Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Common Education Standards

And by the way - is it just me - or have other people gone and looked for "National Standards of Curriculum" using google - only to findt hat nothing is posted, page is unavailable etc. - for a variety of standars and websites ...weird...

Those in public schools already are already government educated, right? I mean the "government" pays the teachers. Our "government" taxes go to the schools... there's a difference between having common education standards and having the government run the curriculum (which in my state it already technically does... just on a state level as opposed to a national level). A public school educated child should be able to move from Pennsylvania to Oregon mid-school year and expect not only to be taught at the same level (as in the quality of the educators themselves), but the same subjects. He should not come from an area that teaches state capitals in 3rd grade to a state that has over 50% of its graduating population not even know their own state capital.

If the standardization is done right, it will still leave teachers the freedom to control the lesson plans, to be creative when assigning projects, and be only a tool to help make sure the kids are getting the education they deserve. If it is done correctly, it will not prevent gifted kids from advancing nor will it keep kids that need extra help behind. it will allow programs to be designed so that gifted standards are the same across the board, as well as allow programs to exist at schools that don't currently have them, for ALL levels of the "education spectrum".

i live in a state that is required to fund gifted programs. BUT each school, not even school district, but school, is allowed to determine which children even get tested, let alone which get put in the program. how fair is that? every child deserves an equal chance of gaining the same educational experience, whether they live in rural alabama or new york city, whether their parents make millions or they are being raised by grandpa who can barely feed them due to a disability preventing him from bringing home more than a social security check. a school district in my state lost its acreditation (sp), NOT the fault of the students... now they are stuck, dealing with what is left of it and no one really is being held accountable for their current education!

sorry so long and winded. my own education is a prime example of why there needs to be some kind of common standards across the board.

The idea of CES sounds nice, but I wonder how it will pan out, from a systems and application standpoint. Given some of the responses in this thread re: teachers, schools, etc. being able to interpret and apply the standards, as they see fit, I still see a lot of room for discrepencies in education.

For example, one school may feel that offering science labs three times per week is the proper way to meet the CES and another only offers labs once per week. In this case, a child at the latter school will only receive one-third of the lab experience as a child in the former. Perhaps, though the child with labs only once a week will have a better grasp of the theories than the other child. Both schools are meeting the CES requirements, but doing so in different ways, however the potential for a child to be considered behind (or ahead)if they transfer schools hasn't, in my opinion, been eradicated - or in anyway reduced. And unless the schools must follow the same timeline with regard to when they teach certain standards the problem persists.

As I stated, the idea of CES sounds nice, but given the above, (granted not the best example, but hopefully it illustrates my point),I am having difficulty in seeing how having (national) CES will make a significant difference. In order for it to really work, in my opinion, I believe that it would have be in conjunction with a "national curriculum" that outlines exactly what will be taught and how and when - no skipping around , etc., because that would mean the problem with transfer students not being on the same page as a school's other students remains.

Frankly, even the *idea of a national or "common" curriculum rubs me the wrong way. And since, I don't see a plausible way to make CES work (they way I hope it would) without a common curriculum, I can't get on board with it. It's too slippy a slope, and I can see how homeschoolers would not be amenable to the idea of a CES.

I'm sure that implementing CES *without a common curriculum will have *some impact, but will it be enough to warrant the amount of legislation, systems updates, etc. that creating, implementing and monitoring a CES will entail? Until it can be proven that having a CES *without a national/common curriculum will make a significant, positive change, in conjunction with the assurance (amended into our laws in constitutional, cannot-be-voted-out-at-whim manner) that there will not and never will be "national/common curriculum", I remain firmly in the, "no thank you" camp.

A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close.

You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.

I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results.

Its a shame that bricks and mortar schools cannot adapt.

Many if not most school administrators do not want these types of tests (early and often ) because they will have to explain why some schools fail them.

Unfortunately, there is a hidden agenda among many who want "national standards." - the most obvious of which is the insertion of various philosophies into the curriculum. Another problem with national standards is that it stifles the desire for local experimentation and policy research which is where innovation comes from.

"A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close."

This would mean that standards, subjects would have to be taught *at the same time, etc. throughout the nation in all schools, IMO. Otherwise, you could have a group of students tested on a subject that they have only been taught for a semester and another that has had an entire year to focus on the same topic, depending on how the school interpreted the standard and implemented it in the classroom.

"You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.
A national curriculum could leave some room for local/regional subjects and standards."

A national curriculum could leave some room for regional differences, perhaps with the stipulation that such courses can only be offered during certain parts of the year and only for specific grades. For example, in California, California history is only taught in third grade (if memory serves me correctly).

"I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results."

What type of "testing" do you envision and how would it be implemented? What do you mean by "often"?

"Its a shame that bricks and mortar schools cannot adapt."
Agreed!

"Many if not most school administrators do not want these types of tests (early and often ) because they will have to explain why some schools fail them."

Yes, there is never an excuse for a "failing" school, IMO. However, I wonder if testing - "early and often" is the solution. Wouldn't this perpetuate a system that "teaches to the test", a system which we are, currently, trying to move away from?

"Unfortunately, there is a hidden agenda among many who want "national standards." - the most obvious of which is the insertion of various philosophies into the curriculum. Another problem with national standards is that it stifles the desire for local experimentation and policy research which is where innovation comes from. "

Two very good reasons not to adopt national/CES!

We already have a nationally normed achievement test available for elementary school, and it's been used at least 45 years when I was in elementary. It's the ITBS.

I know. I was just wondering what was meant by testing "early and often". And does *more* testing equate with a better educated populace or is it simply - more testing?

ETA: Austin had put the word "testing" in quotes. I figured it might not necessarily be *traditional fill-in-the-blank-or-bubble ITBS, SAT, etc. type tests, but wasn't certain, so I asked what was envisioned.

I wonder this myself. I was shocked at the build up and school time taken on one round of standardized testing given to the 3rd graders at our previous school (we have a neighbor with a 3rd grader). This poor little girl was stressed out for a month. And she is actually quite GT.

I was quite happy with the Peabody test we did to fufill our homeschooling requirements. Someone came to our house and administered it orally. We did zero prep, it took less than an hour (in our case - it can take up to 2), and he could continue on K-12 material until he burned out on what he could answer. The Peabody is not a perfect test by any means. It could never parse out the top percentages (very small sample sizes, limited questions, etc). But it did let me know DS is between 2-7 grade levels ahead of everything as a 2nd grader after a year of extremely laid back homeschooling. I think it at least did a fairly good job assessing math, reading, and spelling.

If a low impact test like that could be given at the beginning and end of every academic year, it seems like testing information could be used to place kids academically and be able to see what they have learned over the course of an academic year. Maybe there's not a way to do something similar in a classroom of 25. But it could be a useful tool.

It really doesn't matter what the National criteria is, it still won't fit these kids.

Just my two cents!

Yes! It does speak to the middle and leave outliers from, either end of, the spectrum without a paddle, doesn't it. I'm reminded of NCLB and we all know how well that worked. The idea of NCLB is nice, but...well, just because an idea sounds good doesn't mean it ever will be good.