I keep thinking it can鈥檛 get much worse, and then it does. Throughout the 1990s, one state after another adopted prescriptive education standards enforced by frequent standardized testing, often of the high-stakes variety. A top-down, get-tough movement to impose 鈥渁ccountability鈥� began to squeeze the life out of classrooms.
A decade ago, many of us thought we had hit bottom鈥攗ntil the floor gave way and we found ourselves in a basement we didn鈥檛 know existed. Now every state had to test every student every year in grades 3-8, judging them (and their schools) almost exclusively by test scores and hurting the schools that needed the most help. Ludicrously unrealistic proficiency targets suggested that the federal law responsible was intended to sabotage rather than improve public education.
Today, we survey the wreckage. Talented teachers have abandoned the profession after having been turned into glorified test-prep technicians. Low-income teenagers have been forced out of school by do-or-die graduation exams. Countless inventive learning activities have been eliminated in favor of prefabricated lessons pegged to state standards.
And now we鈥檙e informed that what we really need 鈥� is to standardize this whole operation from coast to coast.
Have we lost our minds? Because we鈥檙e certainly in the process of losing our children鈥檚 minds.
Let鈥檚 be clear about this latest initiative, which is being spearheaded by politicians, corporate CEOs, and companies that produce standardized tests. First, what they鈥檙e trying to sell us are national standards. They carefully point out that the effort isn鈥檛 driven by the federal government. But if all, or nearly all, states end up adopting identical mandates, that distinction doesn鈥檛 amount to much.
Second, these standards will inevitably be accompanied by a national standardized test. 鈥淪tandards alone,鈥� warns Dane Linn, a key player, 鈥渨ill not drive teaching and learning鈥濃�攎eaning, of course, the specific type of teaching and learning that the authorities require. Even if we took the advice of the late Harold Howe II, a former U.S. commissioner of education, and made the standards 鈥渁s vague as possible,鈥� a national test creates a de facto national curriculum, particularly if high stakes are attached.
Third, a relatively small group of experts鈥攆ar from classrooms鈥攚ill be designing standards, test questions, and curricula for the rest of us. Incredibly, the official Web site of the Common Core State Standards Initiative insists that these will be 鈥渂ased on evidence鈥� rather than reflecting anyone鈥檚 鈥渋ndividual beliefs about what is important.鈥� But evidence can tell us only whether a certain method is effective for reaching a certain objective鈥攆or example, how instruction aligned to this standard will affect a score on that test. The selection of the goal itself鈥攚hat our children will be taught and tested on鈥攗navoidably reflects values and beliefs. Should those of a single group of individuals determine what happens in every public school in the country?
Advocates of national standards say they want all (American) students to attain excellence, no matter where they happen to live. The problem is that excellence is being confused with entirely different attributes, such as uniformity, rigor, specificity, and victory. Let鈥檚 consider each in turn.
Are all kids entitled to a great education? Of course. But that doesn鈥檛 mean all kids should get the same education. High standards don鈥檛 require common standards. Uniformity is not the same thing as excellence鈥攐r equity. (In fact, one-size-fits-all demands may offer the illusion of fairness, setting back the cause of genuine equity.) To recognize these simple truths is to watch the rationale for national standards collapse into a heap of intellectual rubble.
Uniformity is not the same thing as excellence鈥攐r equity.
I know of no evidence that students in countries as diverse as ours with national standards or curricula engage in unusually deep thinking or are particularly excited about learning. Even standardized-test results, such as those of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, provide no support. On 8th grade math and science exams, eight of the 10 top-scoring countries had centralized education systems, but so did nine of the 10 lowest-scoring countries in math and eight of the 10 lowest-scoring countries in science.
So if students don鈥檛 benefit from uniformity, who does? Presumably, corporations that sell curriculum materials and tests will enjoy lower costs. And then there are the policymakers who confuse doing well with beating others. If you鈥檙e determined to evaluate students or schools in relative terms, it helps if they鈥檙e all doing the same thing. But why would we want to turn learning into a competitive sport?
It鈥檚 not only that national standards are unnecessary, they鈥檙e also based on the premise that 鈥渙ur teachers cannot be trusted to make decisions about which curriculum is best for their schools,鈥� as the University of Chicago鈥檚 Zalman Usiskin put it. Moreover, uniformity doesn鈥檛 just happen鈥攁nd continue鈥攐n its own. Someone has to make everyone apply the same standards. What happens, then, to educators who disagree with some of them or with, say, the premise that teaching must be split into separate disciplines? What are the implications of accepting a system characterized by what Deborah Meier has called 鈥渃entralized power over ideas鈥�?
I鈥檝e written elsewhere about another error: equating harder with better and making a fetish of 鈥渞igorous鈥� demands or tests whose primary virtue (if it鈥檚 a virtue at all) is that they鈥檙e really difficult. Read just about any brief for national standards and you鈥檒l witness this confusion in full bloom. A key selling point is that we鈥檙e 鈥渞aising the bar鈥濃�攅ven though, as Voltaire reminded us, 鈥淭hat which is merely difficult gives no pleasure in the end.鈥� Nor does it enhance learning.
Then, too, there is a conflation of quality with specificity. If children鈥攁nd communities鈥攁re different from one another, the only safe way to apply one standard to all of them is to operate at a high level of abstraction: 鈥淲e will help all students to communicate effectively,鈥� for example. (Hence Harold Howe鈥檚 enduring wisdom about the need to keep things vague.) The more specific the standard, the more problematic to impose it on everyone. Pretty soon you鈥檙e gratuitously defining some children as failures, particularly if standards are broken down by grade level.
The reasonable-sounding adjectives employed to defend an agenda of specificity鈥斺�渇ocused,鈥� 鈥渃oherent,鈥� 鈥減recise,鈥� 鈥渃lear鈥濃�攐ught to make us nervous. If standards comprise narrowly defined facts and skills, then education consists of transmitting vast quantities of material to students, material that even the most successful may not remember, care about, or be able to use.
This is exactly what most state standards have already become, and it鈥檚 where national standards are heading (even if, in theory, they could be otherwise). Specificity is what business groups and newspaper editorialists want. It鈥檚 demanded by theorists who think being well educated mostly means knowing lots of facts. It鈥檚 been a major criterion by which 澳门跑狗论坛 and conservative think tanks like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute evaluate standards documents. In any case, Achieve Inc. and the governors probably won鈥檛 need much convincing; they鈥檒l give us specific in spades.
Finally, what鈥檚 the purpose of demanding that every kid in every school in every state must be able to do the same thing in the same year, with teachers pressured to 鈥渁lign鈥� their instruction to a master curriculum and a standardized test?
A prescription for uniform, specific, rigorous standards is made to order for those whose chief concern is to pump up the American economy.
I once imagined a drinking game in which a few of those education reform papers from corporate groups and politicians were read aloud: You take a shot every time you hear 鈥渞igorous,鈥� 鈥渕easurable,鈥� 鈥渁ccountable,鈥� 鈥渃ompetitive,鈥� 鈥渨orld-class,鈥� 鈥渉igh(er) expectations,鈥� or 鈥渞aising the bar.鈥� Within a few minutes, everyone would be so inebriated that they鈥檇 no longer be able to recall a time when discussions about schooling weren鈥檛 studded with these macho managerial buzzwords.
But not all jargon is meaningless. This language has very real implications for what classrooms will look like and what education is (and isn鈥檛) all about. The goal here isn鈥檛 to nourish children鈥檚 curiosity, to help them fall in love with reading, to promote both the ability and the disposition to think critically, or to support a democratic society. Rather, a prescription for uniform, specific, rigorous standards is made to order for those whose chief concern is to pump up the American economy and triumph over people who live in other countries.
If you read the FAQs page on the common-core-standards Web site, don鈥檛 bother looking for words like 鈥渆xploration,鈥� 鈥渋ntrinsic motivation,鈥� 鈥渄evelopmentally appropriate,鈥� or 鈥渄emocracy.鈥� Instead, the very first sentence contains the phrase 鈥渟uccess in the global economy,鈥� followed immediately by 鈥淎merica鈥檚 competitive edge.鈥�
If these standards are more economic than educational in their inspiration, more about winning than learning, devoted more to serving the interests of business than to meeting the needs of kids, then we鈥檝e merely painted a 21st-century facade on a hoary, dreary model of school-as-employee-training. Anyone who recoils from that vision should strenuously resist a proposal for national standards that embodies it.
Yes, we want excellent teaching and learning for all鈥攁lthough our emphasis should be less on achievement (read: test scores) than on students鈥� achievements. Offered a list of standards, we should scrutinize each one, but also ask who came up with them and for what purpose. Is there room for discussion and disagreement鈥攁nd not just by experts鈥攔egarding what, and how, we鈥檙e teaching and how authentic our criteria are for judging success? Or is this a matter of 鈥渙bey or else,鈥� with tests to enforce compliance?
The standards movement, sad to say, morphed long ago into a push for standardization. The last thing we need is more of the same.
