6.1 Set Good Standards
Prior to 2010, grade-level expectations were set separately in each state. Some, like California, had comparatively high standards. Others had low standards. In a few cases, states actually lowered their standards in order to avoid looking bad in national rankings. In 2010, the Federal “Race to the Top” competition highlighted the mess and prompted a national alignment of standards. Suddenly, state standards had more in common than virtually anyone had imagined possible.
California joined a consortium of states by adopting a set of “Common Core” standards for its students. These standards, or others similar to them, were adopted by most states during the “Race to the Top” competition in 2010. The standards describe what students are expected to know at each grade level, in each subject, regardless of where they go to school. (For insights about some of the behind-the-scenes knife fights involved in this transition search for “common core” on Google.)
Standards are important. They influence textbooks and learning materials. Teachers plan their lessons to ensure that students acquire the knowledge required by the standards. Standardized tests are designed to evaluate student performance in comparison to these standards. (Well, OK – for those inclined to nitpick there are also tests that are purely designed for competitive purposes, to sort students out in stack-rank fashion. That isn’t the point of the standards-based tests.)
For some states, adopting the common core standards significantly increased grade level expectations. This was not the case in California, which has a tradition of high standards.
Grade-level standards cover many subjects, from math to physical education. The standards wield different levels of influence depending on how they are used. For example, math and reading standards strongly influence the tests that are used to compare schools to one another. Content standards for art and music are not used in the same way.
In business, there is a saying that “what gets measured gets managed.” In education, the equivalent is “what gets tested gets taught.” Over time, tested subjects such as math and English have received more focus than those that are less often measured.
The tendency to spend more energy, time and resources on tested subjects can result in a phenomenon called “narrowing the curriculum.” To provide comparable structure for other subjects and skills, some proponents of a well-rounded education suggest standards should be adopted and tested for “life skill” learning such as time management, self-control, teamwork, and personal finance.
Are these expectations sufficient? In the next post, Make the Basics Rigorous, we will explore the debate about whether expectations can be too high.
Next: 6.2 Make the Basics Rigorous
A big question is whether college ready standards are the same as career ready standards. If one defines career as high level jobs, there are very similar standards for each. But what about auto collision or welding? Do they need Algebra 2? The National Assessment Governing Board will present different assessment cut points for career and college at the meeting of the California State Board of Education on May 11.
Readers: Michael Kirst is president of the State Board of Education. More information about the May 11 meeting can be found here: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/mt/st/index.asp and information about the National Assessment Governing Board can be found here: http://www.nagb.org/
I would also note that while California does have some of the most rigorous standards in the country, there is room for improvement. The common core standards do a much better job of aligning learning from one grade to the next and focusing deeply on essential content, rather than trying to teach everything with equal weight. All of this while maintaining the rigor of California’s standards and globally benching them to help ensure our students can compete in the new economy. We have a lot of work to do around implementation, but adopting the common core was an important and positive first step.
Rick,
I’m interested in an example of what you mean about the depth of common core on essential methods vs. teaching everything with equal weight.
Thanks Paul. Here’s an example (kindly provided by Sue Stickle and the great staff at the Sacramento County Office of Education) of how the two sets of standards handle a concept differently. In First Grade, the CCS speak to the issue of understanding place value. Here is the standard:
1. Understand that the two digits of a two-digit number represent amounts of tens and ones. Understand the following as special cases:
• 10 can be thought of as a bundle of ten ones-called a “ten.”
• The numbers from 11 to 19 are composed of a ten and one, two, three, four, or nine ones.
• The numbers 10, 20, 30, …, 90 refer to one, two three, … nine tens (and 0 ones).
2. Compare two two-digit numbers based on meanings of the tens and ones digit, recording the results with the symbols >, <, or =.
Now consider a similar concept in our current standards, which we call: Number Sense. Here is the standard:
1. Count and group objects in ones and tens
As you can see, the CCS gives significantly more detail as to what mastery of the concept entails. As a result, I believe the CCS will engage both the teacher and the student in a deeper and clearer understanding of key concepts.
Rick,
Thank you for the example. I would have to agree that the CCS description is more detailed. But at least for that example I know the teachers in my children’s school have already filled in the blanks. My children have practiced what’s in that particular CCS standard many times. Not sure how that generalizes. But looks like we will find out if the more detailed standards helps.