There are three different aspects to a so-called standard; a standard is not just one demand. Whether stated or implied in standards documents, when we talk about students “meeting standards,” there are three aspects involved: content, process, and performance. The content standard says what they must know. The process standard says what they should be able to do (in terms of a discrete skill or process). A performance standard says how well they must do it and in what kind of complex performance.
Here is a simple example, using track and field:
- Content = know the techniques and rules of jumping
- Process = be able to make technically sound jumps
- Performance = be able to high jump six feet
Modern computer and information technology is built on formal standards. Specific protocols are defined of course. But also, the way those protocols are to interact with each other, how to create a standards-setting work group, and how the specifications are supposed to be written.
One of the deep mysteries of the whole Common Core cycle is why Bill Frickin' Gates and company didn't think it was necessary to really approach educational standards in a more rigorous way, especially if you're trying to build a big data edifice on top of the whole damn thing. Was billg afraid it would be too expensive? I guess there might be some fear that it might slow down the process, after all look at how slowly the internet grew.
Essentially, none of the key terms in this debate are clearly defined. I'm sure people have written this stuff down occasionally, but you never see any citation of a full rigorous explanation. I don't mean that in the sense that there are opposing definitions. It is all just handwaving and opinion.
To be clear, I basically like Wiggins post, but in the end it is just floating around in the same ether as everything else.