The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have launched a drive for national content standards for K–12 education. Subsequent to a meeting in Chicago in April, 46 states have agreed to draft voluntary, common standards by July to specify what students should know by the time they finish high school. Grade-by-grade standards are to be developed by the end of 2009 (1).
National standards are attractive. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates that schools reach proficiency on reading and mathematics tests by 2014, but the states define proficiency. States’ achievement tests often diverge widely from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). One state’s test indicated 87% proficiency among fourth graders while NAEP indicated only18% proficiency. If a state’s standards are low, that state will be more likely to avoid federal sanctions under NCLB. A common set of standards, if translated into appropriate assessments, should result in fairer comparisons.
It also makes sense that the quality of education a student receives should not depend on whether the student is in Alabama, Wyoming, or any state between (alphabetically). National standards, properly applied, ought to contribute to greater equality of what students learn and should ease the burden on students who move from one state to another. Finally, any project that can obtain agreement among governors and chief state school officers from 46 states ought to be applauded for diplomacy and persuasiveness.
So what’s not to like about this? I can think of two important things: The new, common standards appear to be restricted to content. There appears to be little or no involvement of K–12 or post-secondary teachers in developing the standards.
The original National Science Education Standards (NSES) include a much broader range of standard-setting than just content (2). Fewer than half the pages (106 of 262) are devoted to science content standards; 110 pages are devoted to standards for science teaching, professional development, assessment, science education programs, and science education systems. The NSES considered an entire educational system, not just what students should be expected to know. The importance of this breadth of standard-setting can be seen in the science education system standards. Policies that influence science education must be congruent with the program, teaching, professional development, assessment, and content standards; coordinated within and across agencies, institutions, and organizations; sustained over sufficient time to bring about changes; supported with significant resources; reviewed for unintended effects on classroom practice; and carried out by individuals who aim to achieve a new vision of science education. Content standards alone are unlikely to achieve a new vision and are likely to have unintended consequences.
According to the press releases the new, common standards will be drafted by the College Board, ACT Inc., and a Washington-based group, Achieve. The commitment to common standards by the 46 states was by governors and chief state school officers. I doubt that they have consulted with classroom teachers. A committee of experts in content standards will review drafts of the standards, but the experts will be chosen by the governors and chief state school officers. This appears to be yet another failure of the public, elected officials, and those charged with overseeing school systems to recognize teachers as professionals who have a great deal to contribute to the betterment of education.
Shortly after I commented on the value of recognizing K–12 teachers as professionals two months ago, I became aware of the short book, Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn’t. How It Could Be. by Sheila Tobias and Anne Baffert (3). Tobias and Baffert argue that science teachers should have substantial control of “curriculum content, pedagogy, pacing and assessment” and should become leaders at the school, district, state, and national levels. In addition to documenting the fact that teachers do not now have such control, Tobias and Baffert suggest ways that science teachers can take more control of the future of science education: write about the problems and solutions; speak out locally and nationally; form communities and action groups to press for reform; identify young teachers and encourage them to do the same; and “sing the praises of outstanding science teachers”. They describe ways to attract science teachers to governance positions in schools and districts; suggest establishing science teacher councils in schools or districts to recommend on hiring, promotion, evaluation, and curriculum; and suggest much greater interaction among teachers and scientists through summer research and workshops. Read this short book and act on what you read!
It is generally recognized that the most important factor in a student’s success in learning science is a good teacher. Let’s work to make certain that the importance of science teachers as professionals is recognized and celebrated.
Literature Cited
1. McNeil, Michele Education Week 2009, 28(33); viewed online at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/01/33standards.h28.html?tkn=OLSFMiMEtX62W3pmvC32l5ixVKicSASMnV9l (accessed Jun 2009).
2. National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press: Washington, 1996; available online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962 (accessed Jun 2009).
3. Tobias, Sheila; Baffert, Anne Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn’t. How It Could Be. Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, 2009; available for download at http://www.rescorp.org/ (accessed Jun 2009).
I was just curious. What do you think about the teachers salary being subject to student performance as a national standard?
This is in response to the Florida and East coast talking about adopting this policy last month.
I think the issue is far more complicated than just tying teachers’ salaries to student performance. Teaching to a test is a sure way to improve performance at lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, but we need much more complex learning than simply being able to answer multiple-choice questions. Good teachers will enable their students to achieve such multifaceted learning, but will anyone be able (or take the time needed) to measure such learning accurately? Probably not.
Student performance also depends on where the students were when they came into the class. If you measured Harvard students’ performance you might decide that Harvard faculty are super teachers and deserve the big bucks they earn, but their students started pretty well up on the ladder. Someone teaching at a two-year college in Boston might make a bigger incremental improvement in his or her students’ learning, but just looking at test scores would not reveal it.
I would be willing to see a system where there were differential pay increments partly based on student performance, but I think there is a lot more to evaluating a teacher than just student performance.
I know our county pushes for a lot of teacher professional development into diverse ways to teach students. They also focus on PLC’s pushing to help with extended learning for those students who do not achieve. Who you consider that the students in EL deserve a different style of evaluation as would those teachers? Where would you start in a plan to evaluate both teachers and students?
A good start would be to look at differential learning–how much did a student improve scores while working with a particular teacher. However, the measurement would have to be more complicated than just giving a MC test before and after the teacher worked with the student.
In my university we have peer evaluation of teaching as well as student evaluation. If peer teachers observe both the teacher and his or her students, this is another measure that could be applied. Teachers are much better equipped to discern whether a student displays real understanding (as opposed to rote learning).
Here is a more comprehensive take on the issue of how to evaluate students, teachers, and schools (http://bit.ly/cmHtuA). In essence the author suggests less high-stakes testing, better high-stakes tests (less testing allows more time for creating better tests), more testing by teachers in schools (and quality control by spot testing those tests and by providing test libraries), and better evaluation of schools by visiting boards of experts who would talk with teachers and administrators and observe a school’s progress.