States Embrace National Standards for Schools

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

Less than two months after the nation’s governors and state school chiefs released their final recommendations for national education standards, 27 states have adopted them and about a dozen more are expected to do so in the next two weeks.

Their support has surprised many in education circles, given states’ long tradition of insisting on retaining local control over curriculum.

The quick adoption of common standards for what students should learn in English and math each year from kindergarten through high school is attributable in part to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition. States that adopt the standards by Aug. 2 win points in the competition for a share of the $3.4 billion to be awarded in September.

“I’m ecstatic,” said Arne Duncan, the secretary of education. “This has been the third rail of education, and the fact that you’re now seeing half the nation decide that it’s the right thing to do is a game-changer.”

Even Massachusetts, which many regard as having the nation’s best education system — and where the proposed standards have been a subject of bitter debate — is expected to adopt the standards on Wednesday morning. New York signed up on Monday, joining Connecticut, New Jersey and other states that have adopted the standards, though the timetable for actual implementation is uncertain.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/education/21standards.html

[villager]

1. Now if only we'd teach kids to think and use their imaginations, instead of take tests

.... and more tests.

And more tests.

[Lightning Count]

10. Works for Japan.

And their schools and students are top-notch. Given that the aesthetic design of their cars seems more appealing(to me at least) it seems like they are doing something right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. If Arne is ecstatic we all need to be worried

[mbperrin]

3. First, they only cover English and math.

Second, they are very simplistic - for instance, only formal register essay writing will be taught - the deadly 5 paragraph persuasive that was passe in the 70s.

States are buying a lottery ticket, which is a crappy way to finance education.

Education is not a race nor a competition. It is a collaborative effort whose results aren't known for 20-40 years after. That can't be changed, no matter how much the head monkeys want it to.

[citizen477]

4. Hey

Hey, don't knock the five-paragraph essay. Most of the great thinkers now grew up on that.

[mbperrin]

5. Well, we took 2 weeks to teach sophomores in high school to write a perfect one.

Now shouldn't we do a little more? There are no great published five paragraph essays, not Shakespeare, not Shaw, not even Stephen King.

We're crippling someone if they think that this is all there is to writing:

Four lines in the intro paragraph, which contains a thesis sentence, accompanied by three claims to support the thesis.

Fourteen lines each in the body paragraphs, each one expanding one of the claims in the thesis.

Four line conclusion, staying with the thesis and three claims.

Voila. 50 lines, a perfect writing score under the current TAKS administration for sophomores.

Now what?

[Egnever]

7. Good point and agreed

The national standards are the minimum, it doesn't mean you stop there. And the 5 paragraph essay is a terrific foundation.

[Posteritatis]

8. As long as it isn't being made into the entire building. (nt)

[Sgent]

6. This is a good thing

according to the article the standards are more rigorous than what is taught in 37 states, and about equal to the Massachusetts standards (although there are differing views on that).

As for the 5 paragraph persuasive essay, it may not create great literature, but it makes for functional writing.

[Igel]

9. Hmm... Different views on comparison with Mass.

And we only know that because the one allegedly independent dissenter cited was from Massachusetts.

Somehow, it makes me less likely to accept the claim about the other 36 states.

I also have to wonder how they judged "more rigorous." More specific? Great depth? Greater breadth? A more explicit connection of standards to objectives?

I've seen standards judged very rigorous, but then was forced--by my faculty--to figure out exactly what they meant. Yes, they were rigorous, far reaching. But implementing them was difficult; they were written for 6th graders or 11th graders, but a grad program could have had the same standards. In other words, they weren't tied to objectives so you could easily tweak a 6th-grade curriculum to make it appear to fulfill the 11th-grade standards.

A more narrowly constructed set of objectives would have been much more rigorous in practice--and therefore, presumably, better--even though much less far reaching.

Then again, I have heard arguments against "rigor." Some from teachers, some from academics. It's like being in a very, very large cornfield, all the stawmen that are set up to be knocked down on all sides. So many utterly convincing arguments that mean so very little.

[WinkyDink]

11. So far, 27/50. THIS is why I challenged that one thread that claimed we already HAVE 100%.

Not to mention that "standards" is a significantly different term from "curriculum."