Brookings scholar Tom Loveless is a clear-eyed empiricist who digs deep into test score data and often emerges with surprising findings. A few years back, for example, he looked at individual-student NAEP data to learn that there was no correlation whatsoever between a state’s math score on NAEP and the percentage of students enrolled in advanced classes.
But sometimes empiricism can lead to a pessimistic dead-end. And that’s where Loveless ended up in the 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education that he released last week. He examined student achievement by state over the past decade or so and concluded that existing state standards have had no effect. Therefore, he argues, new Common Core standards “will have little effect on students’ achievement.”
To reach that conclusion he has to argue—as he does—that today’s schools are working as well as they possibly can and that, therefore, nothing can be gained by adopting new standards. If our schools were cars Loveless would argue that they’re already headed for the right destination at full-throttle and pressing the accelerator harder won’t make them speed up.
But what if that car had underinflated tires, a bad drive train, a dirty carburetor and worn-out spark plugs? Wouldn’t fixing those things would make it go faster? What if the road the car was traveling on—in this analogy, curriculum, teacher preparation and all the other parts of the system—was rutted and washed out in places?
Yes, states have had standards for many years—all of them since 2003 and many even earlier. The standards vary in quality, as Loveless notes, but that variation isn’t correlated with differences in achievement. So, he argues, standards don’t matter and, in a sense, he’s right about that. Standards that just sit on a shelf don’t matter. Standards without a rich, aligned curriculum don’t matter. Standards that are measured by only marginally related assessments don’t matter.
On the other hand, standards that drive every aspect of the system—teacher preparation and support, personnel evaluations (superintendents, principals and teachers), school accountability, curriculum, assessment and even spending—can matter. Loveless’ Brookings colleague Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst argued here that curriculum is particularly important.
Whether the Common Core makes a difference in the classroom will depend on the quality of that implementation, as the Fordham Institute’s Kathleen Porter-Magee observes. Right now, national organizations such as the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, professional organizations, foundations, states, districts and teachers unions are all trying to figure that out.
Given the history of state implementation, especially during a time when states are cutting their education budgets, one could be pessimistic about that, as Loveless is.
But there’s reason for optimism, too, as Robert Rothman of the Alliance for Excellent Education notes in his book on the history of the Common Core.
We’ve learned a lot about standards-based education over the past 15 years and we have some examples, such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Long Beach, California,and others to look to. Digital platforms are being built so teachers can learn from one another and share good lessons. Online learning and other technologies that can personalize education are spreading. Although they still have a ways to go before they’re perfected, states are developing teacher evaluation systems that can be aligned to the Common Core. New assessments are being designed around the Common Core, meaning that they will reinforce the standards, not divert teachers away from them.
I hope that Loveless, being the careful scholar he is, will take another look at standards in five years. In the meantime, I hope that many scholars will pay attention to the quality of the implementation of standards so that when Loveless weighs in again, he’ll be able to consider this critical factor when judging whether standards make a difference.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/11/2012 | U.S. News & World Report highlights ideas from "Moving On Up: How Tuition Tax Breaks Increasingly Favor the Upper-Middle Class." 
5/11/2012 | In Diverse, Steve Burd comments on the Obama administration's plans to address student debt. 
5/11/2012 | Kevin Carey talks to Salon about the government's role in rising student debt.
{ 2 comments }
It is impossible to separate Common Core standards from the common assessments and the longitudinal database with a fuzzy goal of bringing delivery to “scale.” The combination is an expensive national experiment. No sign that in isolation or in combination, they will kep kids in school. The “client” is expressing dissatisfaction with his/her feet. I welcome real discussion and analysis instead of faux-optimism. Who pays? Who benefits?
Yes, the past must be prologue. History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it always rhymes. Yes, Whitehurst reaches an equally valid but completely different conclusion about curriculum. Yes, standards CAN help, especially in carefully crafted experiments.
But, I submit that in my subject, History, we have no more wisdom than 15 years ago, and I can’t imagine much more improvements in other standards in such a short time.
The question is whether we know how to take standards of the shelf and use them. For the life of me, I can’t see how they will have any effect on low-income neighborhood schools where high school kids are four, five, or six years behind the old standards.
A decade ago, it was estimated that all standards could be covered if no time was lost to absences, distractions, etc. by the time kids are 23 years old. Given the explosion of information, what is that now?
Until we address the policy issues regarding getting twice as much information covered than is humanly possible, the past will be prologue.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }