Debunking Standards Issue #1: Which Bar to Raise?

More Thoughtful

October 9, 2009

Debunking Standards Issue #1: Which Bar to Raise?

by Alexander Hoffman, at 9:03 am

This and next week I am raising objections to the idea that new standards — particularly new national standards — are worth the attention they get. It is ridiculous to think that they can be a meaningful lever of broad educational improvement. In fact, I do not think that they can have any significant impact at all.

Problem #1: Which Bar to Raise?

New standards and new standards initiatives are always about raising the bar. They are always about improving education, educational outcomes and sometimes even — shockingly — improving test scores. Standards efforts are never aimed at merely documenting what is actually done.

But this goal is actually impossible to accomplish with a single bar or single standard because we know that there are all kinds of achievement gaps in this country. Yes, there are racial/ethnic gaps and income gaps. But there are also geographic gaps. The NAEP has show us that some states simply do much much better than others. Caroline Hoxby’s latest report talks about the Harlem-Scarsdale gap. Regardless of the cause of these geographic gaps, they exist.

Given such gaps between states and within states, for whom should we raise the bar? Those who call for excellence are looking to improve the top half or quarter. Those who call for equity aim to improve the bottom half or quarter. Perhaps we can do both at the same time, but wouldn’t that call for multiple bars? States like Mississippi and California could show incredible improvement and still be behind states like Massachusetts and New Jersey. Set the bar high enough to push higher achieving states or districts, and the lower achieving area will see a demoralizing and impossible goal and be that much less likely to take it seriously. Set it at a level to be realistically inspiring for lower achieving states and higher achieving states could sit on their laurels for having already passed it. The exact same issues hold true for districts and even schools.

So, a single set of standards to raise the bar? Impossible.

Next: Problem #2 — An Unrealistic Bar.

Gideon

The content knowledge and skills that students in Mississippi or California need are no different than those needed by students in Massachusetts or New Jersey. Setting different standards leads to different expectations for different kids. We’ve seen this before in special education, hence the efforts to end tracking that limits students’ options. Having one set of standards allows us to compare students across the country, and if students in one state are performing better or worse than in another state, we need to look at the system of education, not the standards. And having common standards does not prevent examining student progress over time. We can and should recognize that certain groups of students are starting from farther behind, and focus on how best to get them to where they need to be, i.e. measure their progress, rather than setting lower standards for them.
Michael M.

Gideon,
I am inclined to agree, but I know there is debate on the matter.

That being said, one of the biggest points of pride in the School Progress Reports — and in my view a FATAL FLAW — is the “peer grouping” aspect in the methodology.

Who cares if a G&T school got a “B”, and a school where half the kids are failing gets an “A”?

Got STANDARDS?
Jason Becker

This is a pretty weak argument from a pretty smart guy. First of all, arguing that there is differentiated achievement, and therefore, different gaps for various groups is not an argument against setting standards. This is the argument for standards. If a child attends a school where “excellence” is determined by standards (or tests) which are not demanding, there is no motivation for the school or student to learn beyond these low standards.

Just as Gideon mentions, in our country, with high mobility of people and economies which stretch across state boundaries freely, we do not want or need differential preparedness. All students will be expected to enter the same society and the same economy and will need the same skills to compete.

The confusion lies in the term “raising the bar”. This is an imprecise picture of the motivations behind and effects of strong standards. Strong standards actually “level the field”, but does so not by pounding down mountains, instead we build up the valleys. To mix metaphors and use another common aphorism, we need a “tide to lift all boats” and to do so evenly.

What’s more demoralizing for Mississippi and California– a national call to action to step up in the education arena to progress toward amply preparing their students for life after twelfth grade or education wonks and politicians deciding that they are not good enough to compete with Massachusetts and should not be expected to compete with them?

While I don’t agree with some heavy-handed consequences laid unfairly against those who have more ground to cover, this should not be mistaken for an acceptance that kids in California and Mississippi need to learn less so their long term goals can be less aspirational than students in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

Gideon & Jason,

1) Is the purpose of standards and the standards movement to make it easier for transient students who move from district to district or from state to state? I mean, I’ve seen people say that if we had a national curriculum — which is NOT the same thing as national standards — this could be one advantage. Of course, if we had grade-by-grade national standards, this would help students who move over the summer. But the Common Core effort getting such attention is really about graduation standards.

2) Have you looked at state and national standards to see how well they might be used to measure students, schools and districts against one another? They don’t provide midpoints or rulers to determine how far ahead or behind one is compared to another. You might be alluding to tests — purportedly based on standards — and that comes a little later in this series.

3) We do NOT have just one economy or just one society. We have laws that talk about “local community standards [of decency]” — and explicit acknowledgement that we have larger differences in this country. Different parts of the country have different industries and possibilities of employment. Entertainment is focused in a few cities, and agriculture is not a significant part of the economy where of the population lives.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t want an educational system that can live up to strong national standards. I’m not sure about that matter. But the claim that we have one society and one economy just doesn’t hold.

4) The professed goal of all of these standards is to improve education, work force preparation, college preparedness, educational outcomes and/or achievement. They say that they want to improve schools.

So, that is what I am talking about. How do we use state/national standards to improve schools in MA, and schools in CA? How do we use state/national standards to improve schools in Harlem, and schools in Scarsdale.

Clearly, if we are going to improve schools in Newton, MA and Scarsdale, NY and Fairfax County, VA, we need to set the standards rather ambitiously. Otherwise, the standards would be irrelevant to them. But how will Harlem, Worcester and Richmond respond to standards like that? Would or could they help places like that to improve?

That sounds, to me, like the school that decided to have lots of kids take AP exams that they were entirely unprepared for, to let them know what AP level work was about and to inspire them to better work the next year. Does anyone really think that that was a good idea?

************************

Mind you, I am NOT arguing for multiple national standards that replicated a tracked system writ large. I think that districts need to do a better job of fostering school improvement, and schools need to be turned into engines of perpetual improvement. (With states and the fed supporting districts in these efforts, of course.) Setting goals does not accomplish this, and that’s all standards are.

We don’t seriously set a single set of goals for all the students in a school, or at least we shouldn’t. We want each student to maximize what they can, without prescribing what ought to be possible in the next year — or five — or not. Why should schools, districts or states be any different?
Fred Smith

Are there different spelling tests for each state? 50 different hearing tests, SAT examinations, clerical speed and accuracy or typing tests? 50 different methods to decide who is talented enough to get into Juilliard, who merits a Rhodes or Fulbright Scholarship, who should be awarded a MacArthur (genius) Fellowship, who is a chess champion? How about Nobels or Pulitzers? What about vocational aptitudes? Perhaps, in some cases (driving licenses), tests should be state-specific. After all, there are 50 ways to leave your lover. [How can I get this thing to skip lines--so that I can write in paragraphs?]
Michael M.

FS,
Hit return once for a new line, twice for a break.
(Not that it shows while typing it in though.)

Cheers.
Fred Smith

Thank you, Michael. I’m keyboarding disabled. Let me try it.

Alexander, I apologize for being flippant. I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of the argument about whether the NYS tests were easier this year, and I think I’m coming up with definitive evidence that, indeed, they were–by failure of design. Deliberate or inadvertent, this casts substantive doubt on the testing program. The effort leaves me a bit punchy from time to time.

Voila.
http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

Fred,

What are you apologizing for?

I just wasn’t sure if you started serious or had the punchline in mind from the beginning.

Other than that? Well, it reminded me that my wife sent me a mix with 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover back in high school. She’s always claimed that it didn’t mean anything, but….
Michael M.

In this town, it’s “50 ways to buy an election.”

The most recent example is an utterly reprehensible Mayor Mike ad chopping up a Thompson speech.

No billionaire left behind, up for reauthorization against the will of the people.

Don’t miss the cage fight, er debate, on Tuesday night.
canwetalk

I am in favor of rising the bar and setting **clear** standards where you can truly assess the students’ achievement growth.
However, these standards continue to be varied from state to state, even within the state, it varies from county to county, how can we truly measure the achievement gap based on these standard gaps? Do other states water down high-stake exams, as it was done in NY, so that there’s this illusory of “achievement” because of the NCLB law? Do you rise the standard by creating exams that demand the rigor of the content, but at the time of the exam students only need to get 10 correct answers out 30 questions?
I always wonder about the think tank people who are not addressing the issue that academic, vocational, tech programs must be created to meet the needs of those students who will choose the school that suits them. I am strong believer that more career tech programs must be created across the nation. What’s wrong with being a plumber? What’s wrong with being a mechanic? What’s wrong with being a nurse’s aide? These are not college bound programs, but they help students to become productive citizen. Creating more CTE programs will close the economic gap because those programs get students ready for work. The purpose of schools is to get students ready for economical reasons – jobs!
http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

Canwetalk,

I appreciate that you think that the purpose of schools is to get students ready for jobs. Others, however, feel differently.

* Some feel that the purpose is to prepare students for citizenship and participation in civic life.

* Some feel that the purpose is to provide a well rounded education to prepare them to live a full life.

* Some feel, clearly, that a major purpose of schools is to provide a cultural center for communities — as we see with basketball in Indiana and football in Texas.

And there are many more purposes that large groups of people support. Are you really sure that every community has the same set of beliefs about the purpose of schools? Do not some communities believe that high school should prepare kids for college — and NOT for jobs?

I would also add that test and standards are NOT the same thing, though many pretend they are or conveniently ignore the ways in which they are not.
canwetalk

AH,
Thank you for your breakdown on the purpose of schools. Students are all in an institution that provides students a well-rounded education, prepare them for the rigor of college or for the job force, to inculcate community-involvement values, to understand the consequences of following and abiding by rules and policies of the school. However, the purpose has always been, whether you graduate from HS or college, you join the work force where it has it’s own level of demands within that context of the community. Schools are nothing more than a small cosmo of the real world. Teachers and those in the learning community instill the value system they will encounter in the work force or in college or in the military. But, eventually every child must be prepared to go to work. Our economy heavy depends on the future of america to keep it strong by being part of the work force. It is the responsibility of the educators to prepare students that they are two things you must do – work and pay taxes.

I know that everyone should pursue their passion in school and educators are the key to unlocking the students’ true passion and desire. If teachers unlock the desire for students to go to college, good! However, if a students want to go to trade school, good, too. Is everyone truly college material? We need to be careful here. There are students with severe learning abilities and college would be detrimental, yet trade school or CTE school prepared them to be productive citizen. Isn’t that our goal as educators? Are we supposed to look down at all those individuals who never went to college yet provide some form of service in the community? My hair stylist has three salons and employees over 20 women, makes more money than me, yet she’s a productive citizen who lives in the community and continues to contribute. Of course, there are other examples of who are productive citizen without a college education. The belief system is very clear. Some students will go to college, others will join the military and make a career of it, some will go to trade school or be enrolled in a CTE program and join the workforce as electricians, plumbers, construction workers, mechanics, some will be entrepeneurs, etc. We need to be honest and look at the big picture.
But, I thank you for your comments. I am a realist and see the needs of society with respect to education. Get students ready for the workforce. You can look it up in Wikipedia.
http://ssrn.com/author=1199505 Dick Schutz

Have any of y’all actually looked at the College- and Career-Readiness Common Core Standards?

http://www.corestandards.org/Standards/index.htm

They’re wish lists. The “English Language Arts” lists are divided into 3 parts reading, writing, speaking & listening

The first three standards from one of these is:

Select and use a format, organization, and style appropriate to the topic, purpose, and audience.

Present information, findings, and supporting evidence clearly and concisely.
see evidence

Make strategic use of multimedia elements and visual displays of data to gain audience attention and enhance understanding.

If you guessed that this was from the writing list, you are wrong. It’s from “Speaking & Listening.”

If you compare these “standards” with statements from the present state standards, you’ll see thay all come out of the same pot.

Listen to what Hoffman is telling us.
Pingback: GarysWorld USA | Education News | October 09
Allen

What it, instead of publicizing scaled scores against a national average, we have all schools take a test to establish a benchmark (the score from which is not publicized and is known only by the national clearinghouse). In subsequent years, the schools are given their “grade” by how much they improve over their previous year’s score. That way, every school is graded on how well they improve student achievement…rather than based on what the students knew when they came in. Finally, we would have a system that teachers would love…one that ignores the deficiencies of the students when they arrived in the current classroom. “How can we get students where they need to be if they don’t come with the necessary prior knowledge?”

This would effectively provide a level playing field for all states, all districts and all school buildings! What a joy that would be…a society where we’re graded on our own merits rather than that of everyone else…if we have “dumb” kids coming in, well, at least we have less “dumb” kids when they leave.

(posted with tongue firmly planted in cheek…maybe)
http://ssrn.com/author=1199505 Dick Schutz

The dialog is confusing two matters: A test which, in principle aligned with standards. We have such a national test now in NAEP. Test items can be made easier or more difficult but that isn’t lowering or raising “standards.” The other matter is cut scores. This is what the states are manipulating as they fight the statistically impossible AYP requirements of NCLB. NAEP, also has arbitrarily established ungrounded cut scores that tragically define “proficiency.” Raising or lowering the cut scores wouldn’t do anything for kids or for education. That’s a matter of instruction, not testing.

As Alexander said in the second paragraph of his post: “Standards efforts are never aimed at merely documenting what is actually done.” Neither the standards, nor the tests, nor the cut scores acknowledge this fact of lfe. It would be funny, if it weren’t tragic.
http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com ceolaf wolfhelm
http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

Mr. Schultz,

Actually, I disagree. Standards declare what should be known and what skills students should have, what levels of proficiency they should have and by what point. Common Core is currently about graduation standards.

My point is that standards and cut scores BOTH are set somewhat arbitrarily. But they NOT set capriciously. Test designers work with content specialists and practitioners to decide where to set cut scores, and standards writers do the same for their descriptions of proficiency.

Yes, when it comes to tests and cut scores, these things are easily manipulated. I agree on that.

I think that you are missing the fact that tests become the de facto standards, however. So, the original standards set some sort of level for proficiency, and then tests are supposedly designed to align with those standards. As the tests develop over time, from year to year, they supplant the place of that the original standards were to hold, including both in deciding what is important and in declaring the appropriate level for proficiency.
http://ssrn.com/author=1199505 Dick Schutz

Re standards. I don’t think you have actually looked at “standards.” The statements do NOT “Standards declare what should be known and what skills students should have, what levels of proficiency they should have and by what point.”

I did not state that the cut scores were set capriciously. The distribution of scores is cut into segments and the segments are purported to represent degrees of “proficiency.” There is no basis for these designations.

I agree that the tests become the de facto standards. Districts, schools and teachers teach to the tests, not to the standards. Few people ever look at the standards. No thought was given to the time or means of accomplishment when the standards were formulated. They were assembled to satisfy the special interests of those who had a finger in the formulation.

Our Twitter Updates

” you don't want to come to class? Have a packet. You don't like your teacher? Have a packet” - @leoniehaimson 2 hrs ago
.@leonileoniehaimson brings letters from anonymous teachers with damning tales.of credit recovery: giving out CR ”packets” like skittles.. 2 hrs ago
At credit recovery town hall hosted by Regents. Testimony so far by principal, and 2 former teachers. Principal support; teachers critical 2 hrs ago
Our report about the city's decision to keep two schools open, complete w/ co-location worries & political speculation: http://t.co/RO59PMh1 2 hrs ago
Chancellor Walcott about Wadleigh and KAPPA VII: "While these two schools continue to struggle, what we learned is that they are also... 4 hrs ago
More updates...

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

More Thoughtful

October 9, 2009

Debunking Standards Issue #1: Which Bar to Raise?

Tips, questions, feedback?

Follow GothamSchools

Feb. 10: You’re invited!

Recently Posted Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Our Twitter Updates

Archives

Copyright Notice