Core Curriculum

Core curriculum refers to a designated set of courses that students are required to complete in order to build a foundational knowledge base essential for success in higher education and life. Its origins can be traced back to the 1930s with the aim of moving away from traditional discipline separation toward a more integrated approach that addresses contemporary social issues. Over time, debates surrounding the core curriculum have intensified, focusing on what subjects should be included, the adequacy of current standards in preparing students for future challenges, and how to ensure accessibility for diverse populations. Key legislation, such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, has significantly influenced the curriculum landscape, often emphasizing accountability while raising questions about equity and comprehensiveness in education. Critics have pointed out that many students, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds or with learning disabilities, may not receive the robust education they need due to systemic barriers. Consequently, there is an ongoing discussion among educators and policymakers about the importance of a rigorous and inclusive core curriculum that meets the needs of all learners and prepares them to thrive in a democratic society.

Published in: 2021

By: Loeser, John

Subject Terms

Core Curriculum

Abstract

This article explores the origins of a core curriculum and the debates that have ensued over the years regarding what should and should not be included as essential subject matter to study. "Core curriculum" refers to a specific set of identified courses that students need to take to provide the foundation for success in college and in later life. The core curriculum provides essential knowledge, skills, and understandings that students need for successful application in a variety of life contexts. Discussion focuses on the pressing issue of debate regarding what should be included in the core curriculum and then expands to explore the range of perspectives regarding whether or not the core curriculum is demanding enough, as well as how schools can make the core curriculum accessible to all students regardless of learning ability, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc. The article highlights a recent study regarding the inadequacy of the current core curriculum with regard to student preparation for advanced study and further illuminates the complexities introduced into the debate by federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Overview

History of Core Curriculum. The origins of the core curriculum can be traced back to the 1930s, when the Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association began an eight-year study, and the state of Virginia designed the first core curriculum focused on social functions (Overton, 1966). The eight-year study involved numerous high schools and focused primarily on exploring new curriculum approaches to improve high school education (Caskey, 2006). Overton (1966) points out that as schools began to develop a core curriculum in the 1930s, the early designs focused on a departure from traditional separation of disciplines in high school toward a more integrated curriculum that directly addressed the issues pertinent to students in the twentieth century.

Caskey (2006) further asserts that during this time schools focused primarily on developing a core curriculum that organized student experiences in high school around social issues pertinent to students' lives. One of the most important movements of the 1930s and 1940s, the progressive education movement, emphasized student-centered, integrated curriculum that at the time was referred to as core curriculum (Vars, 1972; cited in Vars, 1991). Research regarding the core curriculum boomed during the 1940s and 1950s as schools worked tirelessly to develop a core curriculum they felt would address twentieth-century issues.

In 1983, A Nation at Risk was published, proposing that every high school in the United States require students to take a predetermined core set of courses to prepare them for the rigor and challenge of college and life after secondary school . The core curriculum, therefore, referred to a minimum number of courses that students needed to take in order to provide them with a foundation to be successful in life after school. This foundation would consist of a core set of knowledge, skills, and understandings that students could apply in a variety of life contexts regardless of what path they chose to pursue. McPartland and Schneider (1996) highlight the results of a set of studies in the 1980s conducted after the publication of A Nation at Risk that strongly encouraged high schools to increase the curriculum requirements for graduation.

Current Status of Core Curriculum. Research has contended that the core curriculum required in most high schools across the nation does not adequately prepare students for post secondary education and life after high school. Research has strongly encouraged the development of a more rigorous high school core curriculum that directly addresses the knowledge, skills, and understandings that students need to be successful in future academic studies (McPartland & Schneider, 1996; Wolk, 2007). In response, a joint effort of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers produced the Common Core State Standards Initiative. In 2009, the initiative produced a set of math and English standards that as of 2017 had been adopted by forty-two states and the District of Columbia. A major challenge facing educators and policy makers is how to make this core curriculum accessible to all primary and secondary school students regardless of ability, race, socioeconomic status, etc.

The Debate. The debate regarding the core curriculum historically has extended beyond the walls of secondary education institutions into colleges and universities across the nation. For decades, colleges and universities required students to distribute their studies across a wide range of disciplines to ensure they developed into well-rounded individuals educated in a variety of academic areas. Green (2007) notes, however, that during the 1970s, critics decided the core curriculum was too Western, too white, and too male dominated. In response, many colleges and universities added more diversity to their required courses. However, disagreement regarding what belongs in the core curriculum at the college level has continued. In general, educators agree that students need to leave college able to think critically, reason logically, compute, speak a foreign language, appreciate diversity, and speak and write well (Green, 2007). Beyond this general notion of what students should be able to do, the debate continues regarding how to achieve these results.

Throughout all of the debate regarding what should be included in the core curriculum and how to make the core curriculum accessible to all students, educators and researchers all agree that the core curriculum must reflect the needs of society and the needs of the learner, and include an exposure to a range of academic fields (Cawelti, 2006). Exactly what society needs, what the learner needs, and what academic fields are critical for success in life remains the crux of the debate. However, as Cawelti (2006) asserts, educators and policy makers must decide on a core curriculum that helps to perfect a democratic society and provides the foundational skills and understandings that students need to be successful participants in life beyond school.

What Belongs in the Core Curriculum?. Cawelti (2006) asserts that a major task for curriculum leaders and educators involves deciding what should be added to the core curriculum and what should be left out. One of the major reasons for the ongoing debate is that educators and policy makers disagree about what should and should not be included. Talk of a centralized national curriculum—which is what critics say the Common Core State Standards Initiative is trying to impose—sparks much debate as states (such as Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia, who had not adopted the Common Core as of 2017) argue to retain the right to determine for themselves what students should be able to know, understand, and do by the time they graduate from high school.

Murphy (2006) highlights some of the primary reasons why a core curriculum at the college level is unrealistic. His views regarding debates over core curriculum at the postsecondary level provide much insight into why it is equally difficult to agree upon a common core curriculum for all high school students. Murphy (2006) claims the notion of a core curriculum directly attacks the equality of all branches of knowledge and further diminishes the critical importance of student freedom of choice when it comes to what they learn in school. When schools tell students what is important for them to learn and what is not, they send the message that all branches of knowledge are not equally important. Moreover, as schools further cut down on student electives such as music, art, technology, etc. due to budget constraints or other factors, they continue to send the message to students that certain disciplines of knowledge are more important than others.

Murphy (2006) further illuminates the issues inherent in the effects of increasing diversity on the development of a core curriculum. As schools serve increasingly diverse student populations with regard to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the critical question of what is important to learn as core knowledge and what is not becomes even more complex.

Is the Core Curriculum Enough?. To complicate matters even more regarding the status of the core curriculum in our nation's schools, research indicates that a large gap remains between the perceptions of high school instructors and college instructors about students' readiness for college upon graduation from high school. Every three to five years, ACT (formerly known as American College Testing), a nonprofit organization providing assessment, research, information, and program management services to schools across the nation, publishes a National Curriculum Survey about American educational practices and expectations. The 2012 survey showed that while 89 percent of high school teachers reported that their graduating students were well prepared for college, only 26 percent of college instructors felt that their incoming first-year students were well prepared, indicating a disconnect between college preparatory and college curriculums (ACT, 2012). The 2012 survey also noted that while most high school teachers were aware of the Common Core State Standards (which were still being implemented by states that adopted them), around a third of them expressed uncertainty about whether they would improve their students' college readiness (ACT, 2012).

The difficulties experienced among educators and policy makers in deciding what should be included in the core curriculum is exacerbated by this disconnect between high school teachers and college professors about standards for college preparation and how to assess whether or not state standards are preparing students for college. For the core curriculum to really be successful, educators and policy makers from elementary, middle, and high schools as well as postsecondary educational institutions must agree on what should be taught and what students should know, understand, and be able to do prior to entering college. Without a common vision, a more demanding core curriculum, even such as the Common Core, stands no chance of bringing needed improvements.

Researchers claim that a rigorous high school core curriculum must teach students the essential skills and knowledge they will need to be successful in college and life. Furthermore, state standards need to clearly articulate what students should know and be able to do in each subject area so students have a strong foundation on which to build in subsequent years of study. The Common Core initiative attempts to meet these goals by laying out standards for English language arts in five areas: reading, writing, speaking and listening, language, and media and technology. In mathematics, it establishes six categories of content to be covered in high school: number and quantity, algebra, functions, modeling, geometry, and statistics and probability.

ACT researchers assert that improved college readiness leads to increased success in college. For example, if students read Shakespeare's tragedies in high school, even at a basic comprehension level, exposure to the same or related concepts in a college level course will be familiar, concrete, and allow them to build upon previous knowledge gleaned in high school. By providing a solid foundation and familiarity with core subject matter, students will feel empowered to more critically analyze, explore, and develop their understanding of that subject, and related concepts. Therefore, it is imperative that educators and policy makers work diligently to strengthen the high school core curriculum as well as curriculum objectives in younger years in order to provide the firm foundation necessary for success.

Issues Faced When Implementing a More Demanding Core Curriculum. While ACT asserts that a more demanding core curriculum is necessary to adequately prepare students for college courses and life after postsecondary education, some researchers have articulated many issues that can arise when educators and policy makers decide to implement a more rigorous core curriculum. McPartland and Schneider (1996) highlight the fact that some students may be so far behind others of their age with regard to their knowledge of core subject material that they will need extensive support and extra help to ensure they can meet the high expectations of a more challenging, robust core curriculum. They further illuminate that some schools may even go so far as to falsely label courses that fail to cover the core curriculum, exclude a large number of students from core curriculum requirements, and/or teach solely to the assessment test without attention to the actual content necessary for completion of core courses.

However, a preponderance of research indicates that student learning outcomes can be improved by strengthening the core curriculum, because students cannot learn what they are not offered, and students will likely be more motivated and interested in learning more challenging material (McPartland & Schneider, 1996). However, McPartland and Schneider (1996) assert that merely strengthening the core curriculum will not yield the type of results educators and policy makers seek. They claim that in order for a more rigorous core curriculum to be successful, schools need to reorganize from a systemic perspective to meet higher expectations despite a high degree of diversity among school populations. McPartland and Schneider suggest that a more rigorous core curriculum requires schools to enhance resources, develop flexible schedules to allow teachers to provide extra support to students in need, and rethink academic criteria for success and proficiency. Schools cannot simply "raise the bar" for the core curriculum without addressing the systemic and organizational issues that may impede the success of a more robust core curriculum.

Effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on the Core Curriculum. Wolk (2007) supports the assertion that the key to significant improvement in student learning is a lengthy, serious examination of the traditional core curriculum. However, she acknowledges that the standards movement and increased emphasis on accountability as a direct result of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has made it nearly impossible to criticize and change the status quo with regard to a core curriculum. Schools were required to meet the requirements set forth by NCLB in order to avoid being labeled as "failing" and therefore felt restricted in terms of the curriculum they can offer, as they neded to demonstrate proficiency in certain subject matters in order to avoid failure. With such a strong emphasis on certain subject matters, NCLB further contributed to the division between what is worth studying and what is not and created a situation in which schools struggled to find the instructional time to provide a balanced core curriculum to prepare students for the future (Cawelti, 2006).

Cawelti (2006) discusses the fact that NCLB relied heavily on math and reading test scores to determine whether schools were making significant progress in reducing the achievement gap. Due to this highly imbalanced emphasis on mathematics and reading, Cawelti (2006) asserts that students in low socioeconomic schools were denied access to high-quality core curriculum because schools needed to ensure they met criteria for progress. Should schools not have met the requirements set forth by NCLB for adequate yearly progress, they were faced with the unfortunate possibility of losing federal funding and support. Although educators were aware of the imbalance in the core curriculum created by NCLB, some held out hope that the Common Core standards would eventually address these issues.

In 2015, the NCLB was largely replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which aimed to give the federal government less influence over such educational policies by assigning the states the power to create their own systems for accountability, including decisions about how best to evaluate teachers. While states were still required to conduct tests in certain subjects and grades annually, they were provided more flexibility in how and when to administer them. The new law also does not require states to adopt the Common Core standards (Russo, 2016).

Accessibility to Core Curriculum for Students with Learning Disabilities. Another issue that takes center stage as researchers debate what should be included in the core curriculum and what should not concerns accessibility to the core curriculum on behalf of students with mild to severe learning disabilities. Downing (2006) asserts that despite all of the evidence from existing research that inclusive education is the best possible way to deliver the core curriculum to students with learning disabilities, a majority of students with such major learning differences are taught in separate programs, and some even only receive education regarding life skills, as the core curriculum may prove too demanding for them.

Research indicates that the best way to ensure access to the core curriculum for students with learning disabilities is to support these students within the context of the general education class, either through the work of paraprofessionals in conjunction with general education teachers or through application of specific interventions on behalf of the core homeroom teacher (Downing, 2006). Downing (2006) further claims that teachers need to be provided with the skills necessary to adapt the core curriculum to make it accessible to students with learning disabilities to ensure that every student is provided with the skills necessary to be successful in college and in life after secondary school. These findings are especially true given the debates regarding increasing the rigor and demand of the current core curriculum in high schools throughout the nation. If educators and policy makers expect to increase standards and enhance the level of challenge of the current core curriculum, they must address how the newly enhanced core curriculum will be accessible to all students regardless of whether or not they have a learning disability.

Conclusion

The movement toward developing a core curriculum began with the overarching goal of providing a core set of knowledge, skills, and understandings that students would need to be successful in life after school as active participants in a diverse democratic society. Although the goal remains the same today, much disagreement exists with regard to what should be included, what should not be included, if the core curriculum should be more rigorous and challenging, and how to make the core curriculum accessible to all students. Legislation such as NCLB and it successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act, as well as initiatives such as the Common Core state standards complicate these central issues of debate. Educators and policy makers will likely struggle with these issues for years to come as they work to arrive at a consensus regarding the design of a demanding, accessible core curriculum.

Terms & Concepts

ACT (formerly known as American College Testing): ACT is a nonprofit organization providing assessment, research, information, and program management services to schools across the nation.

Core Curriculum: Core curriculum refers to a minimum number of courses that students need to take in order to provide them with a foundation to be successful in life after school. This foundation consists of a core set of knowledge, skills, and understandings that students can apply in a variety of life contexts regardless of what path they choose to pursue.

Every Student Succeeds Act: Signed into law in 2015, the law sought to reform parts of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by giving more educational power and flexibility to the states.

A Nation at Risk (1983): A Nation at Risk is an extremely influential report on the state of education in the United States written by the National Commission on Excellence in Education and published in 1983. The report contains numerous practical suggestions for improvement in the field of education.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: A broad and comprehensive bipartisan education reform that addresses the issue of performance in American elementary and secondary schools. The act focuses on accountability for schools and districts, choice for parents regarding low performing schools, and requirements for use of federal education dollars.

Progressive Education Movement: In the 1930s and 1940s, the progressive education movement emphasized student-centered, integrated curriculum that at the time was referred to as core curriculum.

Bibliography

ACT. (2012). ACT National Curriculum Survey 2012: Policy implications on preparing for higher standards. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/NCS-PolicySummary2012.pdf

Brooks, J., & Dietz, M. E. (2012). The dangers & opportunities of the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 70, 64–67. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83757088

Caskey, M. (2006). The evidence for the core curriculum: Past and present. Middle School Journal, 37, 48–54. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19510608&site=ehost-live

Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64, 64–68. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23054705&site=ehost-live

Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

Constable, S., Grossi, B., Moniz, A., & Ryan, L. (2013). Meeting the Common Core State Standards for students with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 6–13. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84566960

Downing, J. (2006). On peer support, universal design, and access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities: A personnel preparation perspective. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 327–330. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24658093&site=ehost-live

Green, E. (2007). What they should know. U.S. News & World Report, 142, 57. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24257110&site=ehost-live

Hansel, L. (2013). The Common Core needs a common curriculum. Education Week, 32, 32–27. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87761207

McPartland, J., & Schneider, B. (1996). Opportunities to learn and student diversity: Prospects and pitfalls of a common core curriculum. Sociology of Education, 69, 66–81. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online DatabaseEducation Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9607093773&site=ehost-live

Murphy, J. (2006). Why a core? Academic Questions, 19, 85–94. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23614568&site=ehost-live

Nichols, J. B. (2017). Piaget and the Common Core: Is it the "American question?". International Journal of Pedagogy & Curriculum, 24(1), 17–25. Retrieved January 4, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=122347525&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Overton, H. (1966). The rise and fall of the core curriculum. Education Digest, 32, 45–48. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18810698&site=ehost-live

Russo, C. (2016). An overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act. School Business Affairs, 82(3), 35–38. Retrieved January 4, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113537125&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Saunders, A. F., Bethune, K. S., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (2013). Solving the Common Core equation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 24–33. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84566962

Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49, 14. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9111183559&site=ehost-live

Wolk, R. (2007). One size fits whom? Teacher Magazine, 18, 56. Retrieved June 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24384469&site=ehost-live

Core Curriculum

On this Page

Subject Terms

Core Curriculum

Abstract

Overview

Conclusion

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading