Authentic Curriculum vs. Invented Curriculum Is any present day language arts curriculum an authentic model of early American language arts instruction, one that duplicates how our forefathers gave instruction and promises the same results? How was English taught: 1)      Before treacherous persons invented curricula that are artificially and arbitrarily divvied out in graded segments? 2)      Before compulsory education plentifully supplied students with printed matter to accommodate its orders that students remain housed in classrooms for economically advantageous periods of time? 3)      Before the first two factors resulted in a three-headed, third factor (the development of curricula that administered instruction via work books, work sheets and text books) that unavoidably resulted in a change in: a)   The METHOD OF INSTRUCTION. b)   The ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CONTINUUM. c)   Student ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFICIENCY? The change in the METHOD OF INSTRUCTION was from “recite as you write” to look and remember? The change in the CONTINNUM was from “integrated content” to splintered content. The change in ACHIEVEMENT and PROFICIENCY was from “understanding the knowledge base” to guessing. Why don’t we insist curricula providers offer a performance-based, money-back guarantee? How would you define a performance-based guarantee?  Our definition is: 1)   The publisher guarantees its CURRICULUM IS COMPLETE. 2)   The publisher guarantees its curriculum EDUCATES THE TEACHER AS WELL AS THE STUDENT. 3)   The publisher guarantees BOTH THE TEACHER AND STUDENT WILL BECOME EQUALLY PROFICIENT.