Education reformers and many in the public have long believed that setting rigorous statewide academic standards, and holding schools "accountable" for how well their students meet those standards, are central to improving the overall quality of education in Iowa.
Big changes on that front may be coming down the pike for Iowa. This past week the Iowa Senate passed a bill that would require school districts to follow a state-mandated curriculum. After four hours of debate, the measure passed by a 36-14. This decision represents a major turnaround from the long held state policy that allows local school boards to control the curriculum taught in their classrooms.
The measure requires Iowa public school districts to adopt a core curriculum for math, science, and literacy by 2012 for grades nine through twelve. Social studies and other subjects would follow, with a curriculum in place by 2014-2015.
As might be expected when Iowa is the lone remaining state in the nation that has not adopted statewide standards, there were strong arguments for and against.
Sen. Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, said the bill is a radical departure from Iowa’s policy of local control.
"It takes away a very important part of Iowa’s educational system that has served us quite well," he said. "It replaces it with a state mandate that will result in a further decline in student achievement."
Sen. Dave Mulder, R-Sioux Center, disagreed with McKinley. The retired college professor said Iowa needs a change because the state is falling in its ranking of student achievement.
Gov. Chet Culver issued a statement saying he favors the bill:
"I support mandating the core curriculum for all schools because it adds detail, rigor and relevance that will make our statewide content standards work," he said. "It also ensures that all of Iowa’s students, regardless of where they live, are getting the education we know they need."
In the Des Moines Register, Judy Jeffrey, Department Director for the Iowa Department of Education, responded to the proposed mandate by saying:
"It simply does not complement the core-curriculum bill, which we believe is the direction the state needs to go at this point. We already have state [content and] performance standards. The core curriculum provides the detail … to assist teachers in what students need to know… in order to attain the state standards."
Whichever side of the fence you are are on, let’s not forget: Standards do not change achievement, teachers do. The number one factor for changing student achievement is the teacher. All students achieve better when being instructed by a knowledgeable and effective teacher.
The more pertinent questions in the standards debate then become:
- Do the proposed standards expect what they should? Are they demanding enough? Clear enough?
- Will our state use standards to guide not only the curriculum and assessment system for students but also their teacher-training programs?
- How will districts and schools support teacher implementation of the standards?
- Will teachers be given the time and training necessary for successful implementation?
- How will districts monitor and support teacher efforts?
Standards may determine the "WHAT", but we still need highly qualified teachers to make decisions on the "HOW". Do these standards support both the what and the how? Important issues. What say you?
