"We need more rigor in the classroom!"

That’s the motto on the minds and tongues of most people surrounding the discussion of education reform.  Experts give speeches on the topic, Congress writes the word into nearly all of its new education laws, and assessments try to capture it. After all, who would argue with such a notion? Sure, only a few brave souls actually define what they mean by rigor, but never mind that – "the more rigor, the merrier!" is the battle cry. 

Tony Wagner, Co-Director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is one of those brave souls trying to figure out what increased rigor actually looks like in implementation as he visits public schools across the country. He has sit in on classes from basic mathematics to AP Calculus in the poorest schools and the wealthiest ones. He has also looked at various state standards, curricula, and assessments. His conclusion is, to paraphrase generously, that increasing rigor has meant cramming as much content as possible into the curricula and then assessing it via almost entirely multiple choice examinations.

In other words, we’re preparing our students to compete in the Jeopardy Teen Tournament. That might indeed be worthwhile -- I hear they give out rather nice scholarships. Still, fact regurgitation rarely equates with a meaningful learning experience, and it certainly doesn’t translate when their education needs to be applied to their careers after graduation.

While the business community may not be among those trying to define "rigor," it has been fairly clear as to what it is they want to see students get out of their education.  Surveys of employers consistently show that they want students to be able to communicate (written and oral), collaborate, critically analyze, and problem solve. Being able to write, not just correctly but with voice and persuasion, is typically rated as the most vital skill for success in the workplace. 

Despite this, our testing has trended mostly towards filling out bubble sheets rather than having students truly think about the content and form persuasive, coherent arguments in response. International assessments such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP,) incorporate such extended response questions into their tests. State and local testing does not typically follow suit, which might help to explain some of the gaps in the percentage of students identified as being proficient on state assessments versus NAEP (which was exposed in the "Truth in Advertising" section of our education report card, Leaders and Laggards, last year.) 

In a society where the answer to nearly any question can be found by grabbing your cell phone and pulling up Google, reliance on the rote memorization of content should be little more than a vestigial organ of the education system.  Now more than ever, with information literally swarming us everywhere we go, the ability to not just know information, but to know what to do with that information is vital to being a participant in the world.  As such, the focus of educational standards cannot be solely about what is being taught but also how it is being taught if we are to truly prepare our students for what comes after high school.