Common Standards for K-12 Education? Considering the Evidence: Summary of a Workshop Series (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Perspectives on Common Standards
7 Perspectives on Common Standards
Pages 59-68
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 59... ...
The end-of-course exam in algebra II being developed by Achieve as part of the American Diploma Project, and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) are both cases in which groups of states are implementing shared standards in the context of assessment programs.
|
From page 60... ...
Interestingly, Gandal noted, ironing out the procurement procedures across the states so that they could join forces in hiring a testing contractor was in some ways more challenging than hammering out the content and performance expectations. For Gandal, the experience has been a heartening proof of what is possible: "If states, working collaboratively, can agree on common standards and develop assessments in common, they could actually accomplish some of what you have been talking about in this room, which is ultimately coming up with a common expectation and measuring it."
|
From page 61... ...
In McWalters's view, one of the most important benefits of the program has been the political cover it has provided for the tensions that arise when any state attempts to raise expectations for students. The NECAP assessments were more challenging in many respects than the ones Rhode Island had used previously, and as a result some of the early results, particularly those for secondary mathematics, were disappointingly low.
|
From page 62... ...
With regard to the framework, his view was that if the nation were to pursue common standards, a trusted national group, such as the National Governors Association, not the federal government, should lead the effort, and it should be allowed to develop slowly, to provide time for natural collaboration. In his opinion, "other subjects need this a lot more than mathematics -- in mathematics we have a huge amount of agreement about what should be taught." Brain Rowan organized his observations of public education around inputs, outputs, and process, arguing that the nation has been focusing on the first two at the expense of the last.
|
From page 63... ...
In Rowan's view, "scientifically, the worst-case scenario would be for the United States to settle on a single national test." He believes that having a variety of tests makes it possible to evaluate evidence on particular hypotheses. He believes that "a diversity of standards, of processes, and of tests would generate more hypotheses and better evidence than would a system that only had one way of doing business." William Schmidt used the elements of the evaluation framework -- quality, equity, feasibility, and opportunity costs -- to reinforce several points.
|
From page 64... ...
She noted that the workshop discussion "zipped right into ‘how do we implement the standards, how do we go about developing the standards? ' before identifying what are we trying to achieve if we go to a common standards approach in the United States." Will this approach improve graduation rates, raise achievement levels, or get more kids into college, for example?
|
From page 65... ...
State legislatures need to undergo a paradigm shift, to see that collaboration offers them a valuable opportunity, rather than the burden of being told what to do. IMPLEMENTERS The three panelists who were asked to reflect on implementation issues were David Driscoll, James Liebman, and Richard Patz.
|
From page 66... ...
Driscoll agreed with Romer that "we are sleeping through a crisis." He believes the evidence is very clear that other countries hold their students to higher standards and that the United States will struggle to compete financially so long as that is true. Yet the nation has not had the will to change the schools.
|
From page 67... ...
So measuring their progress "helps to balance out the proficiency bonus that the states with high-performing kids get." Liebman's suggestion for pursuing common standards was that the federal government or some prestigious private entity could set provisional standards, perhaps only in a few subjects at first, and then establish a very clear grading system that focuses on both proficiency and growth to compare the performance of similar states. The focus would be on outcomes, not on the way states decide to establish their standards, but Lieb
|
From page 68... ...
However, this technology could allow assessment of much broader domains, which could facilitate benchmark reference assessment, as well as matrix sampling of student populations, to facilitate more informative comparisons of their progress. Patz is in a position to see the effects of the significant differences in the quality of states' standards and assessments.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.