Erich Martel 
Superintendent Janey’s First Half Month
October 10, 2004

DCPSWatch Home

Major Areas
DC Public Schools
Mayoral Takeover
Special Education

State Education Agency
State Education Office
Vouchers
WTU
Wilson S.H.S.

Calendars
Board of Education
School Year

Columns
Elizabeth Davis
Ron Drake
Erich Martel
Nathan Saunders

Directories
Schools

Letters

Links

Organizations
DC Education Compact
Parents United
Proposition 100%

Press

Search

DCWatch Home

Supt. Janey’s First Half Month

By Erich Martel, ehmartel at starpower dot net

DCPS School Superintendent Clifford Janey’s quick action to adopt good, existing state subject area standards in mathematics and English is a positive sign that academic improvement in DCPS may become a reality. 

On September 30th, the Washington Post reported that the superintendent convened a meeting of teachers, parents and curriculum specialists at Georgetown University to review K-12 mathematics and English subject standards from California and Massachusetts and will then review their suggestions and recommend the adoption of one of them to the Board of Education in November. In the two subject areas of English and mathematics, the standards from California and Massachusetts are the best. California’s math standards are probably the better of the two, while the English standards from Massachusetts are the better of the two. 

Hopefully, DCPS social studies and science will be next, since both are very much in need of replacement. Both California and Massachusetts offer excellent models for social studies. California’s science standards are considered the best. Anyone interested in the California standards, especially in math, should visit http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ (choose standards or frameworks, then social studies). Reviews of math and science standards and frameworks can be found on www.mathematicallycorrect.com. The Massachusetts English/Language Arts standards can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html. The superintendent’s standards initiative is notable for several reasons:

1. His decision to make the adoption of quality standards a first priority reflects an understanding that standards are the foundation of systematic academic improvement. Until good standards are in place, good curricula, textbooks and teacher preparation/certification standards will not be supporting (aligned to) a common set of standards.
2. His decision to adopt existing state standards rather than develop them in-house shows his understanding that quality standards already exist and don’t need to be reinvented. His choice of California and Massachusetts reflects an understanding of what differentiates good* from bad standards. 
   Among the 49 states that have completed or initiated subject area standards (Iowa is the exception), many are bad; some are mediocre and only a few are very good. 
   In a world of education filled with false advertising, feel-good fads and diversionary agendas, knowing the difference is an important sign of professional competence.
3. Giving teachers a role in the selection of the standards makes the real world of the classroom part of the goal-setting world of subject-area standards. Successful and experienced teachers, along with curriculum specialists, must be a part of the standards adoption and development process.

These three steps (quick action on standards, selection of the best state standards as candidates for adoption and making teachers part of the decision-making process) give us reason to hope that the superintendent and his central staff will be what DCPS sorely needs, educational leaders who are connected to the classroom and concerned about the educational effects of their decisions. 

• Good standards and supporting benchmarks should: 

1. Broadly describe the actual content knowledge and related skills that students are expected to master from grade to grade;
2. Clearly and objectively describe the content knowledge to be mastered so that student achievement can be measured on objective tests or assessments;
3. Guide, but not be confused with, the more detailed subject-area curricula;
4. Guide the pedagogy (teaching methods), but not confuse it with subject-area content;
5. Differentiate [especially in social studies and English] subject-area content from related analytical skills, and offer examples of how to combine the two in a lesson plan;
6. Reflect well-documented research;
7. Guide the selection of textbooks and supporting materials;
8. Guide teacher certification standards and, ultimately, the teacher preparation standards of local area universities.

The DC Public Schools have many problems, ranging from deteriorating buildings, financial mismanagement, the absence of due process in adverse actions proceedings, uneven preparation of new teachers, student discipline, continuing violations of special education mandates, mismanagement of student academic records, ineligible students certified for graduation, etc.

Although each of these requires immediate attention, the decision by Supt. Janey to make standards and curricula his first public initiative signals an understanding that student achievement is the primary mission of public schools and that improved test results start with sound standards, not endless hours of test preparation. The challenge facing him is to sustain the focus on academic achievement and developing workable and reliable mechanisms of accountability in support of it. 

(Erich Martel teaches World History and AP U.S. History at Woodrow Wilson H.S.)