Forty-six states agree to write national standards
What Ronald Peiffer, the deputy state superintendent, said he could not conceive of just nine years ago has happened.
In today's paper, a story details how 46 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands all agreed, at least conceptually, that classrooms ought to be teaching toward the same set of high standards.
For nearly the past decade, the country has been trying to ensure that every child got a minimum education. Now it appears we are moving to recognize that the minimum is not enough and that we have to raise our expectations if we are going to compete with foreign countries. To do that we should have national curriculum standards.
But that is no small task, as Peiffer sees it, in a nation that historically has given even the smallest school systems the right to decide what their children would learn. If they want to teach creationism, so be it. If they want to teach whole language or phonics, the choice was theirs.
States' rights were so clear that Peiffer didn't see how it would change quickly. But the states have taken the first steps. The arguing may come later when the standards are made public.
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
What no comments here? I thought national standards were a huge issue!
But I am confused by the suggestion of the post that the purpose of national standards is to "compete globally". I thought the purpose of national standards was to establish an equitable expectation for education all students in our country?
Aren't national standards a hard sell for states who think they have tough standards AND states that think they have "softer" standards?
Should students in rural Missouri be expected to compete with students in urban Massachusetts?
Anyone?
Posted by: Alrighty Then... | June 2, 2009 3:53 PM
I have been amazed at the differences in state standards and in Florida the educators I worked with seemed to indicate that "northern schools" were much tougher than "southern schools". Living in Maryland now I find that to be somewhat true, as the students here are generally ahead of my students in Florida.
While standardized testing (and NCLB in particular) have their weaknesses, I think that sticking to the same standards across the entire country is at least a step in the right direction.
The problem I see with it is the question of which standards are chosen? Do we choose the more lax standards of one school so that they do not have a lot of ground to make up? And if not, how do we help those schools make up the lost time? I would be willing to bet there are at least 1-2 grade levels difference between any two given schools.
Posted by: Jennifer | June 2, 2009 4:47 PM
You're right Jennifer. The post mentions that the states involved say they have more similarities than they do differences. That, at least, is a segue to deciding exactly WHAT to set as the expectation for national achievement. But just because we are all teaching the same standards doesn't mean we have to assess the same way. So, there is wiggle room for states to choose what they assess and with how much rigor.
But some State BOEs don't want "big government" telling them what to do. And I don't believe that there is a constitutional right to education? Since the states have the purview and the purse strings for local education funding in their jurisdiction, will they even want to be competitive?
Oh, and by the way- to truly compete with other countries we would need international standards and assessments NOT national ones.
Posted by: Alrighty Then... | June 3, 2009 8:43 AM
Students in rural Missouri should be expected to compete with students in urban Massachusetts, if that's what they want.
All children should have the right to have a publicly funded, rigorous education. That's not to say that all children should be forced to participate in college-prep coursework. Education can still be locally administered and parents can still choose whatever education they want for their children. But they should all at least be given the opportunity to obtain an education up to the (proposed) national standard.
Right now, in America, your quality of education--and therefore your opportunities in life--is highly dependent on your family's income and what district you just so happent to live in. It's not fair. Everyone deserves access to the best our nation has to offer in education.
Posted by: Alan | June 3, 2009 3:28 PM
Alan, I know what you mean. But last I checked, students are not given a voice on these issues to articulate what they want. Adults are! And sometimes we are guilty of doing whatever will work the best for "our" children not "other people's children"--educators being the exception, of course.
And: just as some argue that not every child wants to go to college, some LEAs will argue that not every state's standards are appropriate for their junior citizens.
Posted by: Alrighty Then... | June 3, 2009 3:47 PM
Post @ Education National Standards Agreement initiative.
In following up on wanting to review online this National Standards Agreement document subject. As for seeking my own access to read the National Standards Agreement signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley and state schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick who was being led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
I emailed both Dr. Ronald Pfeiffer at the MSDE Office of the State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick and also the MSDE office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAG) two separate assistant attorney general contacts in that office asking to be guided by return email reply to where I can view the online National Standards Agreement document. No one has yet returned an email response I wonder why not?
Posted by: Interested & Engaged Parent of City Schools | June 9, 2009 6:52 PM