Policies aimed at creating and implementing better academic standards are spreading across the nation like a firestorm. Ohio is no exception to these winds of change. In the Buckeye State, the governor's budget proposal and the House-passed version of H.B.
Policies aimed at creating and implementing better academic standards are spreading across the nation like a firestorm. Ohio is no exception to these winds of change. In the Buckeye State, the governor's budget proposal and the House-passed version of H.B. 1-the state's biennial budget bill-call for overhauling the state's academic standards by adding new standards that focus on "21st Century Skills." In contrast, the Senate-passed version of H.B. 1 would require the State Board of Education and superintendent to study and make recommendations by July 1, 2010 to: 1) address the necessity of implementing changes to the standard and assessment system, 2) develop a timeline that would be required for implementation, 3) estimate implementation costs, and 4) formulate necessary legislative changes. The Senate version also removes mention of standards for 21st Century Skills. As the House and Senate battle over these competing proposals in conference committee, the national discussion is just getting stoked.
Over the last year, the national standards movement-or what many refer to as "common standards" - has gathered momentum and energy with the release of several high-profile reports. In July 2008, Achieve released Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up (see here). The National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve followed in December with Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-class Education (see here). In April, the Broad and Gates foundations pushed for developing common American standards in Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success (see here). The Carnegie Foundation this month recommended the creation of common math and science standards with accompanying assessments in The Opportunity Equation (see here).
Forty-nine states and territories are also voluntarily collaborating to push for common standards. Ohio has joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here), an effort sponsored by CCSSO and NGA. Only Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas haven't signed up (see here). Alaska is monitoring the situation before signing on. Missouri and South Carolina are holding out for a mix of political and bureaucratic reasons. But Texas has balked because it just approved new English and math standards at a cost of an estimated $3 billion (see here).
Finally, the U.S. Department of Education has been vocal about both strengthening academic standards in America and pushing the creation of common standards across the states. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argues, "The idea of 50 states doing their own thing doesn't make sense," (see here). In order to receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, states must agree to implement requirements to develop college and career-ready standards. Last week, Secretary Duncan called for putting $350 million to fund the tests that will be used to assess the standards determined by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here).
As the national movement toward common standards charges forward, the discussion becomes more controversial. States are expressing reservations about the rush toward national standards. Utah lawmakers worry that national standards will undermine the state's education authority (see here). California provided conditions for signing up to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here and here). Subject matter interest groups (such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the International Reading Association) also want a say in the development of the standards (see here).
Because of strong pushes at both the national and state levels, Ohio finds itself in a catch-22. Without a doubt, Ohio's mediocre standards, developed over a decade ago, need updating (see here). Yet, moving forward alone with significant revisions (as with the governor's proposal and House-passed version of H.B.1) poses challenges while the national firestorm intensifies. If the national standards movement leads to world-class standards, then Ohio's hard work to revise its standards risks becoming irrelevant or a costly and ultimately unnecessary effort. If Ohio waits and sees what comes of the national movement that, too, can backfire. Going along with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (or others like it) is not a sure-fire bet for better standards. Nothing may come of the effort as it could fall under competing political pressures. Or, it may take years for standards to be developed and agreed to by states and, in the end, they may not be what Ohio's children need.
What's Ohio to do? Ohio needs to be a leader in these national conversations and be seen as a full partner in the effort to develop common core standards. At home, Ohio needs to be prudent with any revisions it does make and not fall prone to fads or calls for giving all stakeholders a voice at the risk of subject content. The Senate version of H.B. 1 best approximates this position (see here for our H.B. 1 analyses). With thoughtful preparation, Ohio will be able capitalize on the national standards movement either by embracing the effort outright or taking what good work these efforts generate and customizing it to Ohio's needs.
Common Core
June 2009
Are you smarter than a 5th grader? In Hong Kong, probably not.
Common Core's report on international standards, Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students, But We Don't, compiles tests and curricula from nine nations that receive consistently high scores on PISA (an international assessment). It's tempting to take the tests they provide to see if you can do the work of a twelfth grader in Canada or the fifth grader in Hong Kong. And that's the point, really. Could you do that? Can we do that? And by we, of course, I mean America.
This overview of high-scoring countries with rich standards does not include the United States, which continually occupies a distinctly less-admirable spot on the rankings. The countries it does include, however, are Finland, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. In three essays interspersed between primary documents outlining standards from each of the nations, Common Core addresses how these countries are different and what American can do to improve.
The first essay, by Martin West, an assistant professor of education, political science, and public policy at Brown University, notes how the highlighted countries have a wide spectrum for their standards. Students are primarily tested on reading, math, and science (as are students in the United States per NCLB), but their standards, by and large, include equally weighted requirements for history, literature, art, and music. The second essay, by Sheila Byrd Carmichael, an education policy consultant, discusses how these wide-ranging standards also have a markedly high level of content specificity. In the third essay, by Eduardo Andere, a Mexican education expert, the author observes that, generally, high-performing countries do not spend much of their time worrying about how to become high-performing. Their focus, overwhelmingly, is on the development of the individual student.
This report provides an interesting international basis for arguments made over the budget and education here in Ohio. It comes out strongly against the 21st century skills movement and advocates for individual learning, which would seem to support a per-pupil funding system.
For both individual states and national policymakers, it is a thought-provoking report. Its weakness lies in the inability to make true comparisons. Some nations' standards are represented by their high school exit exams, others by seventh-grade science requirements. But its relevance is also due, in large part, to these striking visual reminders of what learning can look like. Every nation has unique problems, and, as admitted by the report, there is not a common solution. So as we stridently work toward reform, we should consider our international neighbors and use the spirit of their curricula to form our own inimitably American standards.
For the report, see here.
John M. Bridgeland, John J. Dilulio, Jr., and Robert Balfanz, Civic Enterprises with Peter D. Hart Research Associates
June 2009
Civic Enterprises, in The Silent Epidemic, surveyed dropouts to understand the reasons large numbers of students decided to leave high school before graduation (see here). This 2006 report demonstrated that students cite boredom and not being challenged as reasons for dropping out. In On the Front Lines of Schools, the focus turns to surveying public school principals and teachers across America to learn their perceptions of the high-school dropout problem. Predictably, the survey found that principals and teachers have a different view of the problem than students. This gap can be seen in the principals' and teachers' refusal to believe boredom in school was a credible excuse for dropping out, and they were more likely to blame unprepared students and lack of parental involvement.
The study also reveals differences between principals and teachers, particularly on the tracking of college-bound and non-college-bound students. While 59 percent of teachers thought a separate track should be made, only 41 percent of principals wanted this. The study's authors disagreed with the teachers' idea here and soundly rejected a separate track, explaining that all children should be prepared for college.
As about one-third of public high school students do not graduate, the authors tackle an important issue in this report. Unfortunately, the findings show that teachers, principals, and students all have a tendency to blame each other for their failures. It is a cause for some optimism, however, that all groups believe we can do better. While consensus on the type of reform is hard to find, the survey discovers that such ideas as alternative learning environments, which have been successful in some cases, are widely supported among students, principals and teachers.
With a public high-school graduation rate of 75.9 percent, Ohio is about five points above the national average (see here). The Buckeye State should consider seriously the lessons from On the Front Lines of Schools and ensure that measures are taken to prepare each high-school student for college.
For the report, see here.
Policies aimed at creating and implementing better academic standards are spreading across the nation like a firestorm. Ohio is no exception to these winds of change. In the Buckeye State, the governor's budget proposal and the House-passed version of H.B. 1-the state's biennial budget bill-call for overhauling the state's academic standards by adding new standards that focus on "21st Century Skills." In contrast, the Senate-passed version of H.B. 1 would require the State Board of Education and superintendent to study and make recommendations by July 1, 2010 to: 1) address the necessity of implementing changes to the standard and assessment system, 2) develop a timeline that would be required for implementation, 3) estimate implementation costs, and 4) formulate necessary legislative changes. The Senate version also removes mention of standards for 21st Century Skills. As the House and Senate battle over these competing proposals in conference committee, the national discussion is just getting stoked.
Over the last year, the national standards movement-or what many refer to as "common standards" - has gathered momentum and energy with the release of several high-profile reports. In July 2008, Achieve released Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up (see here). The National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve followed in December with Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-class Education (see here). In April, the Broad and Gates foundations pushed for developing common American standards in Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success (see here). The Carnegie Foundation this month recommended the creation of common math and science standards with accompanying assessments in The Opportunity Equation (see here).
Forty-nine states and territories are also voluntarily collaborating to push for common standards. Ohio has joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here), an effort sponsored by CCSSO and NGA. Only Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas haven't signed up (see here). Alaska is monitoring the situation before signing on. Missouri and South Carolina are holding out for a mix of political and bureaucratic reasons. But Texas has balked because it just approved new English and math standards at a cost of an estimated $3 billion (see here).
Finally, the U.S. Department of Education has been vocal about both strengthening academic standards in America and pushing the creation of common standards across the states. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argues, "The idea of 50 states doing their own thing doesn't make sense," (see here). In order to receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, states must agree to implement requirements to develop college and career-ready standards. Last week, Secretary Duncan called for putting $350 million to fund the tests that will be used to assess the standards determined by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here).
As the national movement toward common standards charges forward, the discussion becomes more controversial. States are expressing reservations about the rush toward national standards. Utah lawmakers worry that national standards will undermine the state's education authority (see here). California provided conditions for signing up to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here and here). Subject matter interest groups (such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the International Reading Association) also want a say in the development of the standards (see here).
Because of strong pushes at both the national and state levels, Ohio finds itself in a catch-22. Without a doubt, Ohio's mediocre standards, developed over a decade ago, need updating (see here). Yet, moving forward alone with significant revisions (as with the governor's proposal and House-passed version of H.B.1) poses challenges while the national firestorm intensifies. If the national standards movement leads to world-class standards, then Ohio's hard work to revise its standards risks becoming irrelevant or a costly and ultimately unnecessary effort. If Ohio waits and sees what comes of the national movement that, too, can backfire. Going along with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (or others like it) is not a sure-fire bet for better standards. Nothing may come of the effort as it could fall under competing political pressures. Or, it may take years for standards to be developed and agreed to by states and, in the end, they may not be what Ohio's children need.
What's Ohio to do? Ohio needs to be a leader in these national conversations and be seen as a full partner in the effort to develop common core standards. At home, Ohio needs to be prudent with any revisions it does make and not fall prone to fads or calls for giving all stakeholders a voice at the risk of subject content. The Senate version of H.B. 1 best approximates this position (see here for our H.B. 1 analyses). With thoughtful preparation, Ohio will be able capitalize on the national standards movement either by embracing the effort outright or taking what good work these efforts generate and customizing it to Ohio's needs.
