Nationwide Standards Eyed Anew Says Education Week
(Synopsis of Education Week)
The debate about national standards was launched following a November 7 opinion piece in The New York Times by education historian Diane Ravitch, who wrote that the current strategy of “50 states, 50 standards, 50 tests” has not improved student achievement, based on the most recent results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Americans must recognize that we need national standards, national tests, and a national curriculum.
In addition, reporter Lynn Olsen points out that the No Child Left Behind law has created incentives for states to game the system by lowering standards, and the issue of international competition and the educational progress in key developing nations, outlined in Thomas Friedman’s book The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, has spurred discussion on the need for national standards.
Former Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, an advocate of national standards, told Education Week, “The United States needs to define a common set of standards, “especially in subjects like math and science and related courses . . .I don’t think this discussion has gotten to the place where people are ready to do it yet,” he added, “but I think the discussion among governors is at the point where they recognize they are facing very tough competition.”
Although the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has not taken an official position on the issue, AFT Executive Vice President Antonia Cortese argues that national standards and curriculum frameworks “could also influence teacher preparation, and that would be a good thing . . . She said the union could consider supporting the idea “if we thought there was a possibility that there was an interest in doing it right, and really wanting to focus in on what students are learning, rather than what their test scores are.”
Politics come into play during any discussions of national standards, but many education advocates point to a change in public understanding of standards and assessments since the 1990s.
“I think the lesson from the last 10 to 15 years,” said Michael Cohen, the president of the Washington-based Achieve Inc., who as an Education Department official helped lead the Clinton administration’s work on voluntary national tests, “is that it’s difficult to separate any of the substantive issues around national standards and testing from the politics of education at the federal level, regardless of which party is in office.”
But as a result of NCLB,
says Ravitch, 50 states are now involved in the effort to decide what standards
are most important and how to measure them. All states also now participate
in NAEP reading and math tests in grades 4 and 8, a situation that was not the
case 15 years ago. “I think a lot of conversation, a lot of public discussion
needs to take place, but today there’s far greater public knowledge and
understanding than there was in 1992,” Ms. Ravitch said.
Other advocates still remain skeptical of national standards and tests. “Who
is to say that a national test won’t be politically affected, like state
tests are, and bars get lowered and raised?” said Elliot Washor, the co-director
of the Big Picture Company, a Providence, R.I.-based nonprofit organization
that runs a network of nontraditional high schools.
And the article points out that efforts to develop national standards, curricula,
and tests should not be led by the federal government and without federal funds
and federal direction, while some argue that federal funding would be appropriate,
but the work of developing standards, tests and curricula should be done by
a “independent, nonpartisan, high-profile group that has the buy-in of
state leaders and subject-matter organizations.”
The article points out that
many advocates would like to first start developing national math and science
standards, tests and curricula, rather than tackling all subjects. “Such
efforts could build on existing voluntary national standards and related documents
developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Research
Council, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. National
standards also must be grounded in a real-world analysis of what students need
to succeed in work and college, many argue, and focus on a common core that
states and districts could augment.”
Tell us what you think about national standards, tests, and curricula by answering
a few short questions in the NSTA
Express
Poll (http://science.nsta.org/survey_national_standards).