<p>A widely distributed AP article about varying state educational standards </p>
<p>makes clear that state standards in core subjects vary so much that it is difficult for colleges to compare applicants from different states on the basis of grade averages alone. The full federal report on this issue </p>
<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp</a> </p>
<p>provides more details.</p>
<p>I've never understood why the United States is so opposed to some sort of national standards. Now we have the College Board providing de facto standards through SAT2s and APs.</p>
<p>Here's the New York Times story on the same issue: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/education/08scores.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/education/08scores.html</a> </p>
<p>@ mathmom: Yes, because the states have never formed a consortium to do a set of national standards, and the feds haven't stepped in (for familiar constitutional and political reasons), various private organizations serve as proxies for a national testing system. That's why I think the SAT I is here to stay.</p>
<p>Why do we need to develop new national standards? Can't we just use some proven tools which already exist (such as an international measure or even the Iowa tests)? </p>
<p>I think we should measure ourselves against what the best nations worldwide are doing. My metro area has a third rate educational system despite the fact that the population is at the top socio-economically nationwide. What the schools did was to build a huge bureaucracy to design a new in-state standard and test, thereby avoiding the more pressing matter of making sure that we can compete nationally and internationally. So now we are competing against our third rate selves, and we are still losing! The kids can't pass the test, so now the state government is considering eliminating the math portion. What a mess. </p>
<p>The biggest sin is that countless dollars and hours have gone into designing, teaching to, and administering this curriculum and test, resources which could have been put toward our most underserved students.</p>
<p>And don't even get me started on social studies standards? Someone once linked me the Texas standards. I swear it seemed like it was Texas history nearly every year!</p>
<p>There was a Newsweek cover story recently on NCLB. It suggested adopting the MA standards as the national standards. It would save tons of money for the states not to have to develop their own standards and tests. That money could go to teaching students.</p>
<p>I also read the Newsweek article.</p>
<p>It had an interesting graph that contrasted how many students for a given state pass the state tests, and how many a standard national test.</p>
<p>There is a huge gap for most states, indicating that the state standards have been set too low.</p>
<p>Being a Massachusetts resident, I was pleased to see the praise given to our state tests (MCAS). </p>
<p>Massachusetts students also did the best on the national tests (with about 40% scoring as proficient or better).</p>
<p>If you have seen a sample of MCAS test (especially the math test), you won’t want to use MCAS as a national standard. A lot of questions have more than one right answer. As matter of fact students have been able to dispute the MCAS results to raise their scores.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents</p>
<p>wzzz:</p>
<p>You are right that the MCAS tests could be improved. Nonetheless, they appear to be far more rigorous that a lot of other state tests--which may also have the same deficiencies.<br>
The more general point, however, is that having 50 different state standards and tests is enriching testing companies without doing much to improve learning.</p>
<p>In my experience with the Massachusetts public schools, they pride themselves on teaching the students to think and not just spout back facts.</p>
<p>That may result in some of those questions with more than one answer.</p>
<p>This was actually a bit of a problem for us, as we didn't feel the elementary school focused enough on the basics, like learning the times tables.</p>
<p>MCAS tests also have many questions where the students have to write out their answer, or at least explain their answer; they are not all just simple multiple choice.</p>
<p>
<p>. . . . </p>
<p>. . . . </p>
<p>The biggest sin is that countless dollars and hours have gone into designing, teaching to, and administering this curriculum and test, resources which could have been put toward our most underserved students.
</p>
<p>Agreed. It may not be strictly necessary to have most of the intended good effect of the No Child Left Behind Act if we simply use existing school achievement tests rather than have states write new tests one state at a time. </p>
<p>And I fully agree that the resources spent on developing dozens of new state tests would better have been spent on improving instruction to learners who now receive the worst instruction. That would be the most economically efficient way to improve education in the short term.</p>
<p>Not that I want to start a Bush-bashing session here (oh please, no), but I doubt the intention of No Child Left Behind was for states to go off and waste time and money on reinventing the wheel. There are superb math curriculums available world wide. Proven, time worn, economical. There are outstanding world history books both old and new. The same is true for every other academic subject. Yet school districts assemble groups of second rate educators with mediocre sheepskins to brain storm new-and-improved ways of teaching our children. I think students deserve the best and the brightest designing their education, not the local crowd popular with the school administration and low level politicians.</p>
<p>NCLB required each state to set academic standards. The require each state to then measure these state standards on an annual basis. State standards and the state tests must be approved by the Dept. of Education in order for districts in the states to qualify for federal funds through the Title 1 program. However, the federal government cannot dictate either the standards or the testing methodology because of constitutional states rights.</p>
<p>Now, you throw in the fact that 100% of students must be proficient and advanced in reading and math by the year 2013 (a thing that is not possible) and the fact that states must also show progress towards meeting the 100% goal each year, you have set up a perfect recipe for states to have lower standards, not higher ones. </p>
<p>Our state has spent millions of dollars redoing state standards that the feds are happy with, and then spending millions of more dollars to develop a state specific test that measures our state standards. There were already standards and testing in place, but they didn't meet what the feds were looking for, so the state had to go back to the drawing board. Our standards are definitely lower than they were before NCLB but lowering the bar is the only way it will be able to come close to meeting the 100% mark.</p>
<p>If we really care about setting high standards for our students, we will find ways to reward states that set high standards even if all students can't meet the mark.</p>