Texas, South Carolina, Alaska and Missouri are the only states not on board with the effort to create voluntary national education standards. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) officially announced the effort this morning. From the news release:
By signing on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative, governors and state commissioners of education across the country are committing to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills.
The Washington Post’s Maria Glod turns in a curtain-raiser on the effort, making it sound as if we should expect a whole lot of process and not a lot of content. “By July, groups of experts already at work are expected to unveil ‘readiness standards’ for high school graduates in reading and math,” she writes. “ Then, with each grade considered a steppingstone toward that goal, they will set out the skills students must master each year to stay on track.”
Skills, readiness, staying on track. You get the picture. Edweek’s Michele McNeil has more on the tick-tock of the adoption process:
Both the NGA and the CCSSO plan to create a ‘validation’ committee made up of independent national and international experts in content standards to review and comment on the drafts. The experts will be nominated by states and organizations, but ultimately chosen by those two organizations. Once the standards are agreed to, it will be up to the states to get them adopted. The signed memo stipulates that the common core must represent at least 85 percent of a state’s standards, and that the common core needs to be adopted within three years.
Until we see what they come up with, there’s every reason to be skeptical that we’re going to get meaningful content standards. ”There will be no prescription for how teachers get there, avoiding nettlesome discussions about whether phonics or whole language is a better method of teaching reading; whether students should be drilled in math facts; or whether eighth-graders should read “The Great Gatsby” or “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Glod writes. It’s entirely likely the entire exercise will amount to nothing more that replacing 46 sets of squishy, non-specific standards with one set of squishy, non-specific standards. But if we end up with a single yardstick — one set of national assessments — the transparency in state-to-state comparisons will be worthwhile. Alas, that may end up as the only reason to be excited about national standards.
I understand “squishy, non-specific”. I even understand “single yardstick”. It’s the “worthwhile” that I don’t understand. State standards have done so little to be of worth within any given state; I fail to see the advantage of this expansion.
Comment by Gene Waldoh — June 1, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
This is a step in the right direction. Will this lead to a set of national exams and a common definition for proficient by all participants? Stay tuned.
Comment by Paul Hoss — June 1, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Long time ago I made a nice living running PR for a big national magazine. I got my job because the people who sold ads were convinced that the reason they couldn’t sell ads was because our competitor, Brand X, had lots of their reporters and columnists on TV flapping their jowls. “How are we supposed to sell ads when every time someone in advertising turns on the TV, they see reporters from Brand X on CNN and Meet the Press?” they fumed. So I got hired to get our reporters on CNN and Meet the Press. A few years later, our reporters were all over TV too. The ad sales guys still couldn’t sell ads, but they had one fewer excuse for to why they couldn’t.
That’s national standards and assessments in a nutshell. Do I think it’ll turn every school into a good school, every teacher into a master and put every student on the road to college? No. But there’ll be one fewer excuse. Especially if we have true apples to apples comparisons across state lines. Never underestimate the motivating power of shame and humiliation.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — June 1, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
The CK alignment to state standards are gone, but I still have the California alignment. It is amazing how vague the state standards are. These national standards are going to be less vague? Actually, this may be a good thing. California has dozens of little required subject lessons that are thrown in there for no apparent reason. Maybe this will clean them out.
Comment by tmwillemse — June 1, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
I do think its important for any effort like this to focus on the “what” and not the “how.” Different approaches work for different students and different teachers, and it would be really ironic if the same “reform” movement that promotes school choice ended up advocating for a detailed national curriculum and pedagogy.
Comment by Rachel — June 2, 2009 @ 12:31 am
I would like to point out that two of those states, Missouri and South Carolina have the two highest standards already compared to the NAEP. See http://www.time.com/time/2007/nochild/
For those two states, National Standards would be a step down.
Alaska (my home state) and Texas are just stubborn independent sort of places that like to be different to spite themselves.
I expect lower rather than higher standards, but at least it’s a step towards standardization.
Comment by Rory — June 2, 2009 @ 5:53 pm