Comments on: Arguments For and Against National Standards

By: Tammy

Tammy — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:31:43 +0000

What amazes me is that anyone thinks that consistent content or standards or testing across the states is going to produce some new, dramatic (or even slightly significant) difference in the education children get. It seems a pointless argument to me — intended to make people feel as if they’re talking about something important and helping them to avoid taking a close look at what happens when you institutionalize education and children.

By: Margo/Mom

Margo/Mom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:49:47 +0000

Robert:

I don’t think agreement is at all the issue. In fact, I suspect that there is more agreement across the fifty states (regarding content) that we currently admit. It’s just a question of whether Washington can be the one to lay it on us–under the Constitution as it stands.

By: Robert Pondiscio

Robert Pondiscio — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:18:29 +0000

Which, Margo? Federalism or fractions? Forgive my sarcasm, but my simple-mindedness refuses to admit of the possibility that we cannot create a common curriculum that is equally valid in all fifty states, territories, possessions and Washington, DC. The argument that it’s too hard to reach agreement doesn’t cut it, especially since “too hard” is not seen as no excuse for things that are *truly* beyond us, like differentiating instruction for 24 kids at a time.

By: Margo/Mom

Margo/Mom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:14:13 +0000

Robert–well, yeah, but that’s the federalist deal. I assume they taught you that in your state?

By: Robert Pondiscio

Robert Pondiscio — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:08:20 +0000

Settling content in Washington is too far indeed. We didn’t throw of the shackles of King George’s tyranny only have some new despot tell us our kids have to learn to simplify fractions. If someone’s going to force my child to simplify fractions, it’ll damn well be someone in my own sovereign state!

By: Margo/Mom

Margo/Mom — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:36:47 +0000

e. g. e.

There’s public perception, but then there’s also that pesky Constitutional issue. Setting content in Washington might actually be going too far.

But, for the most part, content doesn’t appear to be what the “standards” discussion really revolves around. It’s more about “cut scores,” or where each state sets the proficiency level. Every state could have identical content standards for identical grade levels and still develop assessments and set proficiency levels to arrive at the current levels of inconsistency.

When Fordham published recently their work about the Standards Illusion, with the clever little interactive that allowed you to see whether a proficient student in your state would be proficient in each of the other 49, as far as I can tell they were comparing via NAEP–in other words, equating each state’s cut score to the cut score for NAEP, and then back out again to the comparison state. I am not a statistician, but I am thinking that this kinda/sorta works assuming that content doesn’t vary a whole lot (or is largely irrelevant to what is being tested). If that is the case, one has to ask, what exactly would be the point of standardizing the standards (so to speak)?

There may be other good reasons (efficiency and cost-effectiveness of assessment, for instance)–but I don’t see a whole lot of conversation about them.

By: e.g.e.

e.g.e. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:12:54 +0000

To CodyPT: see my previous post in reply to Mr. Hoss.

The reason why your simple solution won’t work is “politics” once again. This is due to the philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats dislike national testing and Republicans dislike national standards. The compromise is to have states do some, but not all, NAEP testing to satisfy the Democrats and have the states make their own standards to satisfy the Republicans.

As I said in my previous post, it’s all about public perception, not educational soundness.

By: CodyPT

CodyPT — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:16:58 +0000

Why couldn’t the NAEP testing program in Reading and Math be expanded to test all kids in all states in 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th grades.

Currently they do 4th, 8th and 12th grades every two years. It would mean adding two grades (6th and 10th) and a more rigorous test schedule of yearly testing.

Is that too simple a solution?

By: e.g.e.

e.g.e. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:59:33 +0000

Here’s the rationalization, Mr. Hoss, (3/17, 7:14am): States function in a political environment where officials want to reassure the public that schools are doing OK. They hate giving the public bad news, so No-Child-Left-Behind allowed each state to set their own “standards” and they keep revising them until they “get it right”. That is, until they are satisfied the public will be happy. If the public is happy that 1+1=3, then that will be the “standard”. With higher and improving scores on the state tests, state officials won’t be embarrassed by having to answer tough questions. The result is a large disconnect between scores on state tests and the NAEP. It’s all about public perception, not educational soundness.

By: Robert Pondiscio

Robert Pondiscio — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:28:18 +0000

I wasn’t there, and I’m relying only on Mary Ann’s reporting, but it sounds like Smith was sounding an appropriately cautious note about the difficulty of getting to national standards, not their overall merit (Checker Finn has likewise sounded variations on this theme) and I doubt he would disagree with you about the “feel good” tests, but would probably point out there are other routes to the same destination.