EDLL

Just when you thought the standards-based reform was coming to an end, exhausted from a long series of failed attempts to understand and engage in the realities of schools and the classroom, the standards movement is remaking itself. The education establishment, in concert with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, is leading 48 states in creating “common core standards.” These they tell us will be world-class and “fewer, clearer, and higher” than the current diversity of standards set by individual states. The peril of not joining this movement is the loss of funding under the “Race to the Top” reform of the Obama Administration.

This new version like the previous ones over the past two decades (i.e., the Goals 2000 Act under Clinton and the No Child Left Behind Act under Bush) promises a renewal of education, a veritable springtime of reform where “excellence will be rewarded” in the words of Education Secretary Arne Duncan. At the same time, accountability will be extended to teachers, and charter schools will be championed as an alternative to public schools unable to meet these “common standards.” And again this standard-setting movement will lead to an enormous investment of energy, talent, and time, first at the national level as states go about the serious business of defining and establishing the curriculum standards. This will then be followed by an even larger investment within states as they implement these new standards at the district level. And finally, the greatest investment of scarce energies, talents, and resources will be made within districts as central office administrators direct and train principals and teachers and other education practitioners in translating these standards into learning progressions, instructional learning guides, lesson plans, etc. This enormous investment in curriculum is further magnified by the corresponding changes in assessment, professional development, teacher education schools, textbooks, and instructional technology to reflect the new standards. Indeed, given the magnitude of all these efforts, one can hardly blame the educators and policymakers at the “top” from glorying in such power to direct those “below;” clearly, it must be immensely satisfying to set forth with relatively little effort such profound activity across the entire education landscape.

While the previous efforts have justifiably led all states and districts to focus on high expectations for all students, this new effort of standards-based reform reminds me of Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales.” This classic begins against the backdrop of springtime, with nature jubilant with new life and beginnings. In contrast to this liberating reawakening of the world around them, Chaucer’s worthy pilgrims, as was the custom, set off on a moral crusade. They fail to embrace and engage in the beautiful but messy riot of nature as if a diversion from the safe certitude of their spiritual quest. In the same way, our present pilgrims of standards-based reform are resolute in avoiding the realities of community schools, both their strengths and their challenges. They embark instead on a crusade to establish anew standards that are like heavenly first principles ordering and binding together a divine chain of being below. This would be quite humorous, especially when seen through the wit of Chaucer, if not for the tragedy this crusade causes by ignoring the true needs and strengths of real schools, principals, teachers, students, and communities.

True reform unfortunately requires a “strenuous effort” of political will and pragmatic resolve, one that engages in the messiness of schools that grow organically out of their even messier communities. True reform is centered on investment of all energies and talents not in standard setting but in the leadership and quality of principals and teachers. Now the standards-based reform was not always so removed from the realities of schools. As originally conceived, it was guided not only by accountability but also by the civil right, if not constitutional principle, of “opportunity-to-learn,” the idea that you cannot hold children accountable through high-stakes tests for material that they were not taught. Arguably, the current era of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the pressure that adults put on children to pass state tests, make all such tests high-stakes and therefore subject to “opportunity-to-learn.” But instead of “opportunity-to learn” used as a powerful lever to ensure that students equally as a civil right have qualified principals and teachers, and good textbooks and learning environments, this principle has been interpreted narrowly to merely mean that there must be a state-mandated curriculum. In effect, standards-based reform has been stripped of its very connection to schools and the real needs of teachers and students. And as our education establishment pilgrims prepare for another heavenly crusade, and the enormous costs it will entail, it is critical that we reconsider the entire standards-based reform movement and wonder if there is not a more direct and meaningful way to improve schools.

Fortunately, there is a robust and rich discourse among educators, and many research-based models of school improvement. There are many examples of innovation and excellence, among both traditional and charter schools. The way to guide and spread these efforts across the nation, so that all students truly have “opportunity-to-learn,” is twofold. First, we need to make an investment not in the standards crusade but in the education and ongoing professional development of principals and teachers, to ensure that they equally have “opportunity-to-learn” so that they can be truly accountable for their performance. Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University has outlined a compelling vision of this kind of investment in teachers, a $3 billion Marshall Plan, which she points out is only one percent of the $300 billion spent in Iraq. The Wallace Foundation similarly has published a series of reports on what is needed for excellence among principals.

Second, and most difficult, we need to rethink accountability so that it is not an abstract system but one connected to the organic vitality of school communities. It should not only evaluate fully the quality of schools but also engage local school communities in evaluating their schools themselves. This means the use of “multiple measures” and a system of balanced assessment, as envisioned by Jim Popham and Rick Stiggins. It also requires that we follow the practice of “world-class” school systems such as Britain where schools are evaluated not by test scores alone but by rigorous onsite inspections that look at all the meaningful indicators of school quality. The inspections could be done according to statewide and even national criteria. This would free schools to innovate, to teach a full and rich curriculum, to engage parents and communities in their improvement efforts. These parents and community members, so engaged, would in turn provide informed input into the school inspections. Evaluating schools on a rotating basis, perhaps once every three years, could lower the costs of these formal inspections. Moreover, by engaging communities in the life of their schools and in a real sense making them accountable too for the quality of their schools, local communities could formatively evaluate their schools between inspections. These efforts could be enhanced by widely publicizing examples of excellent schools as well as the criteria for quality. And in a nod to the top-down policy levers of the standards-based movement, NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card, along with OECD’S Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), could be used to ensure consistency across the states and competitiveness with our international counterparts.

Of course, this kind of reform requires great political will and resolve, both at the top and below. It requires engaging communities in their schools. It requires an investment in the leadership and quality of principals and teachers. It requires hard work, embracing and celebrating the strengths and resources of schools and their communities while honestly and fully confronting their needs. Certainly, it is far easier to simply go on another standard-setting crusade. Chaucer would understand.