Opportunity to Learn Standards

Just as we were about to straighten out our educational system, some members of Congress and the education community have been talking up a hot, new idea that could torpedo needed school reforms. The reforms would create a system similar to the one common to other industrial countries that outperform us. It includes defining what students should know and be able to do (content standards); assessments that tell us who is or isn't making it; and consequences. The last are designed to get students to work as hard as they do in other countries because they know something important--like college admission or access to a good job -- is at stake.

As soon as these proposals emerged, the issue of fairness was raised. Is it fair to attach high stakes to students' achievement if all youngsters have not had the same opportunity to learn? Some students have good textbooks and materials while others have poor ones or none at all. Some schools have a computer for every student while others don't. Some schools have qualified math and science teachers; others have teachers forced to teach a subject in which they have little competence. As we move toward higher standards, the effects of school differences on student learning will become even greater than they are now. The remedy being proposed is "opportunity-to-learn standards." They would be set by a group supported by the federal government, and they would define what conditions schools need to meet so that all students have a fair chance to learn. No question, there's a real issue here. If the new standards and assessments were put into place, and students in schools with many advantages made big gains while students lacking those supports made little or no progress, that would bring strong political pressure and legal action to provide the school conditions that matter in student learning--which would be all to the good. But most supporters of opportunity-to-learn standards are saying something different. They argue that until and unless we achieve fairness in schooling, we should not make the new standards and assessments count for students. This sounds even more fair, but it is actually destructive and counterproductive. Let's take one example. More than half of our math and science teachers are not licensed in those subjects. If we adopt new curricula based on higher standards, even some of our qualified teachers may have difficulty teaching them. So while some kids will have teachers who are qualified, many, perhaps even the majority, will not. What can we do about this now? Not much because we have not produced enough people with strong competence in these and other subjects to put one in each classroom. How could we when only about seven percent of students graduating from high school have mastered high school math? And you can be sure that most of them are headed toward elite colleges to prepare for high-paying professions--not teaching. So if we hold up putting new standards, assessments and stakes into place.

until we have a qualified math teacher for every class, we could wait forever. The only way to get these teachers would be to tell kids in school now that if they want to get into college, they'd all better learn math. And because they'd work to get what they want, we'd have many more college students--and, eventually, teachers--proficient in math. The refusal to put in a better system of education until all have a fair opportunity to learn will not improve the opportunity to learn; it will merely perpetuate unfairness and lack of achievement. But if we institute standards, assessments and stakes, we will have more public support for fairness and get what other industrialized nations that have such a system get: a large number of people who are qualified to teach and a system that is better for all our students. Why do we insist that schools follow ideas we reject everywhere else? We don't abolish medical school exams because not everyone has had the opportunity for top-notch pre-med education. Nor do we say that tests for airline pilots shouldn't count because not everyone has the opportunity to do well on them. We are afraid of not demanding high standards elsewhere. Public education seems to be the only thing we are willing to play around with. Many who wish to hold education reform hostage to opportunity-to-learn standards have good intentions; others are just using this because they never want to see assessments with stakes. If either group prevails, it will win a battle; but we will lose the fight for improvement and fairness in our schools.