My Testimony on National Standards before US House

As I mentioned yesterday, I testified before the US House Subcommittee on Early Education, Elementary, and Secondary Education.  Here is the written testimony I submitted:

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for having me here to testify today.  My name is Jay P. Greene and I am the 21st Century Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.  I am also a fellow at the George W. Bush Institute located at Southern Methodist University.

I am here today to talk with you about how we can best achieve high standards and improve outcomes in education.  There is a large effort underway to change educational standards, curriculum, and assessments by centralizing the process.  This effort is based on the belief that we will get more rigorous standards and better student outcomes if standards, curriculum, and assessments are determined, or at least coordinated, at the national level.  It began with the use of Race to the Top to push states to adopt the Common Core standards, but will also require national curriculum and assessments to be fully implemented.

I believe this centralized approach is mistaken.  The best way to produce high academic standards and better student learning is by decentralizing the process of determining standards, curriculum, and assessments.  When we have choice and competition among different sets of standards, curricula, and assessments, they tend to improve in quality to better suit student needs and result in better outcomes.

One thing that should be understood with respect to nationalized approaches is that there is no evidence that countries that have nationalized systems get better results.  Advocates for nationalization will point to other countries, such as Singapore, with higher achievement that also have a nationalized system as proof that we should do the same.  But they fail to acknowledge that many countries that do worse than the United States on international tests also have nationalized systems.  Conversely, many of the countries that do better than the United States, such as Canada, Australia, and Belgium, have decentralized systems.  The research shows little or no relationship between nationalized approaches and student achievement.

In addition, there is no evidence that the Common Core standards are rigorous or will help produce better results.  The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core standards.  Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of Common Core believe that Common Core is good.  This is not research; this is just advocates of Common Core re-stating their support.  The few independent evaluations of Common Core that exist suggest that its standards are mediocre and represent little change from what most states already have.

If that’s true, what’s the harm in pursuing a nationalized approach?  First, nationalized approaches lack a mechanism for continual improvement.  Given how difficult it is to agree upon them, once we set national standards, curriculum, and assessments, they are nearly impossible to change.  If we discover a mistake or wish to try a new and possibly better approach, we can’t switch.  We are stuck with whatever national choices we make for a very long time.  And if we make a mistake we will impose it on the entire country.

Second, to the extent that there will be change in a nationalized system of standards, curriculum, and assessments, it will be directed by the most powerful organized interests in education, and probably not by reformers.  Making standards more rigorous and setting cut scores on assessments higher would show the education system in a more negative light, so teachers unions and other organized interests in education may attempt to steer the nationalized system in a less rigorous direction.  In general, it is unwise to build a national church if you are a minority religion.  Reformers should recognize that they are the political minority and should avoid building a nationalized system that the unions and other forces of the status quo will likely control.

Third, we are a large and diverse country.  Teaching everyone the same material at the same time and in the same way may work in small homogenous countries, like Finland, but it cannot work in the United States.  There is no single best way that would be appropriate for all students in all circumstances.

I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one place than it is in another, but the way in which we can best approach math, the age and sequence in which we introduce material, may vary significantly.  As a concrete example, California currently introduces algebra in 8th grade but Common Core calls for this to be done in 9th grade.  We don’t really know the best way for all students and it is dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose it on everyone.

I understand that there is great frustration with the weak standards, low cut-scores, and abysmal achievement in many states.  But this problem was not caused by a lack of centralization and cannot be fixed by nationalizing standards, curriculum, and assessments.  Instead, the solution to weak state results is to decentralize further so that we increase choice and competition in education.  If school systems have to earn students and the revenue they generate, they will gravitate toward more effective standards, curriculum, and assessments.

This decentralized system I am describing of choice and competition producing improvement is not purely theoretical.  It actually existed in the United States and helped build an education system that was the envy of the world.  Remember that public education was not created by the order of the national government.  Local communities built their own schools, set their own standards, devised their own curriculum, and evaluated their own efforts.  At one time there were nearly 100,000 local school districts operating almost entirely autonomously.

When people became convinced that students needed a secondary education, these districts started consolidating to be large enough to build high schools.  No one ordered them to consolidate and build high schools.  They did it because they recognized that people would be reluctant to move into their community unless it offered a secondary education.  That is, in our highly mobile society people had choices about where to live and communities had to compete for residents and tax base by offering an education system that people would want.  Standards were raised and outcomes improved through this decentralized system of choice and competition among local school districts.

The progress we were making in education, however, stalled when we started significantly centralizing education and reducing the extent of choice and competition among districts.  The policies, practices, and funding of schools has increasingly shifted to the state and national governments and greater uniformity has been imposed by unionization.  The enemy of high standards and improving outcomes is centralization.

We can see this same process of setting better standards through a decentralized system in other domains.  For example, in the video cassette industry there were competing standards: Betamax and VHS.  If we had simply imposed a national standard through the government or by a committee of experts, we almost certainly would have ended up with Betamax.  Sony, the producer of Betamax, was larger and more politically powerful than the consortium backing VHS.  And experts were enamored with the superior picture quality offered by Betamax.  But instead we had a decentralized system of determining the standard, where consumers could choose which standard they preferred rather than have it imposed by the government or a committee of experts.  As it turns out, consumers overwhelmingly preferred VHS.  It was cheaper and the tapes could play longer videos.  Consumers were willing to trade-off a reduction in picture quality for the ability to watch an entire movie without having to get up in the middle to change tapes.  Centralized standards-setters can’t know the best way and impose it on everyone.  It takes a decentralized system of choice and competition for us to learn about the better standard and gravitate toward it.

In addition, if Betamax had been imposed by a centralized authority, we almost certainly would have been stuck with that technology for a long time.  We would have stifled the innovation that produced DVDs and now Blu-Ray.  Choice and competition not only allows us to figure out the best standard for today, but leave open the possibility that new standards will be introduced that are even better and that consumers may prefer those in the future.

There is an unfortunate tendency in public policy to stifle this decentralized process of setting standards.  Policymakers are often tempted to identify the best approach, often through a panel of experts, and then impose that approach on everyone.  After all, if something is the best, why would we want to allow people to do something else?  This is a temptation I urge you to resist in education.  Even the best-intentioned experts have a hard time recognizing what the best approach would be.  And once it is set by experts, there is no mechanism like the one we get from choice and competition for improving upon that whatever “best” standards, curriculum, and assessments are identified.  Essentially, what we are talking about is the danger of central planning.  It doesn’t work in running the economy any more than it would in running our education system.

Fortunately, the nationalization effort is still in its early stages and there is time for Congress to exercise its authority and preserve a decentralized system for setting standards, curriculum, and assessments.  I should emphasize that the movement toward a nationalized system has not been voluntary on the part of the states.  It was coerced by the U.S. Department of Education as a condition for receiving Race to the Top funds and I fear that coercion may be continued with the offer of selective waivers from No Child Left Behind requirements.

I hope that you will help restore our decentralized system of setting standards, curriculum, and assessments, which is a far more effective way of producing progress in student learning.

26 Responses to My Testimony on National Standards before US House

  1. […] the hearing invited fellow-travelers such as otherwise admirable University of Arkansas scholar Jay P. Greene. But somehow, for some reason, Kline and subcommittee chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), failed to […]

  2. Niki Hayes says:

    I need clarification on your use of “reformers” in math education. For years, the “reformers” have been those who follow NCTM’s 1989 standards with its strict ideology on equity over excellence. Many of us call them the fuzzies. Your use of the term implies a different kind of “reformer” today. Please tell me what that is.

  3. allen says:

    If you want to view Jay in all his beardly splendor you can go to

    Jay’s at about 15:45 in case you don’t want to listen to the whole thing. It runs an hour and a quarter.

    Jay, that race horse pace is necessitated, I suppose, by being strictly limited to five minutes but trying to cram as much as possible into those five minutes leads, I’m afraid, to an epidemic of glazed eyes syndrome.

    What was missing was an emphasis on the centrality of parents to the learning process and the inevitable conclusion that the less say parents have the less the likelihood of good educational outcomes.

    The bigger the bigger educational organization the less say parents have. A national curriculum/school district/standard creates about the biggest organization possible with the attendant diminution of parental authority and the greater likelihood of lousy educational outcomes.

  4. George Mitchell says:

    Without the benefit of knowing what other witnesses said, Jay’s testimony likely was the most understandable. And, unless all presenters had a time/word limit, it also must have been the most concise.

    One wonders whether somewhere inside the Gates operation there are individuals willing to take a second look. Given the Bill Gates interview with the Wall Street Journal recently, that might be wishful thinking.

    I do not think the Betamax/VHS story is necessarily the most compelling. From the current bureaucratic hierarchy of K-12 education there are MANY examples to illustrate the fallacies that underlie the common standards movement.

    Rick Hess’ new commentary ( provides an interesting perspective on the “groupthink” pitfalls that can creep in and then take over the education reform debate. Jay, Rick, and a few others provide a very important service by challenging conventional “reform” wisdom.

    • Greg Forster says:

      The Gates operation is so huge that if you dig deep enough you can probably find anything you’re looking for – square circles, perpetual motion machines, the Holy Grail, reform-friendly unions, you name it.

      The question is, would it matter? Is anyone at the top willing to listen?

  5. […] My Testimony on National Standards before US House Sept. 21, 2011    Jay P. Greene’s Blog […]

  6. George mitchell says:

    @Greg. 🙂

  7. […] Common national standards are not the right fix for our public schools, so said Jay Greene in his testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Early Education, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Jay has provided his written testimony on his blog here. […]

  8. While I agree with everything you said Jay, I respectfully disagree on one point. I think decentralization sounds great but isn’t the optimal solution. I think giving parents the authority and resources to choose what’s best for their children is the best solution because the schools will be accountable to them and not some elected board they can sway with edu-speak, misrepresentations, and omissions. It’s a lot easier to move your child to a new school than it is to move your family to a new neighborhood.

  9. […] this week, Greene testified before a real live Congressional committee, where he argued that national standards are wrongheaded, and that policymakers should embrace a […]

  10. […] government becoming involved in the content taught in local schools.” Burke cited recent testimony by Professor Jay P. Greene before a House subcommittee regarding the “dangers of the […]

  11. […] before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Jay terrifically summarized the myriad logical and empirical failings of national standards generally, and the Common Core […]

  12. […] Jay P. Greene, Head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, testified before the US House Subcommittee on Early Education, Elementary and Secondary Education about the role and implementation of national curriculum standards. […]

  13. […] the federal government. — True (in violation of the law). Education policy has historically been a state and local affair.  Federally-driven reforms are prohibited both by the 10th Amendment of […]

  14. […] Many ALEC members worry Common Core cedes control of curriculum to the federal government. Researchers, such as the University of Arkansas’ Jay P. Greene, argue there’s no evidence that Common Core standards are more rigorous. […]

  15. […] September 21, 2011             JAY GREENE’S TESTIMONY ON NATIONAL STANDARDS BEFORE US HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE “The progress we were making in education, however, stalled when we started significantly centralizing education and reducing the extent of choice and competition among districts. The policies, practices, and funding of schools has increasingly shifted to the state and national governments and greater uniformity has been imposed by unionization. The enemy of high standards and improving outcomes is centralization.” >>read more>> […]

  16. […] studies related directly to the topic of national standards and student achievement.” Or, as Dr. Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas explains: “The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly […]

  17. […] studies related directly to the topic of national standards and student achievement.” Or, as Dr. Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas explains: “The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly […]

  18. […] [18] Testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Education, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Jay Greene, September 21, 2011: […]

  19. […] count) producing reams of advocacy research to justify their push for nationalizing U.S. education. Independent reviews of this “research” have concluded those dollars would probably help kids more if […]

  20. […] Greene is pro-voucher and pro-charter, he is anti-CCSS. Here is an excerpt from his 2011 testimony before the US House of […]

  21. […] Greene is pro-voucher and pro-charter, he is anti-CCSS. Here is an excerpt from his 2011 testimony before the US House of […]

  22. karate kamas says:

    I’ve been browsing online more than 4 hours today,
    yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me.
    In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be a
    lot more useful than ever before.

  23. seo packages says:

    Wow! In the end I got a web site from where I know how to
    really obtain helpful facts regarding my study and knowledge.

  24. […] Common Core supporters will cite is basically advocacy research funded by the Gates Foundation, which consists of unscientific panels of experts paid by Gates who agree that Gates’ big project is a good […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: