Menu
» Next Entry (newer): Zero Tolerance: Death of Due Process
Aligning to Lousy Standards
January 04, 2004There is an increasing push to have "standards-based" education, and a simultaneous push to increase standardized testing, to hold teachers and schools accountable. In theory, this all sounds rational.
Unfortunately, we've seen firsthand what happens when the standards are written by committee (as most standards documents are). Wouldn't it be far better for them to be written by teachers who actually have been sucessful teaching the material to be standardized? Instead of a meaningful, useful document, we end up with a muddled mess.
So now that we have standards that are next to useless, here comes the next phase, which is standardized testing. In states where the Department of Education writes the test, you guessed it, the test is written to be "aligned" with the newly-minted standards.
We end up with not just a benign mess (that any school worth its salt would ignore), but one that now affects the bottom line. This puts schools in a Catch-22.
Even worse (and just as deadly) is when a State or district first decides on a standardized test, then "aligns" its standards to the test. This happened in Maryland, which has adopted an algebra exam which "takes the algebra out of algebra" according to a University of Maryland math professor.
This sorry episode is recounted by Peter at Catholic School Blogger, with thoughtful analysis on the role of NCTM math standards (now math-free!) and our favorite concept: constructivism.
About the teachers at Blair Magnet School, he writes, "So what are the teachers at Blair supposed to do? Teach algebra the way they know it should be done, or teach the material that'll be on the statewide exam?"
Since it is a "magnet" school, something tells us the Blair folks weren't having any trouble teaching algebra before Maryland's education bureaucrats got involved.
Good standards can be written by non-teachers and groups of teachers, especially groups of teachers led by an NCTM-aligned administrator can write bad standards.
It's not the authors, its the standards. I expect good standards to be clear as to exactly what the student should know or be able to do, and when the student should know or be able to do it (i.e grade-specific standards growing in depth and complexity year to year). Unmeasurable objectives or attitudes do not belong in the standards. From these standards effective instructional programs can be developed, as can tests aligned to the standards and instruction.
I offer some examples with which I had some involvement.
1) The Mathematically Correct Standards http://mathematicallycorrect.com/kprea.htm
These were written in a short period of time by a small number of people with the goal of offering parents and others a clear description of some key things to master at each grade. They were also to serve as the only easily available counter example to the NCTM Standards.
2) The San Diego Math Standards, since superceded in the district by the California Standards. These were written with parent, teacher and administrator input in long committee like process. They are still quite good.
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/mathstand.htm
3) The California Standards
http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/pdf/math.pdf
Mike McKeown January 10, 2004 12:14 PMI agree with Mike. The standards are the essence of the educational system, and when bad standards are at fault, blaming the test won't do any good. A good standardized test that is based on solid, measurable, reasonable standards can help revolutionize a bad educational system.
Kimberly January 12, 2004 01:39 PM