Opinion
Federal Opinion

Evolving National Standards

By Marcus A. Winters — August 17, 2009 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

It’s becoming a familiar question: How can we ensure that American students have the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in today’s global economy? A big part of the answer is contained in the goals we set for them in the form of proficiency standards—the level of literacy or numeracy a student must reach.

These standards exist, of course, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. But they tend to be too low and too different from each other. Harvard University’s Paul E. Peterson and the American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick M. Hess, for example, recently found that only three states—Massachusetts, Missouri, and South Carolina—have proficiency standards equal to those of the most educationally demanding nations. At the other extreme, their analysis suggests, states such as Georgia and Tennessee declare “proficient” students who cannot be considered either literate or numerate.

To address the problem of low and varying standards, the Obama administration has come out in support of a single national standard for these areas of learning, something that conservative groups such as the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation have been advocating for years. Supporters of every stripe can foresee all states freely converging on national content standards someday. In June, 46 of the nation’s governors, acting through the National Governors Association, signed on to a plan to develop common standards in math and reading. Earlier this month, the number increased to 47.

But agreement is meaningless unless the standards agreed upon have teeth. In fact, most states adopt low standards because these produce high passing rates, which in turn reflect well on the local political establishment. Ordinary citizens are also pleased to hear that high percentages of their children are reading at or above a level defined as “proficient,” and so they don’t bother to ask what proficiency entails. Ironically, the No Child Left Behind Act, which was aimed at elevating student performance, has reinforced states’ tendencies toward leniency by allowing them to set their own standards while threatening sanctions if too many students fail to meet them.

A voluntary national standard, therefore, would either be a low one, so as to encourage participation, or a higher one that would produce a low participation rate. A rigorous, mandatory national standard is hard to imagine, because political pressure from poorly performing states would more than likely lead to a single, lax standard. That would result in an even worse outcome than the present patchwork system, which does allow for pockets of excellence like Massachusetts.

Difficult though it may sound, there is a way to afford states the autonomy on which they insist, while giving them incentives to steadily elevate their standards. The place to do it is in the No Child Left Behind law itself, which is coming up for reauthorization.

The needed amendment would take account of not only the percentage of students meeting a proficiency benchmark, but also students’ yearly academic gains, so that even states that clung to low standards would have reason to take measures to improve the education they offer. (Several states and urban school systems have already adopted systems that weigh both indices.) Since the respective states’ proficiency standards would still be allowed to differ, the tests they administered would have to be normed. So every few years, the federal government would administer each state’s test to a small but nationally representative sample of students. The percentage of test-takers who met the proficiency benchmarks on each state’s exam would reveal precisely how difficult each assessment was.

A revised NCLB law might then link some percentage of the per-pupil federal funding a state receives to this measure of its standard’s relative difficulty. The policy that resulted might give the largest amount of funding per pupil to the state with the highest standard, the next-largest amount to the state with the next highest standard, and so on. An even better system would take into account not only where a state’s proficiency standard ranked nationally, but also the degree of difference between its standard and those of states immediately above and below it.

States would then have an incentive to compete for greater funding by setting higher standards for their students. Because some, still-to-be-decided-on portion of the accountability score would be linked to the number of students meeting the proficiency standard, states would be deterred from setting unreasonably high standards. In contrast to a politically vulnerable national standard, or one that relies on states’ continuing goodwill, an objective measure of difficulty, coupled with a financial incentive to set standards higher than the next state, should make such a scheme self-sustaining.

Another benefit would be that, over time, the various definitions of proficiency would become more rigorous, as states competed with each other for federal dollars. Indeed, this would bring us closer to a single but continuously evolving national standard. All fixed definitions of proficiency are arbitrary. Under the proposed system, the answer to the question, “What should students know?” would always be “More!”

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the August 26, 2009 edition of Education Week as Evolving National Standards

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
The Future of the Science of Reading
Join us for a discussion on the future of the Science of Reading and how to support every student’s path to literacy.
Content provided by HMH
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
College & Workforce Readiness Webinar
From Classrooms to Careers: How Schools and Districts Can Prepare Students for a Changing Workforce
Real careers start in school. Learn how Alton High built student-centered, job-aligned pathways.
Content provided by TNTP
Student Well-Being Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: The Power of Emotion Regulation to Drive K-12 Academic Performance and Wellbeing
Wish you could handle emotions better? Learn practical strategies with researcher Marc Brackett and host Peter DeWitt.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Federal No 'Gender Ideology': Ed. Dept.'s New Focus for Mental Health Grants It Yanked
The Trump administration abruptly canceled $1 billion in mental health grants in April that it said reflected Biden-era priorities.
5 min read
Amelia, 16, sits for a portrait in a park near her home in Illinois on Friday, March 24, 2023. “We are so strong and we go through so, so much," says the teenage girl who loves to sing and wants to be a surgeon. Amelia has also faced bullying, toxic friendships, and menacing threats from a boy at school who said she “deserved to be raped."
The U.S. Department of Education has revealed new priorities for two mental health grants after it abruptly canceled awards the Biden administration made.
Erin Hooley/AP
Federal Trump Admin. Starts Moving CTE to Labor Dept. After Supreme Court Order
The Education Department put arrangements to move some of its programs on hold while court battles over downsizing played out.
4 min read
Students make measurements to wood to add to a tiny home project during their shop class at Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Dec. 13, 2022.
Students make measurements to wood to add to a tiny home project during their shop class at Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Dec. 13, 2022. The Trump administration is shifting management of career and technical education programs to the U.S. Department of Labor now that the Supreme Court have given the go-ahead to proceed with downsizing of the U.S. Department of Education.
Nate Smallwood for Education Week
Federal Hope Shattered for Laid-Off Ed. Dept. Staff After Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with 1,400 Education Department layoffs.
6 min read
Supporters hold signs and cheer Education Department employees as they leave after retrieving their personal belongings from the Education Department building in Washington on March 24, 2025.
Supporters hold signs and cheer Education Department employees as they leave after retrieving their personal belongings from the Education Department building in Washington on March 24, 2025. The Supreme Court on July 14, 2025, allowed the Trump administration to proceed with department layoffs that a lower-court judge had put on hold.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Federal Trump Admin. Says Undocumented Students Can't Attend Head Start, Early College
The administration issued notices saying undocumented immigrants don't qualify for Head Start and some Education Department programs.
7 min read
Children play during aftercare for the Head Start program at Easterseals South Florida, an organization that gets about a third of its funding from the federal government, on Jan. 29, 2025, in Miami.
Children play during aftercare for the Head Start program at Easterseals South Florida, an organization that gets about a third of its funding from the federal government, on Jan. 29, 2025, in Miami. The Trump administration said Thursday that undocumented children are ineligible for Head Start and a number of other federally funded programs that the administration is classifying as similar to welfare benefits.
Rebecca Blackwell/AP