• Determine major educational needs and rank them in priority order.
• Develop long-range goals and plans to meet the needs and goals to improve student achievement and performance.
• Evaluate progress toward meeting the goals and maintain a record of progress including pupil performance and results of school improvement projects.
• Report progress made under the plan to the community.

a) School Board retreat
b) College of Education doctoral dissertation
c) John Carver
d) District Parent Organization
e) None of the above

The standards movement, for good or ill, has swept the country. When I was in California earlier this month that state’s 8000 schools were getting their report cards. Only 12 percent met their goals.

Iowa is the last holdout, the 50th state to fall in line.

Even if our board was not fashioning what John Carver calls “ends” policies, the law requires it of our District anyway.

The board is focusing on reading. The Iowa law requires District standards for math and science as well.

To paraphrase the poster, academic goals, assessment, and monitoring are not just a good idea, they’re the law.

They’re also common sense.

As a door-to-door salesperson I was told, “Plan your work and work your plan.”

We constantly set goals and measure our progress. Goals for professional advancement or retirement funds. How many miles to drive today on our cross-country family vacation.

Conscientious children and parents need test scores, teacher conferences and other assessment data to know where additional work is needed. A student who reads and writes well may have difficulty with math. Perhaps more homework is called for. Perhaps alternative ways of teaching and learning.

Teachers use a variety of assessments of their students’ performance and discover which methods work best.

Assessments help administrators – principals and the superintendent – make wiser decisions regarding everything from boundaries and bus routes to class size, assignment of associates and allocation of professional development dollars.

Teachers and administrators have the primary responsibility for creating the state-mandated “Comprehensive School Improvement Plan” for our district.

But school board members also need goals or “ends.” They are elected public officials and trustees with responsibility for the education of, in our case, 10,600 youngsters – and 70 million tax dollars.

Pretty serious responsibilities, but different from those of the student, parent, teacher or administrator.

As the old saying has it, “If you don’t know where you’re going you’ll probably end up somewhere else.”

Ending up somewhere else is OK if you’re driving by yourself, or taking the family on an adventure along what one author calls the “blue highways.”

But when you’re driving over 10,000 children at a cost of $70 million of someone else’s money our board members want to make sure they have some idea of where this district’s going, and why, and whether we ever get there.

What are we trying to accomplish? How would we ever know if we’d been successful?

If the Board gets it right, its goals will be consistent – not identical, but consistent – with our mandated “Comprehensive School Improvement Plan.”

And the plan will be consistent with teachers’ assessments.

That’s one reason the board has asked for teachers’ response to the board’s draft options for reading goals. Much of their response has emphasized the potential dangers in using any standards.

Those teachers are right. There’s evidence from 49 other states to support their concerns. The board’s aware of those pitfalls.

Test scores can be misused. Tests unrelated to the curriculum. Failure to use multiple measures. Looking at averages instead of “scatter chart” reports of every child’s test score. Among others.

But the nations’ governors, legislatures, business leaders and most parents want improvement. They think standards will help, and that children’s mobility, their parents’ education and income, are no excuse for schools’ poor performance.

Now “no standards” is no longer an option for our district either. The question is which standards – among the board’s options, or others – are best?

That’s what the board is asking.

The state says districts can’t say to their school boards “Give me $70 million, leave me alone, and I’ll tell you when I need more money.” That isn’t going to cut it.

Possible dangers from the creation of measurable goals? Of course. But they’re far less serious than the dangers of operating our schools without them. Besides, it’s the law.

Nicholas Johnson is an Iowa City School Board member. More information is available on his Web site, www.nicholasjohnson.org.