Comments on: The Proficiency Illusion http://jaypgreene.com/2008/11/13/the-proficiency-illusion/ With Help From Some Friends Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:03:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: matthewladner http://jaypgreene.com/2008/11/13/the-proficiency-illusion/#comment-2644 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:41:17 +0000 http://jaypgreene.wordpress.com/?p=1623#comment-2644 The last time that I am aware of a national standards vote, the Senate voted it down 90 something to zero. And you are correct- a huge risk exists in that one lousy standard would be worse than today’s pig’s breakfast.

If however the feds were a bit more modest in their goals, I think they could improve the status quo. Federal micromanagement is a great deal to ask for in return for 8% of funds, but internally consistent standards are not.

]]> By: Jay P. Greene http://jaypgreene.com/2008/11/13/the-proficiency-illusion/#comment-2643 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:39:33 +0000 http://jaypgreene.wordpress.com/?p=1623#comment-2643 I don’t understand the argument for national standards and testing. What makes us think that federal officials will be any smarter or any less prone to pressures that produce weak and meaningless results? And if we make it national, we risk imposing the same lousy system on everyone — even states that somehow managed to produce better systems than the one they are forced to swallow (remember how FL system was better than the NCLB plan imposed on it).

In the end, the argument for nationalizing the process as a solution to weak state systems seems motivated by the attitude that standards and testing would be great if only I were dictator and able to do it. And the fantasy is that when it is done at the national level, I’ll be the one doing it.

But if I remember right Checker and Diane opposed a national system back in the late 90s when Clinton was pursuing it. So prepare yourself for the next round, which will be national standards and testing failed because it was done incorrectly and by the wrong people (read: not me).

]]>