As standards were being identified, educators focused on the knowledge and skills they valued within their disciplines. This concern was more academic than practical, with predictable results. If schools attempted to teach all that national standards groups identified for student learning, as we once calculated, students would exit 12th grade pushing age 21.

In the last decade, first classroom teachers, then school districts, and belatedly state departments (Hawaii being one of the last to adopt) of education grappled with the question of what is important and can be effectively taught and assessed within the time available for schooling. This challenging question has had an impact on the revision of standards, as made evident by such phrases as "essential standards," "power standards," and the like.

In some approaches to revision, unfortunately, the exercise of finding what’s most important devolves into the personal preference that bedeviled much of education before the standards movement. With the right criteria, though, the examination is useful not only because it helps to make standards manageable, but it also provides us an opportunity to revisit the “Why standards” question.

Indeed, why standards? There are multiple ends served by education, many of which co-exist more or less peaceably. One avowed goal of the standards movement is to identify what is essential for "adult literacy": what should a person know and be able to do to be a productive citizen? Just how a citizen might contribute is left unidentified. Carpenter or physicist, each should be knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

The aspiring carpenter needs to know as much science as will make him an intelligent voter on issues related to science or being considered scientifically literate (the ability to understand basic science concepts or ideas), which is a different scope altogether from the needs of a budding physicist.

To ensure that each student has the opportunity to excel as an individual as well as a member of society, schools also help students prepare for further learning, whether in post-secondary school or advanced training. Students meet the standards they need to become a literate citizen, then move to more focused learning, whether that is found in the wood shop or the lab.

But the system doesn’t work that way for would-be carpenters or physicists. Not now, anyway. (Especially the Hawaii DOE, and it's inflated bureaucracy)

First, it appears that carpentry is not an acceptable career path for students. There is a limited and diminishing amount of school-based vocational education, according to a recent study from the Department of Labor.

In addition, the U.S. is one of the few countries not taking aggressive steps to promote apprenticeships, although Hawaii has many of these programs but this is not the norm nationally. It’s not clear why such inattention is in the best interest of students.

Establishing high expectations for students remains a hallmark of standards-based education. Do we believe that learning a trade or craft cannot demand the best from students or be worthy of their best efforts?

There is some evidence that students choose to be left behind -- high school completion rates are falling -- when they cannot recognize in the curriculum the steps that will help them reach a better future. It is an irony that, while the future physicist might find his work outsourced, the carpenter has a much more secure prospect; it’s unlikely that houses will be shipped to India for remodeling.

Secondly the current ability or impetus to prepare a student for future study in physics something that high schools know how to do -- in a systematic way, at any rate. A recent study that was conducted showed that many states -- including those highly rated for the quality of their standards -- do not require the mathematics and reading and writing skills that post-secondary institutions expect from entering students.

While such knowledge and skills might be embedded in advanced high school courses, and thus not part of a state’s standards, there is yet no method that ensures that even advanced courses address what students need to succeed in college.

So long as the Carnegie unit -- for example, “Algebra II” -- is the principal means high schools have of identifying what it is that a student learns, communication between high school and college is not going to get much better. This is the new proposal that is being presented by the P-20 initiative and the DOE as part of the American Diploma Project.

There seem to be workable solutions, though.

Fueled in part by the increasing number of students who require remediation at college entry, a number of projects are seeking to expand the current K–12 schooling structure to P–20. Standards provide the single most effective tool for linking secondary school with post-secondary institutions.

Sharing a common and specific language about student expectations throughout the system should make the transition from high school to advanced training less of a bumpy road. The issue with Hawaii and the Hawaii Department of Education is that the University of Hawaii system has not fully “integrated” the state’s standards into their curriculum or teacher training program.

And the recent policy recommendations in “Tough Choices for Tough Times” provide support for those who believe that different goals for students require different -- not lower -- expectations.

Not everyone needs to be -- or wants to be -- a symbolic analyst. A number of efforts across the country show how training programs depend upon and can be directly linked to challenging academic standards. Students have an opportunity to engage in authentic work, applying what they learn.

Employers, vocal in their lament of the quality of today’s graduates, should welcome programs that attend deliberately to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that make the difference in working world, yet also helps students become contributing citizens.

If we’re smart about it, we can provide students of every interest the opportunity to achieve their best, providing them the challenge and help they need on whatever mountain or path they’ve chosen to climb.

This will take an innovative leader with vision and experience, not just the same old story of moving at a snails pace. Something unfortunately the DOE still allows the "dinosaurs" of perpetuating the "same old" to run their departments.

A question of competency not just seniority must be expected of all the DOE leadership.

Hank Yamamoto is a Hawaii public school graduate, grandparent of children currently in Hawaii public schools and a taxpayer. He can be reached at mailto:hankurchain@yahoo.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Hawaii Education Beat...