It would be nice if the teacher taught them to read and write.

Duncanville ISD has instituted a new curriculum -- rather a new anti-curriculum. It was used last year in third grade and has been implemented this year in fourth grade. It's called project-based learning.

The children get in groups and teach each other with an emphasis on problem-solving. The "teacher," now referred to as a "facilitator," starts the day off with a YouTube video. On the day the reporter was in the classroom, the video kicked off a three-week project on "civic engagement."

The facilitator says it's not up to her to "feed them information." I guess that's what we used to call "teaching." She says, "They're totally taking charge of their own learning."

I have problems with that. If I'm a third or fourth grader, what if the other children in my group aren't as interested in the "project" as I am? Will they bring me down to their level? I think it unlikely that I'll be able to pull them up to mine. Does my grade depend on what the group does?

Shouldn't third and fourth graders be learning the basics -- reading, writing, and arithmetic with a little history and geography thrown in? In the civic engagement project, they were supposed to be learning about voting. I have to wonder if they're also being told in those lessons how to vote -- not the mechanics of registering and going to the polls, but are they being indoctrinated with the "facilitator's" ideology?

I guess I'm just woefully behind the times, but I think we turned out better educated people when we stuck with the tried and true methods.

"Divide and conquer." The Dallas Morning News; September 17, 2013; p. 1B.