms that need to be made. However, if more public school graduates are given control of the reforming process, they may be able to make changes for the better.

I believe that the author comes from a student-centered approach. He seems concerned that the students get a broad range of subjects being taught in school. He doesn't seem to support prep tests due to the stress that they put on the public school curriculum. You can tell that the author comes from a student-centered approach because he believes that the reformers should come from the inside and have first-hand experience with the schools and issues being discussed.