The Resetting of Academic Standards

Executive Perspective

As educators, we recognize the individuality of every child. We know that students differ significantly in many ways, such as intellectual ability, physical attributes, interests, motivation and so on. Nevertheless, we set standards and expectations that apply to all.

We convene experts in various academic disciplines and ask them to determine what children should know at specific points in time. The standards become the measure we use to hold our school systems accountable.

Little scientific accuracy exists in those determinations. It is more a matter of reaching consensus among those charged with setting the standards. Sometimes the bar is set so low that almost everyone can clear it. Sometimes it is set so high that few succeed. The expectations as to what every child should know at a given time are arbitrary and subject to manipulations.

A Derailed Purpose

With each state setting its own standards, with no national agreement as to where the bar should be set, there was so much variance in the results of the assessments used by each state to gauge its standards that it was impossible to make national comparisons.

There also were huge discrepancies between state results and performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association set out to create what was intended to be national standards: the Common Core. The plan was to have each state buy into the Common Core and, eventually, there would be a national assessment — national as opposed to federal because the intent was for the standards and the assessments to be the consensus of all the states and not a creation of the federal government.

That plan suffered a setback when the U.S. Department of Education decided to fund the development of assessments aligned to the Common Core and required adoption of the Common Core standards, or a facsimile, as a prerequisite to receiving Race to the Top funding, available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and subsequent annual appropriations, even though the program lacked authorizing language.

The original intent was derailed further as the Common Core became politicized by the “Obama Core” label and teachers’ unions railed against the use of the aligned assessments to evaluate teachers. Today, many states that adopted the Common Core call it something else, even though they are similar standards, and the use of the PARCC and Smarter Balance tests has declined.

There always has been confusion as to what the Common Core standards are. Many consider them a curriculum with accompanying textbooks and lesson plans. President Trump campaigned to abolish the Common Core even though it was never a federal mandate.

A Harsh Reality

Perhaps now is a good time to re-examine what we expect our children to learn in school. As mentioned, standards are arbitrary and should never define the point in time when every child should meet them, especially in a time where we see growing recognition of and support for personalized learning. Our goal could be to expect every child to meet the standards without specifying when.

Each child should have the opportunity to achieve mastery of the standard in the time appropriate to his or her ability. Such an approach would leave no child behind. Such an approach would never require remediation. Such an approach would never require a student to repeat a grade level, and such an approach would minimize or even eliminate the concept of failure.

As an example, we can have a standard that requires a child to run a mile without specifying that it must be done in six minutes. Some might do it in four minutes, some might do it in 20. If the standard is set as a requirement to join the track team, then perhaps time could be a factor.

As we set academic standards, such elements as time and degree of mastery should be considered along with their purpose. Standards for admission to colleges and universi-ties differ according to the institutions’ prestige and volume of applicants. Standards for receiving a high school diploma also vary by state and even by school district.

There was a time when many states offered three high school diplomas: a general diploma, a vocational diploma and a diploma for children with special needs. Some states offered a general diploma with honors. At some point, the decision was made that the same standards should apply to all students, leading to a single diploma. The harsh reality that one size does not fit all and differences prevent all students from achieving the same thing at the same time should encourage discussions as to whether we want standards to function as a filter or as goals that all students might be able to accomplish in due time.