Hi, Amy.

Would you say the current federal situation fits your description of 
"without having these codified within the federal bureaucracy"?  Ronna's 
work on the Standards Warehouse disseminates information about various 
standards developed, and of course the EFF website/s do that also; but 
the development of standards remains a local issue, with states 
developing standards or guidelines and then programs are able to align 
their curricula with those standards, based on learners' goals, needed 
certifications, next steps and so on.  If all the state and local 
standards are based on national models -- say, for example, basing all 
math standards on NCTM's work -- then we'd have a system like what you 
describe, and which right now seems to "work" for OVAE.

I could certainly get behind that.  We need to maintain local control 
over the specific standards taught to, so that instruction continues to 
be based on the learner's goals and needs and based within the learner / 
teacher interaction.  (I'm preaching to the choir now, right?)

Howard D.


Amy R. Trawick wrote:


>David, I think this is an intriguing idea.  Lots of issues are whirling 

>around in my head, but let's deal with this one first:

>

>Are you proposing the development of national standards or federal 

>standards?  It is possible to have a set of national standards, supporting 

>curriculum, and standardized assessments--developed and referenced by the 

>field as a whole because of the collaborative nature of their development or 

>adoption--without having these codified within the federal bureaucracy.  In 

>this scenario, the federal government could even provide support through 

>funding.  Is this what your getting at, or are you seeing a more hands-on 

>role being played by the federal government?

>

>Amy

>

>Amy R. Trawick, M.S. Ed.

>North Wilkesboro, North Carolina

>atrawick at charter.net

>

>  

>

>