What are standards?


Where do standards come from?


The results have been mixed. Student achievement has gotten better, particularly in states such as Delaware, Massachusetts, New York and Texas that were early adopters. But progress has not been as quick or gone as far as many would have hoped. Although poor and minority students have made gains, there is still a big difference — commonly called “the achievement gap” — between what these students have achieved when compared to their more affluent and white peers.

How are state standards different from national ones?


Why are standards important?


What’s the downside of having standards?


The pros and cons of national standards

In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate in education circles about the value of having a national set of standards that all schools throughout the country would use. Here are the arguments in a nutshell:

The pros:

  • National standards would raise the level of expectations for all. If all schools across the country had the same standards, all students would be expected to achieve at the same level, no matter what state they live in. If students in Mississippi were required to know the same things as students in New York, for example, they would be prepared to attend universities throughout the country.
  • National standards would assure that all American students meet international levels of achievement. We know that American students fall behind in math and science compared to their peers in other countries. With national standards, it would be clear what students need to know to compete internationally.
  • National standards would make it easier for students to adjust to a new school when they move from one state to another. In an increasingly mobile population, it would be easier for students who currently face differing standards and different tests in each state.

The cons:

  • Education has traditionally been a right of the states. The United States has a long history of “local control” of schools that would be hard to change. The federal government or a federal agency should not dictate education in each state.
  • National standards would create a one-size-fits-all framework. The needs within each state are different. National standards would not take into account the cultural and geographical diversity of our country.
  • National standards would discourage innovation and creativity in the classroom. Too much similarity could lead to tightly prescribed curriculum in every classroom.

What’s the connection between standards and the No Child Left Behind Law?

The drive to create state standards and tests was pushed in part by the passage of the No Child Left Behind federal law in 2002. The law requires each state to set standards for curriculum in reading, math and science. Students must be tested annually in reading, math and science in grades 3 through 8, and at least once in grades 10 through 12. All groups of students, including economically disadvantaged and special needs students, must show evidence of academic progress, otherwise the school gets penalized and parents have the right to choose another school or receive free tutoring.

Critics of the law say it did not go far enough because it allowed each state to set its own standards. This created a system where some states have tougher standards than others. States can make tests easier so that more students can meet proficiency standards. Critics argue that this is exactly what has happened in some cases.

Supporters of the law say that it has caused schools to pay significant attention to the lowest achieving students and to raising the bar for all students. Test scores, for the most part, are improving and students are learning.

Share on Pinterest
There are no images.