Dylan Wiliam on Common Core Standards Validation
In an Email correspondence, April 29, 2013, Dylan Wiliam wrote:
“On May 25, 2010, Dane Linn wrote to all members of the Validation Committee asking them to review the final drafts of the standards and asking for a straight up or down vote by March 31st, as to whether each us would validate the standards. We were told that validating the proposals meant that we were agreeing that the standards were:
1) Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need to be college- and career-ready
2) Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity
3) Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations
4) Informed by available research or evidence
5) The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development
6) A solid starting point for adoption of cross state common core standards
7) A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments
“Here is what I sent to the CCSSO in reply:
Dear Dr. Gayler
I have been wrestling with this for the last couple of days.
I can agree with statements 1, 6 and 7. I can persuade myself that statements 4 and 5 are just about OK (although it's a stretch). However, I cannot in all conscience, endorse statements 2 and 3.The standards are, in my view, much more detailed, and, as Jim Milgram has pointed out, are in important respects less demanding, than the standards of the leading nations. For this reason, while I can see there are strong political reasons for securing consensus, and while I can see that they are the best that we can get at this stage, I am unable to agree to ‘sign off’ on the standards if doing so is taken to be assent to all 7 propositions.
“Basically, I felt that there were still too many risks in terms of what Jim Popham once called ‘criterion-referenced hyperspecification’. I think there is also a real tension between pitching the standards at college-readiness (which is fine) and saying that they are comparable to the world's leading nations in mathematics, when many countries are much more demanding at college entry, because they recruit a smaller proportion of the population. I was prepared to support the proposals, but when Dane Linn wanted adherence to each of the seven statements, I felt he went too far.”