American Schools Need Common Standards

The national research journal Education Next published a report in 2005 with this catchy title: "Johnny can't read ... in South Carolina. But if his folks move to Texas, he'll be reading up a storm. What's going on?"

The report pointed out that because the federal No Child Left Behind Act allows each state to define for itself what "academically proficient" means, there are dramatic differences from one state to the next. A student who scores "proficient" in one state might score "below basic" if his parents move to South Carolina because our state's proficiency standards are just about the toughest in the nation. That's why state-to-state comparisons under the No Child Left Behind Act are virtually worthless.

In addition to setting "proficiency standards" on their tests, individual states also are empowered under the U.S. Constitution to define "curriculum standards," the skills and knowledge that students should learn at each grade level. States decide how these standards are taught in the classroom and how students are tested to measure their progress.

The result is that there are 50 different sets of standards across the nation, and a student who moves from North Carolina to South Carolina may face a very different set of requirements. On top of that, America's crazy quilt of standards may not be comparable with standards in the countries we're competing against for high-quality jobs.

Teachers, governors, state superintendents of education, business leaders and colleges and universities are increasingly viewing this as unacceptable. The governors and state superintendents of 46 states recently announced their participation in a state-led process to develop a "common core" of state K-12 standards in mathematics and English language arts. Although South Carolina is prevented from being an "official" participant due to Gov. Mark Sanford's refusal to sign on, I have been assured by the effort's leaders -- including the National Governors Association -- that we can participate unofficially.

These common core standards will be research and evidence-based, and their development will be guided by the best minds and expertise from across the country and around the world. They will be benchmarked against standards from other nations -- the same nations whose children will compete against ours in the global marketplace.

Once the standards are complete, each state can decide on its own whether to adopt them. Here in South Carolina, any change to our standards would have to be approved by the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee.

Already we're hearing concerns from some that this project will lead to a conspiratorial "power grab" by the federal government and that it will open the door to national standards and national tests. But South Carolina's previous experience with similar state-led efforts suggests otherwise.

In 1987, a consortium of state education agencies and national education organizations joined forces to reach a national consensus on teacher training and licensing matters. The "model standards" that resulted from the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium were used as resources for individual states to develop their own policies around what good teaching looks like and how it should be evaluated. In South Carolina, they became the foundation of our efforts to improve teacher quality.

Another example of how national consistency can be created without federal control is the relationship states have with the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. This organization creates pathways for educators to move throughout America by linking states through the NASDTEC Interstate Agreement, which provides a common core for teacher certification while giving states autonomy to tailor certification requirements to fit their individual needs.

A few alarmists have even suggested that the new Common Core State Standards Initiative will ultimately produce "dumbed down" standards just to make schools "look good." But that ludicrous idea ignores the stark reality of our world.

The U.S. economy has changed dramatically. American companies compete today not only with businesses on the other side of town but also with businesses on the other side of the globe. American schools compete with schools in Taipei, Bangalore and Beijing, and they must prepare students to meet challenges that can't even be imagined today.

To me, the goals of a consensus approach to stronger curriculum standards in English and math seem logical and worthwhile. After all, how could our ability to compete be damaged if our best minds reach agreement on how students can communicate better with words and numbers? And how could our nation not become stronger if students in our increasingly mobile society find academic continuity when their families move from one state to another?

Derrick Manuel, a South Carolina father of three, told a television reporter recently that he thinks common core standards would help his children. "For my family, we're in the military," Manuel said. "It'll get them back on the same level as the state we recently left. So I think it's a pretty good idea."

I think it's a good idea, too.

Comments

[hey0there]

We need a computer programming class to become a core class like Math and Science is.
Start teaching the concepts as early as possible.

[KillTheMessenger]

They did that in Germany in the early 1980s. Too little, too late.

[Artos]

What's new about this, I've been saying the same thing since I quit high school in 1969. The stupidist thing I can think of about America is that we are supposed to be on nation but we run this country like it's nothing but a group of third world banana states. It's all just a mish mash of nonsense and stays this way because of the States righters.

[tomasedison]

Do you think you could pass a test about The War of Northern Aggression ? How about the Theory of Creation ?

Plenty of our states are banana republics.

[Artos]

The Civil war was one of my favorite parts of American history. I don't go along with the theory of Creation at all, stuff like that belongs in Church not in our schools.

[jsgaetano]

This is completely true, and a huge failing of "education" in America. All public schools should be sticking to the same basic cirriculum­... and NOT force kids into a Fundie-land "science is evil" cirriculum.

Another huge travesty is having education funded through property taxes. I simply can't think of a more discriminatory method of guaranteeing public schools in poor areas will never have enough money to operate at the same level as the public schools in wealthy areas. All public schools should receive approximately the same amount of money per student.

[mlaiuppa]

To do what you suggest would take away education decisions from the states and make them under Federal authority.

Now, if you do that, then the Federal government should pay ALL of the costs of education. And do the hiring, curriculum etc. for local schools.

That just isn't practical.

There should be some standards. But you can't hogtie the locals when it suits you and then leave them to sink or swim when it comes to the budget.

[RobinSeattle]

Sorry,. but that's crap.

Japan has national academic standards and it is, in fact, said that from day to day, you know which page of the textbooks any classroom will be on, such is the extent of national uniformity on the issue.

But the teachers are hired by the local schools themselves after they obtain a post graduate teaching credential from a university.

The result is that a public school education in Japan is the equivalent of having gone through two years of college in the U.S. There are also copious private schools if parents want to choose that route for their children, though a lot of them are vocational in nature (ike the one Ichiro graduated from).

Parents in Japan are also very active in their local schools and woe betide to any school board member who crosses the ladies at the PTA. By contrast, PTAs here in the U.S. are treated as little more than a sideshow by our arrogant and incompetent school boards.

[Artos]

I would have to disagree with that part of your comment which mentions the P.T.A.. I think personally that part of the problem is that average citizens have oftentimes due to various biases forced School systems to alter their curriculum to suit what they want taught which can very often cause differences in the very standards you want kept. How does that help.

[KillTheMessenger]

Why isn't it practical for the federal government to pay for all the schools? It's practical for them to take the lions share of your taxes, isn't it?

"But you can't hogtie the locals when it suits you and then leave them to sink or swim when it comes to the budget."

Now, isn't that exactly what you do here in the US? You siphon off most of the taxes, spend twice of what other nations spend (and more) on bombs and then leave the local authorities to deal with the fiscal mess that results from not having enough money left for vital services like education.

[LitDr2B]

That's what I've never understood about how education is funded in the U.S.

Why does the only federal money given toward education go to "underserved" schools? (I may be wrong here). Who cares if it was originally set up as state-funded and states having the primary overseeing.

We are far behind other countries in educational measures. We need a new funding model. The country has a stake in education, and I think the country should pay.

[BumpyKnight]

How many advocates of common core standards in curriculum are also advocates of common core standards in funding. Is that too socialist or something?

[Wendy Johnson]

Well said.

[KillTheMessenger]

Indeed, Europe is better, however, even they were struggling with the same problem. In Germany, which I happen to know about, used to have a north-south gradient. The states in the south (Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria) were setting significantly higher standards for students going to a Gymnasium (the equivalent of US high schools) than the states in the center and north of Germany. This would, in turn, lead to top universities requiring higher grade averages from students of northern states to account for the (significantly) reduced level of education. It was a constant political battle to equalize the system, with less affluent northern states pushing for "social balance" for their students, which in practice would have meant worse education for all. I believe in the end the states with higher standards won and the who system went for higher, not lower standards. But since I haven't been watching the situation for quite a while, things could have, again, changed quite a bit.

[mlaiuppa]

They also do "tracking" which results in higher test scores since only the cream of the cream take the tests. In the U.S. we test everyone. Which is why you have to take test results comparisons with a pound of salt.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Tracking" is not done to achieve higher test scores. It is done to give the kids with the best chances to go to university a better education by the time they get to university. Among the 60 or so graduates in my class only one failed the final exam. Probably 60% or more went to get a four year degree or better. I would think that maybe a dozen of us have a PhD. I know of at least five personally who do. Now, this is probably slightly better than the average since I was lucky to go to a school with a principal made of steel. The man wanted his school to be one of the best and he did whatever it took to achieve that goal.

Students in the second and third tiers can augment their education later with different types of learning credits and go to college and university as well, although it's rare that someone does. Great care is taken to differentiate early between students who have the required attitude and those who do not (it's not as much a question of intelligence as many think as it is one of interest and stamina to do the work).

Now, the problem in the US is that the same institutions which produce "Johnny can't reads" also prepare people who will be the premier scientists and engineers of the nation. That's not particularly smart and disadvantages smarter kids which just don't happen to be congenial by birth.

[jeffrey678]

European standards are much better. A race to the top is better than a race to the bottom. I noticed that the people who run for local school boards are not that interested in education but how to reduce local school taxes.

[RobinSeattle]

Or some wacked out religious agenda.

[Artos]

Exactly my point earlier when I mention the P.T. A. .