However, the problems of implementation must be considered along with the positives of a policy. One of the detrimental effects of a national system is the agility in change and progress that it removes from the curriculum. Research into what students should actually learn is sorely lacking; for instance, it is difficult to determine the effect of a statistics course in high school, since you cannot test the students not given a statistics course on statistical methods. A nationally imposed model of standards forces districts to adopt a curriculum that may ultimately be changed, and the process of change at the national level is inherently more difficult and slower than change at the district or even state level.

A compromise would be the adoption of a set of mandatory minimum standards at the federal level and tie additional federal education aid to those standards. This would also be accompanied by a revision of NCLB to remove the punishments associated with failing schools and the implementation of new rewards for improving student outcomes. Minimum standards provide a floor for states and prevent their further downward trend in student accountability outcomes while not tying down the more agile groups in the education community from progressing.

Have you guys followed the debates in Brtidging Differences (and TWIE) about 21st century assessments and the skepticism of Standards supporters?

I was very impressed with your online discussion, but I have an honest question. Did participants like Margaret Honey have an educational reason for supporting alignment of curriculum and online tools for 21st century skills, or were the rationales technicalogical, political, economic, or for marketing? I can see an educational reason for curriculum alignment in elementary schools and for digital products for the early years. But as you guys correctly implied, this is a great educational adventure, and as you didn’t mention this is a huge and diverse country. I’d think you would support a “let a thousand flowers bloom” strategy – at least for the first generation of products. I’d push my idea further and ask what would be the problem with just pushing full speed ahead in the schools and with the teachers who already want 21st century products? Then why not recruit teachers who would want to join the effort. As you convince more people by seeing results, you would get a critical mass of adherents and energetic advocates.

Like I said, this is an honest question. I’ve been to a couple of county fairs but I still can’t see how curriculum alignment has any relevance to a high poverty secondary school like mine, but its still the mantra of educators who mean well but who have little practical experience in our situation. Instead, I’d like a full court press to recruit young teachers to schools like mine who would advocate for 21st century skills and assessments. But if I can’t even post a comment on your discussion, you don’t want people like me with bifocals and broken fingers and impatience with computer glitches as your commandos in this effort.