Nationwide Education Standards: A Step in the Right Direction?

A recent opinion piece by textbook writer and editor Erik Bryan presents a simple argument: If we are going to be testing our kids on state standards, why not create standards that are, well, testable?

Standardized tests are designed according to state standards, and many states won't purchase textbooks that don't address these standards explicitly. Yet some states make Bryan's job "extremely, frustratingly difficult" -- not because they set the bar too low or too high, but because they put it in weird places.

In Texas, for instance, students must “understand the general meaning of spoken language ranging from situations in which contexts are familiar to unfamiliar." Not only is this vague, Bryan writes, it's very tough to measure. Texan students are also supposed to "use accessible language and learn new and essential language in the process.” But what "accessible" and "essential" are is not defined.

The part of me that involuntarily cringes at the mere mention of high-stakes tests also doesn't much like the idea that we should take out things like "students must respect the age, gender, social position, and cultural traditions of the speaker" from educational criteria (part of the Grade 8 New York English Language Arts Core Curriculum standards for listening comprehension), as Bryan seems to suggest. Yet it also seems odd that such things are expected to make it on multiple-choice exams. In an age of accountability, how do we keep these kinds of goals in place and measure their success?

Some states' "crap" standards (Bryan's word) can impact everyone, too. Large states like Texas, California, and New York have the biggest market for textbooks, which means they have a lot of sway over textbook companies that inevitably try to squeak by a one-size-fits-all set of materials. This can be relatively neutral, or downright inflammatory (case in point: the proposed revisions of Texas textbooks reflect a frighteningly conservative bias). Maybe it would make sense, then, to create some standards that can be agreed upon on a national basis. "If national standards pass for English and math," Bryan writes, "other subjects could follow, including science, social studies, and history. The big states that have previously managed to direct the course of education publishing with their market share may no longer retain that power."

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is proposing just that: coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, this draft of K-12 education standards was developed in collaboration with teachers, administrators, and other education experts. And right now, anyone can throw in their two cents -- public comments are open until April 2nd.

Is this another step toward straitjacketing schools into the factory-model accountability machine? Or does it make sense to have some national standards so that testing can at least be more effective (and the Erik Bryans of the world can have an easier time of it)?

Photo credit: ccarlstead