Frenchification effort gaining steam?

As our curricula become more and more centralized, both in Washington State and around the country, the reason for the ironic development* is worth considering. Studies like The Fordham Institute's provide it:

Last week, the results of a national test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that Washington fourth- and eighth-graders score above average compared to their counterparts in other states.

This week, a new report shows Washington is again above average, this time in how it defines "proficiency" on its own tests, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, or WASL.

A report released today by the Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association says the WASL has a higher passing bar in reading and writing than the average in the 26 states examined. The exceptions were reading in grades 4, 5, and 8, where the WASL passing bar was below the 26-state average.

The report, called "The Proficiency Illusion," underscores the fact that proficiency in one state means something very different than it does in others — and sometimes from grade to grade within the same state.

"America is awash in achievement 'data,' " the report says, "yet the truth about our educational performance is far from transparent and trustworthy."

Even if you can quibble with this particular study's methodology, you have to grant that every state has its own assessment, and with nearly no coordination across states, there's absolutely no mechanism to ensure equity under the provisions of No Child Left Behind.

NCLB makes a national curriculum not only necessary, but inevitable.




*For the irony-deficient: Frenchification is brought to you by the same president who served up Freedom Fries.

streamlining Washington's math curriculum

Not enough students are passing the math WASL, but that doesn't mean our standards are too high, according to an outside consultant.

"The bottom line is that Washington's math standards need to be strengthened," wrote Linda Plattner of the Maryland-based educational research firm Strategic Teaching, which was hired by the state to assess its math expectations.

The article notes some of the proposed changes. And who benefits--besides students and teachers, of course?

After the new learning requirements are written by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, guided by this report, a Board of Education committee will recommend three to five commercial math programs that fit well with the state's standards.

This will be a change in approach for Washington state, where at least 100 different math programs are used around the state, said Corrine McGuigan, assistant superintendent for research and education development at the state Education Department and a member of the state Board of Education committee working on the math action plan.

"That doesn't mean that a district can't go off and do what it wants," she added.

One can only guess what those 3-5 privileged curricula will be, as the standardization of Washington's state education continues apace.

standardizing the curriculum in the Bellevue district

In Bellevue, teaching is becoming a committee affair.

Since he arrived in Bellevue 11 years ago, [Bellevue Superintendent Mike] Riley slowly has shifted control away from individual teachers to committees, mostly made up of teachers. Those committees determine what all eighth-grade English teachers or all high-school biology teachers will teach and why. Teachers then write lessons for all their colleagues to use, or they adapt them from district textbooks. Adjustments are made as problems arise.

Teachers can take detours of a day or two to re-teach if they need to, but not much more, without committee approval.

Riley calls Bellevue's efforts "coordinated" or "coherent" curriculum. Critics deride it as "scripted."

The article, in true journalistic fashion, outlines the pros and cons and gives voice to teachers who both hate and love the new curriculum. The core disagreement is how much flexibility the new process allows--critics say it makes robots out of teachers, while proponents praise the amount of guesswork it takes out of the system.

In a way, it reminds me of curricular change my colleagues and I enacted at Capital High School over the past year. Crucial differences, though, made our process not only acceptable to all the teachers involved, but invigorating.

First, although we standardized some elements of instruction, we also purposefully respected teacher autonomy. We set up a book list and outlined lesson plans for specific activities like literature circles, but left it up to individuals to implement the curriculum in the way that worked best for them. We met frequently to discuss what was working and what wasn't, but at no time did we all follow the same daily plan.

Second, not only did we respect teacher autonomy, but we respected student autonomy, too, including three sessions of literature circles where students, with input from parents and teachers, chose their own books and read them together with small groups.

Third, and most important, our impetus to change came from the bottom up. We saw that certain students weren't being reached by a one-book-fits-all structure, and so we worked for months to revamp our curriculum. No principal, superintendent, or government flack breathed down our necks. Instead, we worked as professionals, and the result was impressive: student engagement, teacher confidence, and even district recognition.

Standardization, to a degree, has its benefits. The trick is finding the right degree--and teachers have to lead the way.




(Oh, and to Mike Riley, who thinks this country needs a national curriculum: what, are you crazy?)