Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

Statistik Penting	Angka
Bahagian Pasaran Mega888 di Malaysia	Melebihi 90%
Pemain dari Malaysia, Singapura, dan Thailand	80%
Jumlah Muat Turun Aplikasi Mega888	Lebih 1 juta

Statistik Mega888	Nilai
Bahagian Pasaran Permainan Slot di Malaysia	Lebih 90%
Pemain dari Malaysia, Singapura, dan Thailand	80%
Jumlah Muat Turun Aplikasi Mega888	Lebih 1 Juta

Jenis Bonus	Perincian	Syarat Tuntutan
Bonus Selamat Datang	Bonus sehingga RM1,000 untuk pemain baru	Daftar akaun baru dan buat deposit pertama
Bonus Deposit	Bonus sehingga 150% daripada jumlah deposit	Buat deposit ke dalam akaun dan penuhi syarat taruhan
Promosi Bermusim	Bonus dan ganjaran istimewa seperti Birthday Month Bonus	Ikuti syarat dan tempoh promosi yang ditetapkan

Ciri-Ciri	Touch 'n Go	GrabPay	Boost
Had Transaksi	Tinggi	Fleksibel	Munasabah
Kelajuan Pemprosesan	Pantas	Pantas	Pantas
Keselamatan	Baik	Baik	Baik
Populariti di Mega888	Tinggi	Sederhana	Rendah

Kaedah Sokongan	Waktu Operasi	Tindak Balas Purata
Telefon	24 jam sehari, 7 hari seminggu	20 saat
E-mel	24 jam sehari, 7 hari seminggu	6 jam
Borang Hubungi dalam talian	24 jam sehari, 7 hari seminggu	2 jam

Kaedah Pengeluaran	Tempoh Pemprosesan
E-wallet	1 hari bekerja
Perbankan dalam talian	1 hari bekerja

Creative, Entrepreneurial, and Global: 21st Century Education

Email This Post

Home » Blogs, Education Reforms

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

19 January 2010 17,903 5 Comments

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

“When you picked up a sesame seed, you have lost the watermelon.” This simple Chinese saying can serve as a good reminder for advocates of national standards, who are lured by the potential benefits of common curriculum standards may just be going after a sesame seed while ignoring the watermelon that is running away.

A recent article by Education Week reporter Sean Cavanagh published with the 2010 Quality Counts provides an overview of the national debate about common standards. It begins with “the incontrovertible” logic for establishing national or common academic standards for students in the United States:

Why should students in one state be introduced to a topic such as fractions as 1st graders, to cite a common example, when their peers in other states won’t cover that mathematics topic until later? More broadly, why does the United States—a mobile society in a globally competitive era—maintain an education system that tests students, trains teachers, and churns out textbooks and classroom materials based on the myriad and often idiosyncratic demands of different states?

The article then cites American students standing in international tests as further evidence in favor of national standards: “In several higher-performing nations, a single set of national academic standards guides all or most of those decisions.”

The article lists the “persistent” obstacles to establishing national standards: concerns that national standards may threat the US federal education system and concerns about the quality of national standards.

But the article fails to point out a bigger concern shared by many educators: the cost of national or common standards.

By cost I do not mean the money, time, and effort needed to develop national curriculum standards. Rather, I mean the lost opportunities for our children to receive a real education.

A curriculum standard, such as the one the NGA and CCSSO has been working on, defines what students should know in a subject at a certain point of their school career. If thoughtfully developed and provided as a guide for teachers, students, parents, and curriculum/textbook developers, a curriculum standard can be a useful professional tool. However, when the standard becomes national or common across all states and high stakes tests are used to enforce its implementation across the nation, problems arise.

First, what is tested is what is taught. As the past 8 years of NCLB have shown, schools will work very hard to teach only the subjects that matter in mandated state tests. Thus, if we only have two subjects that have national standards and tests, we can expect that American schools will narrow education to the teaching of these subjects. As a result, our children’s education experience will be reduced to the learning of these two subjects.

Second, by the same logic, teachers, especially when their income is dependent on student test scores, will work very hard to teach to the tests that matter. And as a result, our children will be trained to become expert test takers in the subjects with national standards, enforced through high stakes testing.

Third, those children who do not perform well on the tests to meet the grade level expectations prescribed by the standards will be deemed “at risk” and put in remedial sessions and thus deprived of the opportunity to participate in other education opportunities, regardless of their reasons. In other words, those children who come disadvantaged communities and families can be further disadvantaged by being labeled “at risk.” Those who may have strengths in areas other than the tested subjects with national standards will not have the opportunity to develop their strengths.

Thus, even if national standards have the benefit of equalizing expectations and improving test scores in the subject areas with standards, which by the way is not necessarily the case judging from research (read an article I wrote a while back), the cost of real educational opportunities is too high. We may raise our standing on international math and literacy tests, but we risk the loss of what really matters (read my book).

The debate about national standards should really be a debate about what education is, what kind of skills and knowledge should be taught, and what truly are essential for our children to succeed in the 21^st century. We cannot simply look at what is taught in a subject area. We must consider the meaning of education. After all, what we want is the big watermelon, not the tiny sesame seed.

Alfie Kohn’s commentary “Debunking the Case for National Standards” included in the same issue of Ed Week presents another powerful argument against national standards.

Share

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

5 Comments »

Greg Limperis said:

In the district where I teach, you see these point stated above happening. Teachers are teaching to the test. In some parts, students are not being taught whole subjects such as Social Studies or Science all in an effort to have more time on task in Reading and Math. This is done in an effort to help raise test scores on standard tests. How they will do on these tests consumes our year, when students are tested 2-3 times a year in Math and Reading using the NWEA testing program in order to obtain MAP testing results so whe can gauge where they will be come testing time. During this time, learning is disrupted in order to get all students into two labs all day for testing.

# 20 January 2010 at 2:25 am

Haisen Zhang said:

Dr. Zhao’s point of view, in my view, can easily crack the nutshell of the weakness of the “national standards.” I’m sure it will go like a stone dropping into water, which will make more splashes and water ripples,

“The meaning of education” is rooted in the heart of every aspiring citizen. However, which bureaucrat will care about it when they seek immediate benefits? This may be true everywhere in the world?! Sometimes, people do pick up the tiny sesame seed when they desire a watermelon. (Thanks for reading)

# 28 January 2010 at 10:49 am

Common Core Confusion « InterACT said:

[…] on this front puts me in good company. Professor Yong Zhao has written eloquently about the risks of over-investing ourselves in standardization. Zhao gets to the heart of my concerns when he writes, If thoughtfully developed and provided as […]

# 11 March 2011 at 1:04 am

Common Core Confusion – ASCD Edition « InterACT said:

[…] subject, I quoted and linked some other opinions on the issue, including Professor Yong Zhao on the risks of over-investing ourselves in standardization, and this Alfie Kohn commentary in Education […]

# 26 March 2011 at 10:37 pm

China: Independent candidates busy building up support · Global Voices said:

[…] He: Well, there's no need for that. The people who warn me about the dangers involved probably mean well. But they may also have overlooked the fact that “constitutional democracy” is at the center of resolving people's livelihood issues. Either that or their understanding of the civic participation in elections trend is simply that the grassroots are gaining a voice for the common person by becoming part of the system. In fact, the greatest significance in taking part in the elections is that it tells people that by valuing the votes which we hold in our hands, we can gradually bring some balance to certain interests. It's like the sesame seed vs. the watermelon. […]

# 17 July 2011 at 4:55 am

Feel free to comment:

The views expressed on this site are entirely my own. They do not represent my employer or any other organization/institution. All comments are subject to approval.

Silverliningforlearning

Most Commented

Most Viewed

A Discussion on China’s Recent Education Reform on CCTV 9 - 595,636 views
New article: Build back better: Avoid the learning loss trap - 412,714 views
You must be joking, Professor Chua: An open letter to the Chinese Tiger Mom - 290,270 views
Common Sense Vs. Common Core: How to Minimize the Damages of the Common Core - 282,846 views
Five Questions to Ask about the Common Core* - 266,161 views

Mega888 Online Casino Malaysia Duitnow Slot Ewallet Casino TNG

Intisari Utama

Pengenalan Kepada Platform Mega888 Malaysia

Sejarah Mega888 di Malaysia

Ciri-ciri Utama Platform

Lesen dan Keselamatan

Cara Mendaftar Akaun Mega888

Sistem Pembayaran DuitNow di Mega888

Kelebihan Menggunakan DuitNow

Langkah-langkah Transaksi DuitNow

slot ewallet mega888 TNG

Permainan Popular di Mega888

Slot Games Terbaik

Live Casino Games

Panduan Deposit Menggunakan E-wallet

Kelebihan Menggunakan E-wallet untuk Deposit

Langkah-langkah Deposit Menggunakan E-wallet

Keselamatan Transaksi di Mega888

Teknologi Enkripsi

Sistem Verifikasi

Bonus dan Promosi Mega888

Panduan Bermain Slot Online

Tips Menang

Strategi Pengurusan Modal

Aplikasi Mega888 Mobile

Ciri-ciri Utama Aplikasi Mega888 Mobile

Perbandingan E-wallet di Mega888

Touch 'n Go

GrabPay

Boost

Sokongan Pelanggan 24/7

Tips Keselamatan Akaun

Trend Terkini Casino Online Malaysia

Perkembangan Teknologi

Perubahan Industri

Panduan Pengeluaran Wang

Langkah-langkah Pengeluaran Wang

Had Pengeluaran

Tempoh Pemprosesan

Kesimpulan

FAQ

Apakah Mega888 dan bagaimana ia beroperasi di Malaysia?

Bagaimana saya boleh mendaftar akaun Mega888?

Apakah kelebihan menggunakan DuitNow sebagai kaedah pembayaran di Mega888?

Bagaimana saya boleh menggunakan e-wallet TNG untuk bermain slot di Mega888?

Apakah permainan slot dan kasino langsung yang paling popular di Mega888?

Bagaimana saya boleh membuat deposit di Mega888 menggunakan e-wallet?

Bagaimana Mega888 melindungi keselamatan transaksi pengguna?

Apakah bonus dan promosi yang ditawarkan oleh Mega888?

Bagaimana saya boleh bermain slot online dengan selamat dan berkesan di Mega888?

Apakah kelebihan menggunakan aplikasi Mega888 berbanding platform web?

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

5 Comments »

Feel free to comment:

Archive

Tag Cloud

Silverliningforlearning

Most Commented

Most Viewed