We had a measure of how kids were doing: The report card.
To me, that's what this gentleman is asking for. A return to previous teaching standards, not teaching to some standard written & defined at a government level by people who don't teach.
I just listened to this episode the other night and the themes presented parallel this discussion nicely. The narrative presented suggests that one of the best things Washington Irving did was to have carefully constructed report cards that measured what specifically was being taught to students. The other thing was removing poorly devised standards.
That being said, at the end of the episode, one of the teachers interviewed, when asked about whether the temporary success of Washington Irving was due to some hard to measure effect of having good teachers at the right place at the right time had this to say:
> It can't just be magic. It can't just be fluky things landing people in the right places, and the chemistry being right. It just can't be that. What's the hope for the rest of the schools? What's the hope for Irving in the future? What's the hope for any school, anywhere?
The apparent tension between a need for measurement by standards and a need for teachers' autonomy was palpable and heartbreaking. It is well worth a listen.
As for a solution, I can't help but wonder why there is such a focus on making and enforcing standards at higher levels of administration. I imagine it gives a feeling of productivity and control. I wonder if it would be more useful if those bodies focused on studying and informing. Of course studies are harder without standards but it might be worth expending the effort, since it would give a more natural view of what is effective in promoting learning.
[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/275/t...
Report cards are as deeply flawed as standardized tests. If I were to tell you that I received a D in middle school algebra and an F in English, would you assume that I found algebra challenging and that I had literacy problems when I was 12? If so, you would be utterly wrong: I was beginning to understand limits and integration was I was in 7th grade, and I was reading at a "post-high-school level" according to my school.
The reason my grades were not even remotely related to my aptitude was simple: grades are not meant to reflect aptitude. Aptitude gets you a D- if you do not turn in your homework, even if you did not bother with homework because you were busy learning more advanced material. I am neither the first nor the last person to have been given grades that did not reflect my understanding or talents in any subject.
Report cards try to give a one-dimensional view of a student's academic performance, and in doing so they favor a particular kind of student. Obedient students who do exactly as they are told and nothing more, who only learn what their teachers expect them to learn, receive the best grades. Second best are those who try really hard to be compliant but who lack the talent or understanding needed to answer every question to their teachers' satisfaction. Last place is reserved for students who either do not care about being educated or those who care but fail to properly follow instructions or fit into the neat view of people that American teachers have.
Our education system is meant to train people to follow directions to the letter, and the switch from report cards to standardized tests has not changed that.
I always completed my homework, and then went on to learning the more advanced things. It was so simple for me that in the majority of cases, completing it took me very little effort or time.
However, I'm sure most of my teachers would laugh if they heard me called obedient. I'm sure they'd have loved to have flunked me if I'd ever given them the smallest opportunity to do so.
It's quite easy to learn what you like, and have the best grades as well. The really annoying thing is running out of homework to do and then getting busted for reading a book quietly instead. (1000 page asimov novel being somewhat more obvious to spot than a page of algebra homework)
(That, and having a 105% in a class and still not being allowed to go back to sleep in your seat at 8AM. Zzzz.)
Your comment starts with the assumption that having grades that are based on whether or not homework is turned in is how things should be. My point was that teachers should not be giving bad grades to students who did not do their homework, they should be giving bad grades to students who do not demonstrate an understanding of the subject.
Grades are assigned in three ways
1) Relative to the skill your teacher believes you have
2) Relative to the rest of the class
3) Absolutely based on what the teacher individually believes constitutes mastery of the material.
The report card is almost meaningless.
65% exam scores / written essays
25% homework
10% classwork
So while the report card is meaningless, it is meaningless for a different reason than you suggest. It is meaningless because it has nothing to do with aptitude or education and everything to do with obedience.
Even if they're good judges of quality, it's still a matter of how they determine your grade. Is it good quality relative to what they think your skills are? Is it good quality relative to the rest of the class? Is it good quality relative to what they believe constitutes mastery of the subject? And some teachers curve and some don't.
And I haven't said whether I think teachers should be required to meet standards. I don't even know if it's possible to create good standards.