Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Standards & Accountability

Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net
For anyone concerned about new instructional content, the current
"reform" movement with its emphasis on "Standards" and "accountabililty" is
surely important. My last Orlando Sentinel article on these matters
drew considerable response. If you're interested, here's another on the
same subject.
Marion
<http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/sch9.html>http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/recenta
rticles.html
--------------
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:49:24 -0400
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Correction
> Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net
>
> For anyone concerned about new instructional content, the current
> "reform" movement with its emphasis on "Standards" and "accountabililty" is
> surely important. My last Orlando Sentinel article on these matters
> drew considerable response. If you're interested, here's another on the
> same subject.
Hmmm. Mine came back with TWO addresses run together. Should read
like this:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/recentarticles.html

------------------

From: KCStarguy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000
Subject: Standards & Accountability
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu, CRC@listserv.classroom.com,
innovative-teachers@egroups.com

Intersting article.
I have found it very interesting that teachers and principals take the
standards so literally. By that I mean, many take them as "points" to rush
through and to put in lessons" so be accountable (and for administrators to
look for) and say you did such activities, at such time to show certain
concepts.
There is a contant rush , lack of continuity, lack of effort in extending and
blending concepts together all in the name of the standards.
Instead of treating standards separartely, I placed them on a spreadsheet to
link up to different activities for courses, project based learning and
other activities that I do.
It is possible to actually cover many of the standards even outside a
particular discipline and still accomplish many of the standards without this
piecemeal approach. Standards if combined can help guide and integrate
concepts.
And that goes with the use of the internet and technology many times.
I have on my website a list of many ways to use the internet which can be link
ed to standards per each 20+ category. They are not meant to as stand alone
"standards" but guidelines for a more interdisciplinary , over reaching
outlook of using technology.
Dr. Eric Flescher (KCStarguy@aol.com) Project S.I.M. (Simulations,
Interdisciplinary internet and Metacognitive activities)
Dr. Eric Flescher, (KCStarguy@aol.com)- Educational Technology
Consultant-Multimedia- Adjunct Faculty, Lesley College-Technology Magic and
Worlds to Explore-20 plus ways for using the internet for teaching, learning
and education model http://ada.lesley.edu/faculty/flescher/team1.htm
 
In a message dated 9/15/00 10:12:06 AM, k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu writes:
<< Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net
For anyone concerned about new instructional content, the current
"reform" movement with its emphasis on "Standards" and "accountabililty" is
surely important. My last Orlando Sentinel article on these matters
drew considerable response. If you're interested, here's another on the
same subject.
>>
 
----------

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
From: Mary Ellen Verona <mverona@mabelode.mbhs.edu>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: multiple representations

To my mind, one of the benefits of an icon language like STELLA is the
connection between the model representation and the graph. Has anyone had
any success in extending this connection? For example, students might
create graphs of the velocity and distance of a car overtaking a truck.
The truck has a constant velocity while the car, starting from rest,
speeds up to pass it. We could use a velocity/distance structure for the
truck, and an acceleration, velocity, distance structure for the car. Is
that preferable to using two structures that look the same - with an
acceleration of 0 for the truck? Or could the difference in acceleration
between the car and truck be highlighted in a different way?
 
Mary Ellen Verona
mverona@mvhs1.mbhs.edu
Maryland Virtual High School
Montgomery Blair High School
51 East University Boulevard
Silver Spring, MD 20901
301-649-2880
301-649-8245 (fax)
 
-------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: multiple representations
From: Diana Fisher <dmfisher@jps.net>
To: k-12sd k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Mary Ellen,
on 9/18/00 7:32 AM, k-12sd at k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:13:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mary Ellen Verona <mverona@mabelode.mbhs.edu>
> To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
> Subject: multiple representations
>
> To my mind, one of the benefits of an icon language like STELLA is the
> connection between the model representation and the graph. Has anyone had
> any success in extending this connection? For example, students might
> create graphs of the velocity and distance of a car overtaking a truck.
> The truck has a constant velocity while the car, starting from rest,
> speeds up to pass it. We could use a velocity/distance structure for the
> truck, and an acceleration, velocity, distance structure for the car. Is
> that preferable to using two structures that look the same - with an
> acceleration of 0 for the truck? Or could the difference in acceleration
> between the car and truck be highlighted in a different way?

I recommend a linear structure for the truck and a quadratic structure for
the car (if the acceleration is constant). This is consistant with the
physics and the mathematics involved. The structure itself should identify
as much of what is happening as possible.
If you were to introduce an increase/decrease in velocity for the truck as
part of the exercise, the question becomes, will the truck assume another
constant velocity (ignoring acceleration in the transition)? In that case
I would keep the linear structure, using a step function to alter the
constant velocity to another constant velocity. If the truck is to
accelerate over a period of time (not instantaneously), then the quadratic
structure for the truck is better from the beginning, because it is more
generic to encompass the entire scenario to be modeled.
So I guess what I am trying to say is, what concepts are you trying to
reinforce with the model? The simplest structure that includes what you
want to manipulate in the model is the best structure (in my opinion).
Diana Fisher
 
-----------

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
From: William Costello <will@cvumail.cvu.cssd.k12.vt.us>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: multiple representations -Reply

ME Verona., et al
We have used the "multiple representation" format in our introductory
physics (Mechanics) course for a number of years. This approach takes
students through a modeling cycle as they "uncover" an understanding
of basic physical laws. A "unit" begins as students observe a
physical event (demo) such as ball in free fall. They begin a cycle
by writing a clear mental model (written description) of how and why
the object behaved in this manner. They then conduct and experiment
to explore a "Physical Model" firsthand, generating BOTG's of d, v,
and a (graphical models). A video analysis (using Videopoint) is
done and graphs of the motion are analyzed (curve fitting) to
develop equations for the functions observed on the graphs
("mathematical model"). Here students pause to re-read and edit
their original mental model (in needed).
The modeling to date is then applied in 3 simulation environments.
It their mathematical models are valid they should be generic and
able to be applied to various situations where the same principles
hold...a.k.a...problem solving. Then, using their knowledge base,
students are challenged to re-create their knowledge in a virtual
simulation (using Interactive Physics) and a dynamic simulation
(using STELLA).
The final mental model is written following this and includes
multiple representations of what they now know: written, physical
(sketch with vectors), graphical, mathematical, and simulation
components.
Students also solve problems using the multiple representations as
well as present to their peers soltions to problems in the same
format.
 
--------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability

From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net
> Intersting article.
Thanks.
> I have found it very interesting that teachers and principals take the
>standards
> so literally. By that I mean, many take them as "points" to rush through
>and to
> put in lessons" so be accountable (and for administrators to look for)
>and say
> you did such activities, at such time to show certain concepts.
I don't think that's surprising. Despite decades of dialog, countless
journal
articles, books, speeches, etc., the perception persists (even among
educators who
ought to know better) that educating is primarily about transferring
information
from books, teachers' heads, the library, the Internet, etc., into students'
"empty" heads. That such isn't the case, that students' heads aren't
empty, and
that the process of educating is much more a matter of helping them reorganize
existing information and reinterpreting personal experience, is an idea
that just
doesn't register easily.
> There is a contant rush , lack of continuity, lack of effort in extending and
> blending concepts together all in the name of the standards.

Isn't this an inevitable consequence of the present system of
educating all
the way from the upper elementary level through graduate school? The idea that
there are meaningful "walls" around the conceptual frameworks of the
disciplines
gets far, far more reinforcement than does the idea that they're all simply
elaborations of various aspects of a single structure of knowledge.

> Instead of treating standards separartely, I placed them on a spreadsheet to
> link up to different activities for courses, project based learning and
> other activities that I do.

That's fine. However, I'm inclined to think you're trying to make a silk
purse out of a sow's ear. The whole standards movement, in my opinion, is a
farce, a dead end, a catastrophe, dreamed up by people driven by extremely
simplistic notions of what educating is all about.

> It is possible to actually cover many of the standards even outside a
> particular discipline and still accomplish many of the standards without this
> piecemeal approach. Standards if combined can help guide and integrate
> concepts.

Yes. But is there some good reason for not STARTING with the
concepts? I no
longer think that's THE answer either (I did in the 70s, and wrote textbooks
reflecting that assumption) but it seems to me that, between "standards" and
"concepts," selected concepts are superior to standards as organizers of
knowledge
and instruction.
Marion
 
----------

From: "Paul Preuss" <ppreuss@borg.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000

Marion wrote: "But is there some good reason for not STARTING with the
concepts? I no longer think that's THE answer either (I did in the 70s, and
wrote textbooks
reflecting that assumption) but it seems to me that, between "standards" and
"concepts," selected concepts are superior to standards as organizers of
knowledge and instruction."
If I understand what is being said, which is problematic, I think I agree -
with the exception of when the standard is a concept. I do not see
standards as some separate set of memorizable facts but rather a framework
of skills, knowledge and conceptual understandings that allow for facts to
be placed when and as needed.
Paul Preuss
 
----------

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
From: "P.S. Abode" <pxabode@fresno.k12.ca.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Introduction

My name is Philip Abode. I stumbled into the system dynamics idea while
cruising
the net and onward into this listserv. My expectation is that I will find
people
who have a different paradigmatic view of the problem with public
schooling--processes, systems, contents, and management (administration,
leadership) and willing to share their heterodoxy in educational thought. I
regard myself as a student of Nature and Society.
I have an undergraduate
preparation in Physiology and an MBA which emphasized Finance and Marketing. I
also accumulated 24 graduate credits in Economics. In the past decade, I have
served in school districts as administrative analyst doing surveys, data
analysis
and consulting at both site and central administrative levels. I am currently
working (rather slowly) toward a doctorate in educational Leadership. To
balance
the equation of expectation, you can expect some "beyond-the-box" ideas from me
when it comes to micro- and macro-institutional analysis of educational
problems. I read widely and will tend to borrow from my readings and
disciplinary training.

Philip S. Abode
Fresno, California
 
--------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
> I do not see standards as some separate set of memorizable facts but rather a
> framework of skills, knowledge and conceptual understandings that allow for
> facts to be placed when and as needed.
Paul,
If by "standards" we're talking about those that have appeared across the
country as a consequence of the Goals 2000: Standards and Measures" program
begun
in 1990, I think it's fair to say that generalizations are absolutely
impossible. By and large, they're a sorry excuse for anything educationally
legitimate.
Marion

----------------

From: "mkkeogh" <mkkeogh@net-tech.com.au>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000

Creating the map of knowledge to transplant onto the minds of students is flawed from the beginning, regardless of whether it is framed as "standards" or as "outcomes". Teachers share with students a 'learning relationship', where metaphors are developed and reappear throughout the process of elaboration of concepts and like concepts.
The accountability that these types of maps encourage is often interpreted as lowest common denominator teaching by those who are constrained due to the exclusiveness of such indicators. For many children, learning is unable to be measured adequately in these terms due to the categories' ignorance of context, and insensitivity to local input. The result is knowledge based on a homogenised, middle-class version of reality as informed by those outside the educative process. When teachers string together lessons that include several 'standards' they are preconceiving the direction of their lesson to the extent that they are no longer learning through the exchange, merely checklisting (as their administrators may want). Both parties in the relationship are failed by the relationship in this sense.
Further, it precludes the opportunity for students and teachers to question the validity of knowledge, applying connections beyond the scope of that which is 'objective' and 'measurable'. It implies a boundary to the exchange, which itself privileges certain responses, that deny or enact the various realities of our students. Bateson (1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind) demonstrates the flawed nature of such applications of outline to conversations:
"You can never see it while you're in the middle of it. Because if you could see it, you would be predictable - like the machine. And I would be predictable - and the two of us would be predictable." (32)
This applies also to curriculum. Pre-planning is a must, but when the starting point in pre-planning is an outcome that will be rigorously tested, the opportunities of passion and exchange in education are diminished. The conclusion to the 'conversation' has already occurred, and it becomes - predictable. Not a 'learning organisation' in any sense.
Martin Keogh
Principal
St. Joseph's School
Orbost Australia
 
--------------

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Introduction

> My name is Philip Abode...... you can expect some "beyond-the-box" ideas
>from me
> when it comes to micro- and macro-institutional analysis of educational
> problems........

Philip,
Welcome.
Any thoughts on the implications for institutional analysis of a social
institution that doesn't have a clue about what it's supposed to do?
Here, by way of illustration of that contention, are some "comprehensive
institutional aims" I've picked up from dialog on various listservs:
- Raise standardized test scores
- Teach the disciplines more effectively
- Teach students to think
- Teach "the basics"
- Prepare students for democratic citizenship
- Keep America economically competitive
- Help students become culturally literate
- Help student become informed consumers
- Respond to student needs
- Facilitate self-actualization
- Solve social problems
- Build self-esteem
- Pose the "eternal questions"
- Instill a love of learning
- Develop character
- Teach the whole child
- Create thoughtful, caring individuals
- Promote intercultural understanding
- "Know thyself"
- Explore broad themes
- Teach key concepts
- Transmit societal values
- Prepare students for useful, satisfying work

Marion

----------------

From: Nancy Maville <nmaville@hps-inc.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: multiple representations
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000

Mary Ellen,
I think that you very rightly note the power inherent in the connection
between model structure (the diagram) and model behavior (what you see on
the graph). STELLA does a very good job of helping you to make this
connection. I think that in your distance, velocity, acceleration problems,
it would be a great thing to reinforce this linkage between structure and
behavior. Doing so will help students to learn the physics. In addition,
the conceptual and mental simulation skills they learn are nicely
transferable to other disciplines in the curriculum.
 
Here's a progression that really helped me to understand distance, velocity,
acceleration concepts. After working with this simple progression, I think
that I have a pretty good handle on the meaning of summary formulas in my
Physics book! (Context for the progression is the "car overtaking the truck"
problem that you describe in your posting).
1. Single stock representing "position" or distance traveled for the truck.
No flows. When you create the graph, you find out that the truck doesn't go
anywhere. Why? because there is no structural mechanism for changing the
position over time.
2. Add a flow to the position stock. Make that flow a constant. You now
get linear growth or decline. The change in structure has led to a change
in behavior. Now the truck can move along!
3. Copy and paste the structure to represent the car. See what happens to
the two distances traveled, if the car also travels at a constant velocity.
Similar structures create qualitatively similar behavior patterns.
4. Add acceleration to the structure for the car. Make the acceleration
some nonzero value. Now you can see that regardless of the truck's
velocity, the car will eventually overtake it. The structural addition has
led to a qualitative change in the behavior pattern.
 
Hope this helps,
Steve Peterson
HPS

-------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Tim Noxel <timothy.noxel@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Introduction
 
Greetings from Ontario, Canada. I'm a vice-principal with a public school
board. I'm also a PhD in Education student with Walden University
(Minneapolis, Minnesota).
I'm interested in hearing from others about system dynamics in K-12
education. I'm especially interested in Senge's concepts of system
thinking as it applies to the education sector.
 
Regards,
Tim

-------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000
From: "Daniel D Burke" <BURKED@cna.org>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability

Normally I would stay out of religious debates. The NCTM math standards
and either the AAAS 2061 or the NRC science standards are very good guides
to what is important for students to know and be able to do. They are
clearly not focused on facts alone, but incorporate a high degree of
conceptual knowledge and the important habits of mind from these
disciplines. Moreover, given the sorry state of teacher preparation
curricula in this country, they afford teachers a sound outline of math and
science on which to build their pedagogical content knowledge.
Dan Burke
 
----------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: "Allan Collins" <collina@irn.pdx.edu>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Systems Education & Transfer of Learning

Hello, my name is Allan Collins and I have enjoyed the rich discussions of
this list. My thesis topic is what caused me to join this listserve. In
short, I am interested in documenting the development or evidence of
transfer in a systems enriched classroom (6th grade math and health).
Does anyone know of any qualitative and/or objective measures of transfer?
One way of observing and measuring transfer is by noting how the level of
complexity in students questions changes.
I know that Paal Davidsen (University of Bergen) has done similar work, but
I am not aware of anyone else.
Can anyone offer suggestions?
I really think that systems tools can be very powerful for teachers and
students.

Thanks,
Allan Collins
Portland State University

-------------------------

From: "Paul Preuss" <ppreuss@borg.com>
To: "k-12sd" k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000

Marion - If, what you say is correct, "that generalizations (about standards
across the nation) are absolutely impossible." Then your next
generalization can not be correct: "By and large, they're a sorry excuse
for anything educationally legitimate." ?? Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:28 PM
Subject: Standards & Accountability
 
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:26:30 -0400
>From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
>To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
>Subject: Standards & Accountability
>
>Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
>
>> I do not see standards as some separate set of memorizable facts but
rather a
>> framework of skills, knowledge and conceptual understandings that allow
for
>> facts to be placed when and as needed.
>
>Paul,
> If by "standards" we're talking about those that have appeared across
the
>country as a consequence of the Goals 2000: Standards and Measures" program
>begun
>in 1990, I think it's fair to say that generalizations are absolutely
>impossible. By and large, they're a sorry excuse for anything
educationally
>legitimate.
>
>Marion

-------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability

Martin,
I'm in general agreement with all of your observations, but I'd like
to comment on this one.
> Creating the map of knowledge to transplant onto the minds of students is
>flawed from the beginning, regardless of whether it is framed as
>"standards" or as "outcomes"......
I agree that the notion of "creating the (a?) map of knowledge to
transplant..." is flawed. However, I've written extensively in books and
journals maintaining that we all have such maps -- general schemes for
organizing and systemically integrating knowledge, and that perhaps the
most important outcome of a general education is the surfacing of this
scheme so that deliberate use can be made of it.
Whether this scheme is hard-wired or societally imposed, I don't know.
But at least in Western society, I maintain that the major "territories" on
the map are "who, what, where, when, and why."
I see these, collectively, with their supporting conceptual
substructures, as being far more useful and sophisticated than the
traditional disciplines. I consider those disciplines essential, but I'm
convinced they profit enormously from being seen as "sub-systems" of our
general system for selecting, organizing, integrating, manipulating and
expanding knowledge, and that we're doing students a tremendous disservice
by not helping them see the whole of which they're parts.

Marion

--------------

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000
From: "P.S. Abode" <pxabode@fresno.k12.ca.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Marion Brady wrote:
> Philip,
> Welcome.
> Any thoughts on the implications for institutional analysis of a social
> institution that doesn't have a clue about what it's supposed to do?
> Here, by way of illustration of that contention, are some
>"comprehensive
> institutional aims" I've picked up from dialog on various listservs:
>
> - Raise standardized test scores
> - Teach the disciplines more effectively
> - Teach students to think
> - Teach "the basics"
> - Prepare students for democratic citizenship
> - Keep America economically competitive
> - Help students become culturally literate
> - Help student become informed consumers
> - Respond to student needs
> - Facilitate self-actualization
> - Solve social problems
> - Build self-esteem
> - Pose the "eternal questions"
> - Instill a love of learning
> - Develop character
> - Teach the whole child
> - Create thoughtful, caring individuals
> - Promote intercultural understanding
> - "Know thyself"
> - Explore broad themes
> - Teach key concepts
> - Transmit societal values
> - Prepare students for useful, satisfying work

Thank you, Marion. I have followed you somewhat and your argument about the
disciplinary structure of the curriculum and the value of education from the
perspective of the student. The extensive list of "mission" themes you
provided
below is like the story of the proverbial elephant and the handicapped
folks trying
to comprehend it. One felt the tail was a rope, another thought the skin
to be a
wall, and so on. Handicapped by their own "bounded rationality," educational
leaders formulate the mission or envision the purpose of their institution
thus but
perennially fail to come close to achieving the same. Their sin lies in
not asking
the "why" question.
The situation in public education requires both historical and
sociophysiological
analysis to grasp the fundamentals of educational inertia. The laws of
motion of
the system of public schooling is writ large in dependence on the policymaking
processes of what Bozeman and Straussman (in Public Management Strategies)
called
political authority rather than entrepreneurial exploits that seek to deliver
maximum educational value to students in a manner akin to the way corporations
ceaselessly seek to maximize their owners' wealth. This modus operandi is
bound to
be ineffective in achieving the professed democratic ideal of education due
to the
inherent problem of efficient translation of policy into executive action.
School
districts fall into a continuum from strategically independent to fully
dependent
in regard to policy and regulations. I would say that most are unfortunately
crowded to the right of the continuum. From this perspective, it would
seem that
superintendents and other members of the executive cabinet need to see
their role
as striking a balance between the State's desire for political control and the
client families' need for educational value in order to create the strategic
organization that would be able to deliver value to students irrespective
of their
ethnocultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Philip Abode

------------------------

From: sthompson@foundation.panasonic.com
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability

Marion,
On September 18 you wrote: "The whole standards movement, in my opinion, is
a farce, a dead end, a catastrophe, dreamed up by people driven by
extremely simplistic notions of what educating is all about."

What strikes about this sweeping indictment is that it presents a near
perfect negative example of something you eloquently warned against in your
KAPPAN article: namely, polarization. In the article you noted that
"Polarization gradually turns complex, 'gray' issues into ever simpler
'black and white' ones . . ." Exactly. If anything on the contemporary
educational landscape is gray and complex it is surely standards-based
reform. It is not difficult to find educationally regressive policies and
practices being perpetrated in the name of standards -- perhaps especially
at the state level where high-stakes tests are increasingly becoming the
reform driver with concomitant adverse consequences for students, teachers,
and schools. Seen through a polarizing lens it all looks farcical and
indefensible. But if one views the scene through a wide-angle lens, it is
possible to discover not only gray areas, but important areas of promise in
a movement that is anything but monolithic. Here I think it's important to
draw a sharp distinction. What is too often lumped together as "the
standards movement" in my view ought to be divided in two: 1) high-stakes,
standardized, test-based reform; 2) authentic, standards-based reform.
In authentic standards-based school systems that I have observed, standards
are not imposed from on high, because teachers, administrators, parents,
community partners, and students collaboratively participate in writing,
reviewing, or adapting them. And while content and performance standards
are providing teachers with a common point of reference -- a framework for
the shaping of curriculum, teaching, and assessment -- instructional and
assessment practices vary widely from one classroom to the next and schools
are given authority and resources for making important decisions.

The same standard can be taught through project-based learning out in the community
or through direct instruction, depending on the teacher?s experience,
confidence, creativity, and inspiration. Different standards in different
subject areas are sometimes taught through thematic, integrated
instructional approaches, often involving team teaching. Teachers in these
districts use collaboratively developed rubrics and multiple forms of
performance and criterion-referenced assessments to evaluate students
progress and instructional practice.

I would argue that the fundamental intent of authentic standards-based
reform is the transformation of public education from factory-model
schooling into communities of learners where all students experience a rich
and challenging curriculum that holds the possibility of preparing them for
the demands and opportunities of life and work in the 21st Century. The
intent is not only to hold all students to higher standards of performance,
but to provide teachers -- and all who work with teachers -- with the
tools, processes, opportunities, and supports that will enable them to help
students across the socioeconomic spectrum reach for and achieve high
levels of performance according to their ?multiple intelligences.?
In a genuine standards-based system nothing is static -- neither the
standards themselves, pedagogical practice, the curriculum, nor district
structures and processes. It's about continuous systemic improvement
around the focal-point of high quality teaching and learning.

I'm not saying that the above depiction of a standards-based system is the
most obvious feature on the educational landscape at this time. It will
certainly not show up on a polarized lens that has already turned all the
white and gray areas black, but there are particular school districts that
are on the way to exemplifying what I mean by authentic, standards-based
reform. I would point to Distict 2 in NYC; to Aurora, Colorado; to
Edmonds, Washington; to Clovis Unified School District in California; to
Minneapolis; and to the three districts comprising the El Paso

Collaborative for Academic Excellence (see article in April 99 KAPPAN that
begins on p. 597). If you're interested, you can read about some of these
districts in STRATEGIES: http://www.aasa.org/Pubs/strategies/contents.htm.
There are others, probably many. These are a few I've had the privilege to
begin getting acquainted with.

Scott Thompson
Assistant Director
Panasonic Foundation
--------------
End of September 2000