The Wall Street Journal penned a convoluted editorial this morning on national standards. Read it and watch the editorial board twist itself in knots, admitting that "there's nothing wrong in principle with setting benchmarks for what the average child should know by a certain grade,"?? acknowledging that state standards under the No Child Left Behind law are laughably low, and allowing that the countries that outperform us on international assessments all have national standards in place. [quote]
But then it tacks in the opposite direction by taking up the trusty "this is no silver bullet" argument: "National standards are no substitute for school choice and accountability, which are proving to be the most effective drivers of academic improvement." And: "national standards won't magically boost learning in the U.S."
No kidding. But who is saying otherwise? But the most problematic piece is this:
National standards won't tell us anything we don't already know about underperforming states. The U.S. already has a mandatory federal test in place???the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam (NAEP)???to expose states with weak standards. Mississippi may claim that 89% of its fourth graders are proficient in reading, according to the state test. But when NAEP scores show this is true of only 18% of fourth graders, Mississippi education officials aren't fooling anyone.
This is eerily reminiscent of Margaret Spellings' argument that we already have "fifty speedometers" telling us we're going too slow, so why do we need another one?
The answer is that parents' "speedometers" are telling them that their kids are going plenty fast enough when they're not. States tell parents that their kids are "proficient" in reading and math, and parents understandably assume that that means they are at grade level, maybe on track for college, certainly doing OK. But in most states, "proficiency" means none of those things. The point of national standards isn't so policy elites have more information about the performance of the country as a whole. It's to raise the bar so that parents (and educators) have trustworthy information about how their children (and students) are actually performing.
The Journal closes its editorial by calling for more educational options for parents. Amen! Having a common, reliable metric by which to judge schools will help parents make better choices. That's why standards and choice are like peanut butter and jelly: they go better together. So to our friends at the Journal: it's not either/or; you can have both standards and choice! Time to untie those knots.
-Mike Petrilli
