Our Country Deserves Better Than This!

From Jay P. Greene's Blog - Sandra Stotsky tells us what’s what:

“If another country wanted other countries to respect its educational system and the reforms it was trying to make, who would it choose to lead such an important professional project as the development of its national standards in mathematics and in the language of its educational system itself? In any other country in the world, one would expect a distinguished mathematician at the college level to be asked to chair the mathematics standards-writing committee–someone who commands the respect of the mathematics profession (and obviously is an expert on mathematics). For the language standards-writing committee, one would likewise expect an eminent scholar in a college-level department–someone whose command of the language and understanding of the texts that inform the development of this language could not be questioned. If the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers had thought about national pride (and national need) as well as academic/educational expertise, then all of us would respect the Common Core Initiative and look forward with eagerness to the drafts the NGA and CCSSO have promised to make public in July.

These two organizations could have followed, for example, the exemplary procedures followed by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, on which I had the privilege to serve. The Panel was chaired by the former president of one of the major universities in the country, all Panel members were identified at the outset, their qualifications were made known to the pubic, their procedures were open to the public and taped as well, and the final product was hammered out in public, after dozens of reviewers provided critical comments.

But instead of choosing nationally known scholars to chair and staff these committees–to assure us of the integrity and quality of the product–the NGA and the CCSSO have, for reasons best known to themselves, treated the initiative as a private game of their own. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t even bothered to inform the public who is chairing these committees, who is on them, why they were chosen, what their credentials are, and why we should have any confidence whatsoever in what they come up with.

One person has announced on his own to the press and to a state department of education that he is chairing the mathematics standards-writing committee. He has not been contradicted by anyone at NGA or CCSSO, so we must assume he’s for real. It turns out he is an English major with no academic degrees in mathematics whatsoever. No one has yet announced on his/her own that he/she is chairing the English standards-writing committee. One wag has already wondered whether this person might be a mathematics major with no academic degrees in English. But it’s possible the sad joke in mathematics is not being repeated in English.

This country deserved better for a project of such national importance.”

how to order copies of the history national standards

The national standards Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree (and Ed) wrote are available on Amazon:

National Standards for World History: Exploring Paths to the Present (National History Standards Project Series)

National Standards for History: Basic Edition

National Standards for History for Grades K-4

National Standards for United States History: Exploring the American Experience

This is probably the whole list.

and:

Gary's account of the culture wars: History on Trial


I have to say... Lynne Cheney's been great on math, but she seriously blew it on the history standards.

She ambushed the standards - she really did just kill them. I'm forgetting details of the story now, so I shouldn't work from memory, but the one part I do remember clearly is that the only two parts of the standards she openly cited as being anti-American were social studies-type lessons history teachers had written. I think they were included in an appendix.

Those lessons were easily removable, and were there, as I recall, in order to get the document through. (They had massive conflict with the social studies people, as you can probably imagine.)

And: the lessons weren't standards.

They were lessons.

The whole things was trumped up.

After having commissioned the standards, and having been in the loop and involved throughout the entire long drawn-out process of getting them written and vetted, Cheney had not made any criticisms.

Everyone on Ed's side of the affair assumes her motivations had to do with political opportunism, but no one knows. (I think Gingrich was ascendant at that point ? .... Clinton may already have been in office ..... I'll have to read the book.)

These standards, along with New York's science standards, are the one thing standing between me and the abyss.

The only reason any schools are teaching any content now, in the wake of 20 years of constructivist teaching in the ed schools, is decent state standards.

Ed's standards

I didn't realize this.

I've mentioned the national history standards a few times, the ones commissioned and, subsequently, killed by Lynne Cheney back in the administration of Bush 1.

Turns out Ed wrote some of the standards!

Along with two other historians, he wrote the standards for 19th and 20th world history.

I love it.

I think I've got them sitting on my bookshelf .... but I have to find out if New York state is actually using history standards written by my husband.

Some of you will remember the school board meeting at which Ed managed to fend off the middle school model for another year. Afterwards he told one of our principals that he's been a disciplinary specialist for 25 years.

She said, "Have you ever wondered if that's your problem?"

Wish I'd known at the time she was talking to one of the guys who WROTE THE STATE HISTORY STANDARDS.

Or, ummmm, might have written the state history standards.

This particular principal, btw, taught social studies before going into administration.

OK, I have to go figure out if New York's standards are the same ones Ed wrote. (Cheney didn't attack the world standards; those never attracted criticism. The action all surrounded the American history standards.)

Diane Ravitch on NCLB

Here is my proposal to Congress.

In the future, the federal government should do only what the federal government can competently do. Its historic role has been three-fold: one, to collect and disseminate information about the condition and progress of education in these United States; two, to write checks help schools educate specific groups of students, especially those who are poor and have disabilities; and three, to enforce civil rights laws.

Those are the principles that should be the underpinnings of the reauthorized NCLB.

First, the federal government should establish national standards in basic academic subjects (reading, mathematics, science, and history). Second, it should annually administer national examinations in those subjects. Third, it should make the results available to states and school districts.

It should be left to the states to decide which actions to take in response to this information. The states, working with the school districts, should decide which combination of rewards and sanctions will improve student achievement.

We should, in this instance, use the states as laboratories of democracy. Since we do not know which rewards and sanctions will have the most salutary effects, we need to let the states work with educators to try different approaches. When there is a clear pattern, other states and districts will learn from the experiences of others who are successful as well as those that are not.

One of the benefits of this approach is that the states will be relieved of the cost and burden of testing, as the whole cost and burden will shift to the federal government. Another benefit will be that all of the red tape and mandates associated with NCLB will disappear overnight.

Knowing the ways of Washington, I am doubtful that my solution will find a warm reception. Just last month, a bipartisan commission funded by the Gates Foundation and co-chaired by former Governor Roy E. Barnes of Georgia (Dem.) and former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin (Rep.) proposed a vast expansion in the number and reach of mandates associated with the education law.

But if we truly want good schools and well-educated students, we won't get them by piling on more mandates and regulations. The recipe for good education involves a solid curriculum, effective instruction, adequate resources, willing students, and cultural support and encouragement for education. Washington can pick up some, but not all, of this responsibility.

My first impulse is to agree with this.

My second impulse is to ask what effect this will have on schools like mine.

I'm drawing a blank.

I'm pretty much on board for national standards at this point, however. New York state's standards, which, in history and science, are quite good are the only thing standing between us and the abyss.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Ted Kennedy on NCLB

voluntary national math and science standards: draft Dodd-Ehlers bill

I attended a panel discussion of the bill drafted by Sen. Dodd (D-CT) and Rep Ehlers (R-MI) bill yesterday. The event was sponsored jointly by Fordham and the New America Foundation, at the latter's offices in DC. Michael Dannenberg, former staffer for Ted Kennedy and now director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation moderated the panel discussion. Sen. Dodd opened with a statement on why we need national standards. He cited the plethora of "great" state test scores in math and science, and poor scores on NAEP, the 50 different state standards for math and science, and the need for a method to assess fairly how schools are doing, with respect to the requirements of NCLB which is up for reauthorization this year. Rep Ehlers was supposed to be there, but was unable to attend; he is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Other speakers included former Gov John Engler of Michigan, former Gov Bob Wise of W. Virginia (now president of Alliance for Excellent Education, Michael Casserly (Exec Director of Council of Great City Schools) and Michael Petrilli of Fordham.

Bill would task NAGB (these are the people who write the NAEP exam) to draft national standards for math and science. (Anyone familiar with the non-rigorous nature of the NAEP exams should be plenty concerned about this bill). These would be voluntary standards, but if states adopt them, then they get a grant to implement the standards and other things. Standards must "ensure that the volumary American education content standards are internationally competeitive and comparable to the best standards in the world."

Among the questions was one from Jeff Mervis of Science magazine. He asked what happens if states are falling short even after adoption of national standards? Would there then be a "national curriculum"? The question was addressed to Sen. Dodd who said the last thing the govt will do is tell local govts how to sequence and/or design curricula. Mervis asked again: "Does the bill tell the states how to meet the standards?" Dodd dodged the question again, but this time alluded to weaknesses in the NCLB law itself that prevents qualified teachers from teaching. He referred to the teacher certification requirements that make it mandatory for teachers to have certification in a subject area in order to teach it; so a biology teacher who may be qualified to teach chemistry could not teach chemistry under the current law. Don't know that that answered Mervis' question, but that's all I could glean from that one, folks.

The bil would not establish a national test, though Sen. Dodd said that maybe that would emerge as a result of states adopting the national standards. Perhaps they would get together and decide they needed to design and use a common test.

One comment from the moderator, Michael Dannenberg, intrigued me. He is definitely for this bill and said that the "standards based reform movement" has had the greatest success with respect to math. Wha HUH? What's he talking about? NCTM's standards? State standards? Has he even read Fordham's State of the State Math Standards report? Oh, he musta been talking about California, yeah, yeah, that MUST be what he was referring to. Or maybe the Focal Points, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.

(Description of the bill, plus a link to the draft and a link to a video of yesterday's event can be found at Preparing US Students for the Global Economy.)

Among the key private endorsers of the bill are NEA and (wait for it) NCTM. Any questions?