Back to the IN CASE YOU MISSED IT index
[Connie Hudgens is a social
studies teacher in Alberquerque, New Mexico.]
I've been part of a group of teachers working to align curriculum to state
and national standards. As a group, we came to consensus that the whole
national standards argument is blowing smoke to cover the real issue.
At the heart of this issue are two fundamental constitutional concepts --
equality of opportunity and equality of condition. Standards should create
both in a public school. Standards should be STUDENT PERFORMANCE standards.
Well structured and planned lessons, aligned to the standards, regardless
of the teaching methodology, should get the student to the performance level
required by society. The political argument is usually motivated by $$$
-- lobbyists from textbook and testing companies pushing their products.
The overall losers in this game are the students
National standards bring accountability to the overall educational process.
It shouldn't matter how we get them there, but the students deserve the
opportunity and condition to achieve. Let's admit that most teachers do
not want to give up the control or individualism to apply standards in the
classroom. As a hard convert to standards-based education, I can tell you
I fought all the way to implementing standards in my classroom. What happened
to student learning when I started writing my lessons to those standards
is awesome. I'm not saying that it's easy to do or fun at first. But now
that I've been doing it for a couple of years, I can plan a unit in a couple
of days with rubrics ( the kids write most of them) and a strong performance-based
evaluation activity. What I got out of aligning my lessons to the standards
was multi-fold:
1. validation for what I chose to have the kids do.
2. well designed performance objectives for performance-based assessment
and evaluation
3. a framework to design curriculum which allows and enhances flexibility,
creativity, and variety.
4. a way to answer "why do we have to study this" in less that
25 words.
5. increase students learning as measured on standardized tests
6. students designing rubrics that now exceed the minimum expectation
What the kids get:
1. knowledge
2. the ability to find whatever knowledge they need to complete the task
at hand
3. the confidence and assurance that it is okay to take risks
4. that failure is a part of the learning process and the greatest gains
come from the hardest lessons
5. that no body will do it for them
6. validation that they are intelligent human beings capable of achievement
and learning
7. the confidence that they should "focus on the journey, not the destination.
Joy is found not in finishing an activity, but in doing it." -- Greg
Anderson, The 22 Non-Negotiable Laws of Wellness.
I strongly believe that if we, as educators, want to shoo away the nay-sayers,
we must begin to be accountable. Just like any other service-based industry,
we must remember who the customer is....if they don't like the product,
they won't buy. If there is good, solid instruction and guidance in the
classroom, students will do well on any assessment.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for "listening"
Connie Hudgeons
connie@handywerks.com
After Connie Hudgeons' original message appeared, another list member
wrote:
>I'm concerned sometimes that the standards movement is equivalent to
>raising the hurdle and expecting all the horses in the barn to
>immediatly know how to jump higher.
To which Connie replied:
I will drag out my soap box again.
The standards are for the students..... I just do not understand what is
so hard about that concept. If the teacher designed curriculum is aligned
to any state's performance standards, the kids will receive the content
that has been determined to be essential. What many teachers in New Mexico
are discovering is that they are already meeting the standards with their
classroom curriculum. The change comes in how and what they evaluate. Again
the starndards are to be used to define student performance, not teacher
performance.....maybe teacher accountability, but that is another can of
worms.
Consider the following:
Do doctors complain about having to do procedures a certain way? No, in
fact, the doctors who do not follow nationally accepted or recommended practices
are considered have committed malpractice. How about pilots landing planes?
I am certainly glad that there are set standards for pilots' performance.
I do not want a pilot who only lands the plane correctly 50% of the time
or a doctor with a 69% successful surgery rate.
Why is it that the one thing that makes other careers "professions"
-- standards -- is the thing causing grief in the one profession that should
have consistency? Why shouldn't the kids of Alabama get an education equal
to an education in Oregon or New York or where ever?
Standards are here to stay. This is the way I see it. As a teacher I can
choose to design my lessons to meet the national standards and the state
standards and our district's core curriculum, which by the way are not mutally
aligned . Then if a parent questions what or how I am approaching a topic,
I can whip out all three and discuss my justification using the standards
as expert support. Or I can continue to rock along, and do the textbook-designed
traditional curriculum. And I have abolutely no support to defend a lesson
or activity other than " it's in the book."
Standards-based curriculum does not preclude any style, strategy or methodology.
As a teacher of the learning disabled student and now a teacher of the gifted
and talented, I use standards to measure the performance and quality of
student work. What methods I choose to use -- from lecture to problem based
learning -- are mine to choose based on student need and the general personality
of the classroom. But my students do well on those "standardized, required
state mandated tests" not because I am an exceptional teacher, but
because I make sure that the curriculum I use is "relevant and meaningful"
and follows the standards that society demands to be successful.
End of soapbox -- again.
Connie Hudgeons
President, New Mexico Geographic Alliance
The conversation by Connie Hudgeons and others sparked this reply
by
educational researcher Anne Wheelock:
I find merit in many of the points made in this discussion. On one hand,
good teachers can use state curriculum frameworks, district standards, or
standards developed by professional associations like NCTM to design great
new assignments for kids, focus learning, redirect teaching toward higher
order skills, and enliven classrooms. I have no doubt that many teachers
around the country are working on this, and that Connie Hudgeons is doing
that in her gifted classes.
I also see the potential for the standards proposed by teachers'
professional associations to improve teaching and learning. For example,
it does seem that the NCTM standards have helped focus math teaching and
encouraged more schools to enroll more kids in higher level math courses
earlier. As a result of the expanded opportunity to learn, it seems, we're
seeing higher test scores.
On the other hand, not everyone means the same thing in talking about
"standards." Grade retention -- a sorting practice that demonstrably
undermines achievement, sets kids up for later placement in low tracks,
and
disproportionately affects poor, Black, and Hispanic students -- is clearly
on the rise. To name one state that has come up in the discussion, in for
the 1995-96 school year alone, 96,753 Florida kids are held back, and with
mandated retentions now tied to test scores, that number will clearly rise
as it is doing in many states where the public is looking for evidence that
schools have "standards." (Interestingly, not all states are even
counting, however.) A policy and practice of offering extra help in a
routine way, early and often in age-appropriate classrooms, is not all that
common. At best, policy-makers talk about providing remediation for
retained students, after, not before they fail. And they don't always
deliver, even on this promise.
Those who want to learn more about the turmoil created in high-retention
urban districts might check out the excellent story by Grant Pick on
retention in Chicago at http://www.catalyst-chicago.org.
There's hardly a
better story on the subject. Other news articles are posted on at
http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/ctest
under spotlight issues along with a brief
introduction to the topic.
From my perspective, the policy makers, educators, businessmen, and
editorial writers who believe in standards and want to use the standards
of
the professional associations to stimulate improvements in classrooms have
an obligation to speak out much more publicly than they've been doing about
the misuse of "standards." The promises of the standards movement
for
better classrooms and, especially, more equal access to those classrooms,
do not seem very credible so long as practices that are at odds with those
promises -- like grade retention, ability grouping and tracking --- go
unchallenged.
On my optimistic days, I am hopeful that the standards movement will get
more kids in classes with the Connie Hudgeons of the world. But as I read
the newspapers around the country, I worry that the misuse of standards
will end up being an undertow that drags down their potential good and that
only a relative handful of kids will benefit. And as far as I can tell,
few policy-makers are thinking much about the important distinction that
Greg Camilli makes between the top-down standards and the internalized
standards Connie Hudgeons implies she uses -- let alone figure out how a
policy context can encourage the latter.
Putting aside all the political turmoil around what and whose standards
we're talking about (the reviews of the Fordham Foundation are worthy of
a
whole other discussion, for example), the questions for every teacher,
parent, researcher, policy-maker, and citizen should be:
What can be done to turn the tide -- at the White House, in the U.S.
Department of Education, in the states and districts -- so that "standards"
mean more than test scores and grade retention?
What needs to happen to protect vulnerable students from the misuse of
"standards" and make sure that every single student has opportunities
to do
good quality work that "meets standards"?
And also this reply by Dr.
Robert Gundling
It seems to me the Standards Movement is about defining targets that
professional organizations, taxpayers, educators and other stakeholders
in
the future of our country think are necessary for our children to be
successful, productive members of a technological society. I think it
standards are a work in progress and need to be revised as new information
becomes available. The performance standards define how good is good
enough. It seems to me that in the past, the targets were always moving
and
people were not opposed to being held accountabile, however they were
frustrated because the targets were either vague or moving.
I think it is also about responsiblity to communicate specific goals and
giving kids opportunities to revise work to demonstrate they have attained
the standards. The students have opportunities to learn and be supported
to
reaching the standards. Tests are not ends in themselves, rather a means
towards to the end which is documenting reaching the standard.
I believe a key to the success of the standards movement is professional
development. Rather than penalizing people for not understanding or moving
quickly enough, sustained, meaningful experiences based on effective
practice and knowledge about how adults learn should be used. The one day
in-service programs are replaced by on-going learning that empowers the
teachers to design the roadmap for student achievement of the standards.
The state is responsible for defining general standards, adapted by the
school district to meet the needs of their community and then teachers are
empowered to design the curriculum, assessment and instruction to support
student opportunities to reach the standards.
I believe, right or wrong, the responsibility of our profession is to a
large part student achievement. What we need to do is build together,
rather than wreck each other and ideas such standards that may have the
potential to serve our students. I always thought it was about them.
Robert Gundling, Ed.D.