The crux of many education reform arguments is to shift the age-old conversation over what inputs we should mandate to a conversation about what outcomes we should be driving towards, measuring, and holding states, districts, schools and teachers accountable to. It's often a tough sell, both because it isn't always easy to identify and clearly define the outcomes, and because pushing such shifts is generally politically unpopular.
One classic example from NCLB was the disastrous ???highly qualified teacher??? provisions, which, as a proxy for measuring teacher quality, pushed additional certification and degree requirements. Rather than focusing the teacher quality conversation where it should be???on how effectively teachers drive student achievement in their classrooms???these provisions measured teacher quality by the inputs that went into educating teachers, sometimes before they even set foot in a classroom.
Of course, the HQT provisions did little to move the teacher quality needle, and thankfully, the Obama Administration is taking the lessons learned from that NCLB failure and using RTT to put pressure on states to hold teachers accountable to student outcomes rather than teacher inputs???and proposing to strike the Bush-era input requirements altogether in ESEA reauthortization.
But what about Race to the Top itself? The truth is its every bit the mix bag that NCLB was in the balance between inputs and outcomes. And in this case it is a much harder call to make as to when it crosses the line.
Take standards and assessment, for example. We all know that NCLB required all students to be proficient or better by 2014. That's a noble and decidedly outcomes-oriented goal. But, NCLB left a GIANT loophole in the law that allowed states to set their own standards and proficiency ratings???with no markers or benchmarks for quality or rigor. As a result, we have standards and definitions of proficiency that vary wildly from state to state.
The answer in RTT is to push adoption of Common Core standards (and eventually common assessments). Of course the intended outcome is to set a more uniform???and high???bar for students across all states. And certainly, if the latest draft of the standards is any indication, adoption of these standards will represent a huge step up for many states.
But this is not a true outcomes-based approach if the goal we're driving towards is ensuring states adopt???and maintain???high quality standards for the long term. Common Core is a means, not an end. And because the Common Core, like all standards, will evolve and change over time, it's essential that we at least grapple with the question of what a true outcomes-oriented approach to ensuring that all states have rigorous standards should look like.
For starters, it would require more clearly setting a definition of quality (perhaps defined as at least as rigorous as the Common Core) and potentially leveraging NAEP as a national benchmarking tool to shed light on states???or on the Common Core itself???when the standards are (or are not) measuring up.
And, because the quality of the assessment that states will eventually use to measure student outcomes are the tools that will give these standards the teeth they need to push more rigorous instruction in classrooms themselves, it will require diving much more deeply into the question of what these assessments should look like.
Sure, that's a tall order, and one that would require the Administration to tread into (even more) politically uncomfortable water, but it's the only way to ensure that the conversation about common standards and assessments stays focused on the end goal: ensuring the long-term adoption and implementation of rigorous, college-readiness standards across all states.
--Kathleen Porter-Magee
