The Randy Dorn Love Train...

....is steaming full-bore through the comments section of this article at the Seattle Times.

My beef with the national core standards is the loss of local control--these might compare to or even be better than we have now, but will they always?--and the constant changing of the standards dictates a constant changing of the test, which means that you lose the ability to really compare kids, schools, and teachers from year to year.

If we don't get through the Race to the Top first round tomorrow, we will have adopted these standards for *nothing*.

Read more here, if any.

Let's Do the Time Warp Again!

The Fordham Foundation, talking about our math standards:

Washington’s standards are easy to read and well organized. They come with extensive explanatory notes and examples. They cover nearly all the essential content with rigor and do an excellent job of limiting and prioritizing the content to be covered. In elementary school, arithmetic is both given priority and developed well. The high school content is generally strong, but a few STEM-ready topics are not included.

Neat! Hey, what math document did they look at?

Washington State K-12 Mathematics Learning Standards. July 2008.
Accessed from: http://www.k12.wa.us/mathematics/Standards/K-12MathematicsStandards-July2008.pdf

Well, that's 2008. What does the Washington Policy Center say about things?

Washington's math standards, which in 2005 earned an "F" from the Fordham Foundation, were rewritten last year by a consultant hired by the State Board of Education in response to a legislative directive. This new set of math standards has now earned an "A" from the Fordham Foundation.

But....last year was 2009, and these standards came out in July of 2008. Easy mistake. Hell, I can barely remember my age most days thanks to years of Red Bull abuse.

Here's a mistake not anyone can make:

Here we have a clear example of how contracting out to a private consultant a government service (like writing learning standards) results in a superior product (math standards) and not doing so (English Language Arts) results in a mediocre product.

I'm guessing I can find some people who disagree with that. I'll open with OSPI:

The state’s K-12 Mathematics Learning Standards have been revised by dozens of educators and mathematicians from across the state and the nation.

Then consider the actual standards document, which lists 34 Washington State professionals who were involved in writing the standards (see page 249).

And to close? Go to the original WPC post and look at what State Rep. Ross Hunter, one of the legislators most involved in the ed reform legislation of recent years, has had to say. I took a picture for posterity:
I'll be curious to see how Fordham feels about the other Common Core Standards that are supposed to come down the line.

Read more here, if any.

Washington Monthly on the Federal Role in Education

A good, quick read by Nicholas Lemann in Washington Monthly on where NCLB could go and why we need national academic standards instead of the state-by-state piecemeal we have now. The take-home paragraph:

As it took Richard Nixon to open diplomatic relations with China, it took George W. Bush to make the federal government a real presence in every public school. Now that the government is there, it should use its leverage mainly to create meaningful standards and a national curriculum. Right now it uses its leverage mainly to require tests. To change that, and to fulfill what Congress in 2001 took to be the promise of No Child Left Behind, would be a presidential achievement commensurate with civil rights, Medicare, and Social Security. Let’s hope the next president sees it that way.

All that said, education is very likely to be far down the list of priorities given the financial dire straits we're in.

Read more here, if any.