There has recently been a movement among the states to collaboratively adopt learning and content standards that apply nationwide. "National, not federal, standards," as a proponent pointedly referred to them at the AERA Annual Meeting. Today, Education Week reports that 46 states, "representing 80% of the nation's K-12 student population" have signed a "memorandum of understanding" (a euphemism for an unenforceable contract) reflecting their intent to adopt such standards within three years. The standards will be developed by representatives from Achieve, Inc., The College Board, and ACT, Inc. (two testing companies and an advocacy organization), and each set of standards will be sent to experts selected at the state level for comments. The project apparently will focus only on English and math at the K-12 level (though college standards in some form will apparently also be developed). Once the standards development is complete, states will apparently be expected to adopt them through the normal lawmaking process.
I have many thoughts about this movement, so I label this post "Part I," anticipating future postings. To begin with, I see this as the latest example of how we have become determined to engage in half-measures in national education reform, for fear of "growing" the federal government or infringing on the time-honored value of "local control," whatever that means today.
For example, however you may feel about NCLB, it is abidingly clear that the decision to hold states accountable for year-on-year progress, and then to let the states themselves set individual standards of such progress, has been a disaster. States routinely "game the system" by setting testing "cut" scores lower than they would otherwise be, thus inflating test score data and avoiding federal (financial) sanctions. The only reason that I can see for drafting NCLB in this way was to tamp down on objections based on "local control" to the largest expansion of the federal role in education since Lyndon Johnson. So, what we got was a half-measure--a federal accounability program that allows (or even encourages) states to game their way to great scores by setting low, easily achievable standards. This improves education?
The same philosophy seems to be at work in the "national" (but scrupulously NOT "federal") standards push. If we need common standards throughout the country--if this is indeed vital to the health of our education system (and this itself is debatable)--then why not set them in federal law? This would ensure uniformity, would not allow for state-level "gaming," and would allow for valid comparisons across state lines. Best of all (if you are into national education reform), this would make NCLB's accountability data meaningful for cross-state comparative research. Anything short of that leads to unavoidable problems, such as those we have experienced with the current version of NCLB. Why not take the opportunity of the re-authorization of NCLB to set high, but realistic, federal standards in a few areas and develop a federal test for purposes of accountability?
Beyond this, a few more preliminary questions: What if the "national" standards are developed, and then several states only legislatively adopt portions of them (for political or financial reasons)? Will they still be meaningful? Will anything exist to "force" compliance? What if state-developed tests are rendered content-invalid by the new standards? Will the states be expected to spend millions (or even billions) to develop new tests? What about textbooks and other resources keyed to the existing state standards? Is it realistic to think that, without some external (i.e., "federal") accountability lever, the local schools and districts will just get rid of those materials in favor of new (and undoubtedly more expensive) ones? What is to stop a state from adopting, and then subsequently repealing or tinkering with, its "national" standards law when results do not look so rosy? Most importantly, how on earth will all of this dovetail with NCLB's accountability measures? How will this prevent the "gaming," which has related to testing, rather than to the content of the standards themselves? I am not a reflexive opponent of national education reform, but I also do not see clear answers to any of these questions. More in future posts . . .