****************************************
ABSTRACT: The “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI), aimed at developing National Education Standards (NES) for the U.S., has recently been widely reported in the media, the Academic Discussion List sphere (ADLsphere), and the Blogosphere. Thus far, the reaction to the CCSSI & NES has been mostly negative [e.g., Brady, Clement, Haim, Horton, Ohanian, Marshak, Meier, Taylor, and Urner; with a few positive exceptions [Derbes, Korsunsky, Weingarten]. Adding to the positive are Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009) who, in a report “International Lessons About National Standards”: (a) make the case for NES in the U.S., based on an in-depth study of NES in 10 other countries: Russia, France, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and the Netherlands, which “are making significant improvement in mathematics and science achievement and operate along a spectrum of national and local educational control”; (b) distill from their international study one important lesson: "It's NOT true that national standards portend loss of local control," plus four recommendations for the U.S. national standards effort; and (c) conclude: “We know what the standards of top-achieving nations look like. They are focused, coherent, and rigorous. And they're that way because the systems themselves are focused and coherent. It's time to get on the national standards bandwagon. . . . . The process of establishing national standards will surely require time, patience, and a great deal of compromise. But we postpone the inevitable at our peril.”
****************************************
To access the complete 37 kB post, please click on http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla .
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. “National Education Standards for the United States?” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/mjrvla. Post of 9 Jun 2009 14:44:42-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.
No comments:
Post a Comment