Two prominent national organizations have declared in the past month that 鈥渓ess is more鈥� in state standards for what students should know and be able to do.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, in a report on pre-K-8 math curricula, called for an approach that focuses on a 鈥渟mall number of significant mathematical 鈥榯argets鈥� for each grade level.鈥�
Similarly, the National Research Council argued in a report on science education that state and national standards and curricula should 鈥渋dentify a few core ideas in a discipline and elaborate on how those ideas can be cumulatively developed over grades K-8.鈥�
Such calls for greater parsimony in state academic-content standards are hardly new. But several observers say they come again at an opportune moment. The accountability pressures generated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act are forcing state officials to revisit their standards documents.
At the same time, new research about learning is shedding light on how young people develop their understanding of particular subjects over time, as they acquire progressively more sophisticated ways of thinking about a topic. The research about 鈥渓earning progressions鈥� potentially could lend greater coherence and depth to teaching in schools. (鈥淪cience Interest Could Foster 鈥楲earning Progressions鈥�,鈥� Oct. 11, 2006.)
鈥淲hat鈥檚 a solid backbone that can be identified to which lots of other important concepts can be attached?鈥� said Richard A. Duschl, a professor of education at Rutgers University in New Brunswick and the chairman of the committee that wrote the NRC report. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got all these concepts floating out there, but the whole point of the learning progressions is to attach them to something and have a coherent whole.鈥�
Too Much Content
鈥淢aking connections, having kids develop structures in their heads to which factoids can be attached鈥攚e know that鈥檚 how people learn,鈥� said Senta A. Raizen, the director of the National Center for Improving Science Education, based at WestEd, a nonprofit research agency in San Francisco.
鈥淚 think many of us have thought for a very long time that there鈥檚 much too much in the national science education standards鈥� devised by both the NRC and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, she added. 鈥淪o the result is that we haven鈥檛 gotten rid of our 10-pound textbooks.鈥�
Both the NCTM and the NRC acknowledged the shortcomings of state academic standards as currently written.
鈥淎s states and local school districts implement more rigorous assessment and accountability systems, teachers often face long lists of mathematics topics or learning expectations to address at each grade level, with many topics repeating from year to year,鈥� says the NCTM report, 鈥淐urriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten Through Grade 8 Mathematics.鈥�
鈥淟acking clear, consistent priorities and focus,鈥� it says, 鈥渢eachers stretch to find the time to present important mathematical topics effectively and in depth.鈥�
Says the NRC report: 鈥淢any standards and curricula contain too many disconnected topics that are given equal priority. Too little attention is given to how students鈥� understanding of a topic can be supported and enhanced from grade to grade. As a result, topics receive repeated, shallow coverage with little consistency, which provides a fragile foundation for further knowledge growth.鈥�
New science frameworks crafted for the National Assessment of Educational Progress in science try to limit the number of core science ideas that are tested, Ms. Raizen said, noting the overlap between the membership of that committee and the one that produced the new NRC report, 鈥淭aking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8.鈥�
鈥淓verybody recognizes that we can鈥檛 keep trying to do what we do now,鈥� agreed Robert J. Marzano, a senior scholar at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, the federally financed regional laboratory in Denver. 鈥淚t鈥檚 too much. We have to race through stuff in the name of coverage.鈥�
Mr. Marzano has worked with a number of states and districts to help identify a core set of standards that can guide instruction. 鈥淲hen you get committees representing subject areas at a state or national level, it鈥檚 impossible,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f I鈥檓 representing science, I don鈥檛 want to leave anything out.鈥�
In contrast, he said, teachers are much better at identifying what鈥檚 most important at their grade levels.
The 6,200-student Valparaiso Community School District in Indiana, for example, has spent the past two years identifying 鈥減ower standards鈥� that students need to build knowledge in each course. Teachers then produced learner outcomes for those standards as part of a new standards-based curriculum and grading system that they鈥檙e piloting this year. Classes that once had 75 to 100 learner outcomes now have 28, said John Hutton, the assistant superintendent.
鈥淭he teachers are much more comfortable with this because there was always so much pressure that they needed to cover all these things, and they were not going into as much depth as they needed for kids to learn,鈥� he said.
Wyoming Experience
At least one state鈥擶yoming鈥攈as recently tried to identify a set of 鈥渉igh priority鈥� content standards that should be tested and reported standard by standard for each student, school, and district as part of its new Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students.
The idea is to provide more clarity for educators and parents about what students need to learn and which of the assessed academic-content standards they have attained. The first reports based on the new tests were released last month.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e kind of useful because it does break the student鈥檚 performance down into a set of subskills,鈥� said John A. Metcalfe, the assistant superintendent of the 1,725-student Fremont County School District Number 1. But, at this point, he said, 鈥渁t least for our district, we haven鈥檛 seen any advantage.鈥�
One problem, he noted, is that the new measurement descriptions haven鈥檛 replaced the state鈥檚 existing content standards or benchmarks. 鈥淚t鈥檚 added another document that we have to figure out how it aligns with all our existing stuff,鈥� Mr. Metcalfe said.
Jane F. Schielock, an associate dean for education at Texas A&M University in College Station, who chaired the writing team for the NCTM report, said that while many people recognize that state content standards are too voluminous, cutting them down is tough.
The last time Texas tried to revise its math-content standards, she said, 鈥渨e made a very conscious attempt to try to pare down the curriculum.鈥� But after people started complaining about topics that had been left out, 鈥渨e ended up putting everything back in.鈥�
State departments of education are also reluctant to identify a core set of content standards, said Mr. Marzano, 鈥渂ecause they feel it would start to dictate curriculum. I鈥檝e always said, if they just did it as a model, it would help.鈥�
International Models
Certainly other countries have no such compunction, said Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University who has written extensively about standards. As an assistant U.S. secretary of education during the elder Bush administration, she commissioned several subject-matter groups to write voluntary national standards and urged them to draw on international models.
鈥淟ong ago, when I first saw the Japanese standards, I was very impressed by their clarity, coherence, and centrality (meaning fewer but more substantive in content),鈥� she wrote last week in an e-mail. 鈥淎s I have read state standards over the years, I have been struck by how verbose and vague they are, by contrast.
鈥淭eachers in a Japanese classroom can read the standards and know what is expected of them,鈥� she said. 鈥淭heir counterparts in a U.S. classroom are not likely to have that luxury and must figure out everything for themselves.鈥�
