tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21843852.post2467307853416654547..comments2024-01-04T05:57:26.735-06:00Comments on Education Policy Blog: Hosted by the Forum on the Future of Public Education: Education: Debunking the Case for National Standards - Alfie KohnCraig A. Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18160288758906798678noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21843852.post-79581168841423429872010-01-13T08:27:59.002-06:002010-01-13T08:27:59.002-06:00I appreciate Barbara's distinction--I think it...I appreciate Barbara's distinction--I think it's the reason that both the practice community and policy-makers are now acting as if "national standards" are a brand-new idea. In the late 80s and the 90s, virtually all major disciplinary content organizations-- NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, etc.-- developed what were called (by teachers, anyway)"the national standards," describing core content and skills and where they fit into a curriculum framework. Many states built their own grade-level content expectations, benchmarks and assessments on these national standards.<br /><br />There have been ongoing and bitter arguments about these, of course, especially the Mathematics and Social Studies standards. Who can forget the acrimonious battles over the correct amount of glory and credit given to George Washington? The NCTM standards, when revised, actually did reflect some of that national debate. Whether you preferred the old Math standards or the new ones--debate in the practice community over what to teach and how to teach it is an unqualified good. It demonstrates professional engagement with critical issues.<br /><br />I can speak with authority only about the national standards for Music (part of a set of standards for the arts), because I used them to guide my teaching and curriculum for years. The national standards pushed me to explore things-- for example, cultural significance of music, students as composers-- that I hadn't done previously. They were broad enough to be used in schools with few resources for the arts, but rigorous enough to push award-winning music programs in beneficial new directions.<br /><br />Of course, fine arts teachers will continue to use these national standards, as the Common Core movement will run out of money as soon as those Reading, Math and Science tests are developed. <br /><br />Why isn't anybody talking about the already-existing voluntary national standards? Because they were developed by the practice community? <br /><br />Here's one in a three-blog series on the common standards movement, from "Teacher in a Strange Land"-- a thought experiment set in the Reagan era: http://tinyurl.com/calcbaNancy Flanaganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00047575960944913289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21843852.post-70076894537458075932010-01-12T21:09:53.932-06:002010-01-12T21:09:53.932-06:00National math test scores continue to be disappoin...National math test scores continue to be disappointing. This poor trend persists in spite of new texts, standardized tests with attached implied threats, or laptops in the class. At some point, maybe we should admit that math, as it is taught currently and in the recent past, seems irrelevant to a large percentage of grade school kids.<br /><br />Why blame a sixth grade student or teacher trapped by meaningless lessons? Teachers are frustrated. Students check out.<br /><br />The missing element is reality. Instead of insisting that students learn another sixteen formulae, we need to involve them in tangible life projects. And the task must be interesting.<br /><br /><br />Alan Cook<br />info@thenumberyard.com<br />www.thenumberyard.comAlanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462931069576035585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21843852.post-61069174111909382492010-01-12T09:31:32.403-06:002010-01-12T09:31:32.403-06:00Alfie and Ken raise important questions. I'd...Alfie and Ken raise important questions. I'd like to highlight a distinction that I think is in their comments -- that the standards movement has morphed into a standardization movement.<br /><br />I believe that it is a good thing to have "non-binding" national academic standards for schools students. I prefer that these be formulated by stakeholders in negotiations every five or ten year, and sent out there as a thesis or theory that we can test in our teaching. As a teacher of ten year olds or fifteen year olds, I want a target, an end-in-view that tells me what other kids around the country are shooting for. If I don't have that, I may tend to evaluate my work (my work, not the kids!) by comparing one child to another but not realizing that I may need to stretch, to more radically reconfigure what I'm doing to bring kids up to speed. I just think it's helpful to have a reminder and national standards, regularly renegotiated and treated as a hypothesis, can serve that purpose.<br /><br />Now, having said all that, it's pretty clear that this current effort is NOT about that. It is about standardization. Once we get the standards, we can make the tests.<br /><br />OK, this we have to resist in the name of a profession of teaching and of the learning and growth of the nation's kids.<br /><br />And maybe it's not possible to decouple standards from standardization in the way I'm suggesting, (not only or primarily me, of course :-) Diane Ravitch and others have made similar points). given the current political climate and the incredible disappoint that the Obama/Duncan regime have brought with them. But I still think standards are useful if limited, and standardization is mind-killing.Barbara Stengelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00750720938489052189noreply@blogger.com