It seems like the only major disagreement here is “what’s the message between the lines in this article?” Since this is inherently based on subjective experience with similar situations (slippery slope no-standards cheerleading, or buzzword exhaustion?), I see why there’s conflicting signals.

Look, you all are saying that the this is a statement against standards, and teaching standards. I think you are reading too much into the ambivalence of the teacher character in this story to “power standards” I think it’s a statement against Orwellian edu-speak (power standards, scientifically proven effective instructional practices, etc.)

Folks like me fill in the blanks and see all the cruddy teaching practices we have to contort ourselves into because of testing demands.

Maybe the lazy get to see what they want (stupid standards!), while the rest of us who are and do ground their practice in standards see standards based instruction abused (and being used to abuse us, and students).

As to the reasons for accountability, you see lazy colleagues who didn’t bother teaching, which led to this. I see the class in Oakland that the principal deliberately placed with a series of short-term subs EVERY year they were in his elementary school (over the objections of the union rep) and did not separate them, and refused to entertain the idea of alternatively credentialing any of the subs who were willing to work the class.

There will never be a meeting of the minds on this, but I hope that folks see that just because someone twitches at the term “power standard” that doesn’t mean we’ve abandonned the idea teaching standards at all.