Join the conversation

Wow. Russ Whitehurst is quite the wordsmith. Standards as "precondition" to support a "theory of action," eh?

Perhaps everyone should be upfront about what is just around the corner (per Ed Week, 10/28): national tests. So we can finally pinpoint, with standardized statistical measures, who is behind, and by how much. Because until we know that, we can't make things better for those kids, right?

Maybe the truth is that we don't know HOW to make things better for kids who are behind. So we pursue things that CAN be done: fast-track creation of standards (with no teacher input), fast-track creation of tests (by the people who wrote the standards, knowing that they were only the beginning), and then, if there's time, we'll create and mandate a single curriculum for every student in the nation. Mission accomplished!

Those who prefer innovative and individually tailored learning will just need to go to private schools. Kids in public schools will not need inspired instruction, since the standards, the curriculum and the tests will all be scientifically "aligned." So public schools can let go of all those creative (and expensive) career teachers and use a rotating set of two-year temps. Efficiency personified, a great theory of action.

Thanks for the comment, Nancy.

Does it have to be a national curriculum? Does the curriculum have to be stultifying and restrictive?

My biggest worry is that standards and assessments will be handed down, and then teachers will have to make a shift for themselves. Some will thrive, and others won't. Things will be even worse if the assessments aren't much good, though people are paying at least lip service to the need for better tests.

Don't you think there's a way to walk that fine line between over-regulation and neglect? Can curriculum be a tool and a guide without becoming a straight jacket? In fact, could a really good curriculum present a bulwark against lousy versions of direct instruction?

Yes--to nearly all your questions.

I believe that the rise of standards, in the 1990s, was the beginning of necessary scrutiny around public school curricula, instruction and accountability. I am a strong advocate for creating flexible (and mutable) frameworks for good decisions around what students should know and be able to do. I know a planned rich curriculum is essential, and I know it is possible to teach creatively to standards, because I did it, for years. And I believe that teachers cannot be effective unless they administer and utilize assessments linked to the curriculum.

It's our national compulsion to standardize, compare and compete that bothers me--the belief that the standards and tests under development will close the gaps that existing state standards and disciplinary-group standards could not address. I saw Whitehurst's disingenuous remarks as soft-pedaling an inexorable move toward one size fits all, unless you can afford to opt out. When the tools are in place, the thinking goes, the only variable will be instruction.

And that's where I disagree with you: a good curriculum does not equate to good instruction. There's plenty of evidence that teacher-to-teacher results vary even with packaged, scripted reading and math programs. In the end, people matter more than tools.

"Common core standards" has a nice ring to it.

Has anyone looked at the 50 state standards? They don't differ that much. Where the states differ is in their gaming of the standardized tests to avoid the statistically impossible sanctions imposed by NCLB. Since "proficiency" on any standardized achievement test is determined by "cut scores," the fact that kids are being left behind--i.e. not being reliably taught to read and do arithmetic--would not be changed by either national standards or national tests.

"A theory of action" would also be nice. But there is no such theory and no means of generating one. Whitehurst has it right. Faith is not enough. But that's the beginning, not the end. He ain't said nuthin yet.

"Aligned curricula" and "aligned assessment" seem logical. But this has been recognized for at least 40 years. The only "alignment" possible is at a very abstract level in the heads of the standard bearers and test constructors.

People are indeed more important than tools. But it's differences in tools rather than in people that determine accomplishments.

"Don't ever pin your reformy hopes on any single strategy."

Amen, squared.

Nancy, I'm not sure we disagree. I certainly agree that people are more important than tools, and I certainly don't support scripted curricula that teacher-proof classroom instruction. My concern, however, is that current policy discussions are placing far too much emphasis on the people without the tools or the support: Just hire people with the best pedigree and let them shine. Create pay incentives (and fear of consequences) to build a fire under them. And finally, clear away evil, old bureaucracies, and then watch a miracle occur.

Certainly, common standards and curricula can be badly done--or overdone--to constrain teachers and create the worst sort of standardization. But I believe well-designed standards and curricula can empower teachers rather than constrain them, even if the whole is yoked to common core standards. The proof, of course, will be in the pudding.

I just worry about the current tendency to focus on anything BUT curriculum and supports for teachers. Whitehurst, it seems to me, is doing us a service by reminding us that standards alone won't do much of anything.

Dick, it strikes me that differences in tools and people determine accomplishments. The concern I have these days is that some in the reform community believe people--or at least educators--are themselves ineducable. They come fully minted.

Dick, we're agreed on the question of what constitutes a tool. My inferences in the previous comment were sloppy. That said, I believe the quality of the tools and feedback messages can depend at least in part on the quality of standards and curricula. There's more to empowering than standards and curriculum.

But where's your research on the effectiveness of homeschooling parents? MANY get the job done brilliantly, but all? And how can we use what little information we have now about homeschooling parents to make judgments about what teachers do or do not need?

The "data" on effectiveness of home schooling is that when kids re-enter public school they are no further behind. Test data have also been compiled, but I don't consider the tests being used in either schools or homeschooling "fit for purpose," I won't cite the reports.

What all teachers need wherever the locale is timely feedback on the instructional status/performance of individual students. Prevailing tests are referenced to students. They provide no information re the instruction the student has received or where the instruction can/should be headed.

Dick, I think we're splitting hairs between the two of us. I agree that teachers need timely feedback on individual students' status, and that prevailing tests aren't designed to do what they should do.

As for the comparison with homeschooling parents, I'll defer to your reading of the research--as I haven't really encountered it myself--but I'm still not sure homeschooling parents offer an illuminating comparison with teachers. Still, that's a relatively small point.

The thing is, Claus, since timely feedback and sensitive tests are of core import it's not "hair splitting. Neither timely feedback no sensitive tests will be effected or even affected by either "Common core standards" or the Race to the top."

I have been and always will be a staunch supporter of public schools. But it seems to me the greatest indictment of public and publicly financed "charter schools" is that untrained Moms and Dads do a competitive job homeschooling their kids. If we had timely feedback and sensitive tests, there isn't any reason why every public school could not be an experimental laboratory school. The el-hi enterprise would improve its efficiency and effectiveness in the same manner that other sectors do.

Again, Dick--I think we agree. Timely support and feedback and sensitive tests are absolutely essential. We've made that point repeatedly, and we stand by it. That moves far beyond hair-splitting. We believe that standards and curriculum alone will not do the trick.

I think I'm using language badly in the comments, so forgive me. I think the differences between us amount to hair-splitting. I don't believe your arguments amount to hair splitting.

So I'll stop now, before I create even more of a muddle....

I strongly support the "main idea" of your post that initiated the thread. I'll quit talking too, so that we can both keep working on the "main idea." I wish more people agreed with us, but that's for the future.