Last month the National Governor’s Association for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) released the Common Core State Standards, an attempt to standardize K-12 education across the U.S. To date, 48 of the 50 states have adopted the standards, Alaska and Texas electing not to adopt. The final version of the standards is due out by late spring.

It is clear that there is a wide disparity in what students are learning from state to state, and I appreciate the effort to standardize education across the country. According to the Common Core website, the standards are:

• Aligned with college and work expectations;
• Clear, understandable and consistent;
• Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills;
• Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards;
• Informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and
• Evidence-based.

I’m having an initial look at the standards now, and I have to admit, I’m pleasantly surprised at first glance. The standards are set out clearly (unlike many sets of standards), and there appears to be ample focus on inquiry and higher order thinking skills and activities while allowing flexibility for teachers to adapt instruction to their teaching styles. Moreover, states are free to adopt, reject, or abandon them as they see fit. Keep in mind, this is a first glance, and I’ll report more once I have a deeper look. I think a states-sponsored initiative such as this is well overdue, and I hope it bears fruit. You can view the draft standards here. Let me know what you think.

The article mentions how Florida’s Governor Crist has just vetoed a merit-based pay proposal for teachers. Of course, the teachers’ unions opposed it.

The legislation—one of the most sweeping of its kind in the nation—would have eliminated tenure for new teachers and required merit-pay plans linking salaries to student learning progress. Unions opposed the measure, saying it would make it harder for Florida to hire good teachers, and that it violated collective bargaining rights.

Isn’t this what most “professionals” expect?  That is, that if I do a good job as a lawyer, doctor, banker, or accountant, I will get a good raise?  If I do a better job than my peers–all other things being equal–I will get paid more than they are? I believe the proposal would help attract good teachers, not make hiring more difficult as the unions aver.  As long as it’s politics as usual in America, you can full well expect a further decline in our primary and secondary public educational institutions.  Meanwhile countries like Singapore, which hires top graduates for teachers and pays and trains them accordingly, will continue leaving us in the dust.

Bridging the Gap

“The origin of the fissure between lower and higher education in the United States stems, in part, from the laudable way the nation created education systems to deliver curriculum for both K-12 and higher education.” Thus begins Dr. Michael Kirst’s interesting brief history of the curricular chasm between high school preparation and university expectations.

Kirst explains that in the late 19th century there were no organized standards for college entrance so the National Education Association appointed the first commission to try to bridge the gap between high schools and universities. This, in turn, led to the creation of the College Examination Board with regulated admissions testing for many colleges.

In the early 20th century, a new report recommended that high schools adapt themselves to the needs of less academic students, at the same time still providing a different track for students definitely headed to university, which led to the formation of “comprehensive high schools.” This development led to a high school system which was deemed not to adequately prepare students for the rigors of university study. Continuing into the present, the focus on high school as college prep has been diminished for most students, according to Kirst.

Kirst points out that today’s effort to connect the high school and university divide centers in Advanced Placement classes (with standards dictated by the universities) and the International Baccalaureate program. (At this point, Kirst opines that IB is limited in “scope,” which could have a couple of meanings. I’ve asked for clarification on that point.) Meanwhile, the more able students are being better prepared for university while weaker students are getting further away from the target. And the divide persists…

Personally I believe that the IB Diploma program (Grades 11-12) is a good option for many students and can be taken at a higher or lower level of rigor. However the IB Dip is only available in a limited number of American schools, though the number is growing, which may be the “scope” limitation to which Dr. Kirst refers above.

Photo by akahodag