Fwd: [eddra] Fw: Public Agenda Alert - Reality Check 2006: Is Support for Standards Fading?

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: kb0000@juno.com
> Date: Sun Aug 13, 2006  9:54:46 PM US/Pacific
> To: eddra@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [eddra] Fw: Public Agenda Alert - Reality Check 2006: Is  
> Support for Standards Fading?
>
>
>
> --et>
>
> ==============================================
> Public Agenda Alert -- June 21, 2006
> * Reality Check 2006: Is Support for Standards Fading?
> * Discuss the Study in Our Reality CheckED Blog
> http://www.publicagenda.org
> ==============================================
> * Reality Check 2006: Is Support for Standards Fading?
>
> "Necessary, but not sufficient," might be one way to sum
> up public attitudes about standards and testing five years
> into No Child Left Behind and over a dozen years into
> the so-called standards movement in American education.
> Based on results from Public Agenda's 2006 "Reality Check"
> opinion surveys, there is strong belief in the intrinsic
> value of standards and testing and broad support for key
> elements such as high school exit exams. But as of now,
> every group surveyed by Public Agenda (parents, students,
> teachers, principals and superintendents)considers other
> educational issues more urgent. Among parents, concern about
> low academic standards in local schools has dropped over
> the last decade.
>
> Public Agenda has been monitoring Americans' views on academic
> standards, standardized testing, No Child Left Behind and
> other key elements of the standards movement for more than a
> decade. Our Reality Check surveys and other research have
> shown repeatedly that support for raising standards is broad
> and heart-felt, and based on the 2006 data, that core of
> support remains intact. In multiple findings, parents, teachers
> and students say standards and testing are necessary. Parents
> and teachers give local districts high marks for pursuing
> standards-based reform carefully and reasonably.
>
> But Reality Check 2006 also shows quite convincingly that
> relatively few parents, teachers, principals or superintendents
> see more of the same as the best course for the future.
>
> In this year's survey, respondents were asked to choose among four
> hypothetical candidates for the local school board: one running
> on a platform of standards and testing, a second backing vouchers,
> a third backing charter schools and a fourth calling for more
> money for schools and smaller classes. Among parents, the standards
> and testing candidate ranks a distant second to the candidate
> calling for smaller classes and more money for schools. Fewer
> than one in four parents (22 percent) chooses the standards candidate.
> Among the educators, support for a school board candidate focusing
> primarily on more standards and testing is in the single digits.
>
> When asked about a range of issues facing local schools,
> relatively few parents or students say low academic
> standards are a "very serious" problem in their area.
> Parents are twice as likely to choose lack of money (39 percent)
> and lack of respect for teachers and profanity (34 percent)
> as "very serious" problems over low standards (15 percent).
> Students too say that schools not getting enough money and
> lack of respect are the more serious issues based on what
> they see. Adding to the sense that low standards are not
> a top priority item now is the judgment of most parents
> that schools are better and the material studied is harder
> than when they themselves went to school.
>
> Find out more about Reality Check and download a free copy of
> the report here:
> http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/realitycheck06/ 
> realitycheck06_main.h
> tm
>
> Reality Check is supported by the GE Foundation, the Nellie Mae
> Education Foundation and The Wallace Foundation.
>
>
> * Discuss the Study in Our Reality CheckED Blog
>
> What Now?
> So if the push for higher standards and testing is leveling off
> or reaching maturity, how do we go about addressing these other
> issues that core constituencies say are so important? What else
> deserves major attention? And if we turn our attention elsewhere,
> do we risk undermining the progress on standards that we've made
> so far? Is there a danger that we check "standards and testing"
> off the list too soon?
>
> Read more and join the discussion:
> http://realitychecked.typepad.com/reality_checked/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THIS ALERT LIST:
> Send a blank message (nothing needs to be written in the body of the
> text) to
> the following e-mail address:
>
> leave-public-agenda-online-alert-7560916W@lists.lyris.net
>
> To change your e-mail address or to contact us with any
> questions/comments/problems:
> Contact support@publicagenda.org
> Copyright (c) 2006 Public Agenda
>
> Public Agenda
> 6 East 39th Street
> 9th Floor
> New York, NY 10016
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eddra/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     eddra-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/