Ethan’s comment on my last post made me think about who should be identifying standards that are intended as international benchmarks. Ethan makes the case that teachers should be a part of the process, but questions whether NEA is the appropriate vehicle for this. I wonder what role teachers should play or for that matter who the key players are in developing these standards. Just who should be at the table?
Secretary Duncan made the following comment in a February interview on C-SPAN
So what are we looking for?
So what are we looking for?
We’re looking for states that will commit to common, very high, common standard, internationally benchmarked tests so that we’ll really know where our students are competing against the best in the world, so the students graduating from high school will be both college ready and career ready, again, and have international comparisons with that, international benchmarks.
If this is the goal should the standards then be determined by the international assessment(s) that is chosen to determine how well our students are doing? If that is the measure of success and what we will be measured against it seems logical that we would want the standards to support acquisition of the knowledge and skills tested. If not, it would not be fair to our young people or to the districts that will be ranked based upon scores against this international benchmark.
If this is the goal should the standards then be determined by the international assessment(s) that is chosen to determine how well our students are doing? If that is the measure of success and what we will be measured against it seems logical that we would want the standards to support acquisition of the knowledge and skills tested. If not, it would not be fair to our young people or to the districts that will be ranked based upon scores against this international benchmark.
He went on to say:
What I want to do is I want to be the catalyst. I want to help to take all this hard work and really start to make it happen, and again, implement at scale. And so there’re just wonderful ideas, tremendous commitment out there. I want to be the one to help it come to fruition.
What I think is going on too much now, and I always try to be very candid and honest about this, in too many states, we have 50 different bars, 50 different goalposts. It’s been a race to the bottom. We’re talking about how it being a race to the top. And what happens is due to political pressure. You have districts lowering, districts in states lowering standards. And what most concerns me is that when you tell a child that they are you know meeting whatever bar it is, meeting state standards, whatever it might be, if I was a parent, if my child is meeting those states’ standards, I would think that they’re going to be on track to be successful, to graduate from high school, to go on to college.
Unfortunately, in too many places, I think we’re lying to children. While we’re telling them they are meeting state standards, they are absolutely ill-equipped, not just to graduate from high school, but to begin to think about going on to college. I think we do children and families a great disservice when we do that. And so the more we can be transparent, the more we can talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly, and be able to look our children and parents in the eye and say, yes, and say, you are really are on track to graduate from college. And by the way, we’re going to help you compete for jobs, not down the block or around the corner, or compete for jobs with children from India and China, because that’s the reality of our economy today. That’s what I want to do.
So it’s going to take some hard work, but again there’s tremendous leadership at the state level, at the district level, at the school chief level, to make this happen, against (ph) real, real significant investment from the non-profit community and philanthropic community. This is the right thing to do for children.
If I were to be transparent I would need to say that for success Duncan will need to be more than a catalyst. This is a monumental departure from historical practice in standard setting. In our state, the determination of standards that drive practice have been the responsibility of local districts until the Basic Education Act of 1993 that resulted in development of the EARL’s, the equivalent of our current state standards. Over the years these standards have gone through numerous revisions with new mathematics standards being introduced again this year. Why the many changes? Partly, it is because of the influence of so many constituencies in the process and, as Duncan says, concern with too few students meeting standard.
What I want to do is I want to be the catalyst. I want to help to take all this hard work and really start to make it happen, and again, implement at scale. And so there’re just wonderful ideas, tremendous commitment out there. I want to be the one to help it come to fruition.
What I think is going on too much now, and I always try to be very candid and honest about this, in too many states, we have 50 different bars, 50 different goalposts. It’s been a race to the bottom. We’re talking about how it being a race to the top. And what happens is due to political pressure. You have districts lowering, districts in states lowering standards. And what most concerns me is that when you tell a child that they are you know meeting whatever bar it is, meeting state standards, whatever it might be, if I was a parent, if my child is meeting those states’ standards, I would think that they’re going to be on track to be successful, to graduate from high school, to go on to college.
Unfortunately, in too many places, I think we’re lying to children. While we’re telling them they are meeting state standards, they are absolutely ill-equipped, not just to graduate from high school, but to begin to think about going on to college. I think we do children and families a great disservice when we do that. And so the more we can be transparent, the more we can talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly, and be able to look our children and parents in the eye and say, yes, and say, you are really are on track to graduate from college. And by the way, we’re going to help you compete for jobs, not down the block or around the corner, or compete for jobs with children from India and China, because that’s the reality of our economy today. That’s what I want to do.
So it’s going to take some hard work, but again there’s tremendous leadership at the state level, at the district level, at the school chief level, to make this happen, against (ph) real, real significant investment from the non-profit community and philanthropic community. This is the right thing to do for children.
If I were to be transparent I would need to say that for success Duncan will need to be more than a catalyst. This is a monumental departure from historical practice in standard setting. In our state, the determination of standards that drive practice have been the responsibility of local districts until the Basic Education Act of 1993 that resulted in development of the EARL’s, the equivalent of our current state standards. Over the years these standards have gone through numerous revisions with new mathematics standards being introduced again this year. Why the many changes? Partly, it is because of the influence of so many constituencies in the process and, as Duncan says, concern with too few students meeting standard.
In developing the original EALR’s the stake holders included teachers, college content experts, business roundtable, community, and government representatives. This many groups with often times diverse needs makes consensus difficult that can result in revisiting when these needs are not realized. How would this process work at the national level? Who gets to decide? Is the teacher voice the most critical voice in the room in developing standards because they are the people who will be held accountable for the learning? Is it business because we are preparing young people for work and business knows best what knowledge and skills they need for success? Is it elected officials who want our scores to be number one in the world and will be providing the revenue for this process to unfold?
Can this movement result in meaningful standards that will be embraced across our country?
Is international benchmarking using an existing assessment where we should be allocating scarce resources?
Is international benchmarking using an existing assessment where we should be allocating scarce resources?
No comments:
Post a Comment