Talk:Standards-based education reform in the United States

Merging
Merging is a good idea - but both articles need a lot of editing and improvement. Madmedea 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The
The first part is so poorly worded it makes no sense at all. As no one has suggested any improvement to this article for over 2 years, perhaps it needs to be revamped entirely. --Henry Tallboys (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vision" section almost incomprehensible
If all the buzzwords and jargon in the "vision" section are really necessary, could we at least have some translation? For example: ''"Hands-on" activities, while essential, are not enough. Students must have "minds-on" experiences as well.'' What on earth is that supposed to mean? --61.214.155.14 05:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hands-on doesn't necessarily mean minds-on but it is usually a component. The essence of hands-on is that at some point the student must manipulate a piece or part of the experiment or problem that they are solving. The idea within the reform is get the students using higher order thinking to make the necessary changes to their own thinking to form either a solution or a hypothesis on the experiment or problem. This higher order thinking can't come before the student has all of the skills in place to preform the experiment or to find a solution to the problem.Aggieg 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Aggieg

History
A new editor wrote a very upbeat history section today. I think it's appropriate to have a history section in general. Are there any good sources available for history? It would be nice to say what education reforms immediately preceded it, when it became popular (again: most educational reforms have appeared off and on for at least two centuries), and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The history section reads like an editorial. It sounds like the thesis statement on an article rather than an informative encyclopedic statement.--71.176.142.32 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

US only
My suggestion is to rename this "Standards-based education reform (United States)" and let it go at that. Why try to boost this version into an "international version?" Student7 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is definitely a possibility. In that case, it would probably be best to delete the first section on outcome-based education—it already has its own article and is of more concern to other countries. (I'm not even sure it really qualifies as "standards-based" reform.) The article is quite a mess right now. --seberle (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is appropriate, because the concept is being used in several countries. Even if we wanted a US-only article, the naming convention discourages the proposed 'pre-disambiguation' unless and until there was a "Standards-based education reform (Australia)" (for example) that it needed to be separated from.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Standards-based education reform" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Standards-based education reform. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)