National standards in the US – No way out?

In the newest issue of Time Magazine there is a curious (mostly for its remarkably one-sided treatment of the issue) article on national educational standards in the US. The author, Walter Isaacson, is a clear advocate of the most rigid forms of standards and assessment, i.e. “this” is what should be learned and we test to the gills to assess it.
Included with the article is a brief interview with education secretary Arne Duncan. He has some interesting ideas about how to solve the US education problems. First, he thinks students should spend more time in school; lots more time. He wants longer school days, a longer school week, and a longer school year. One might even be led to believe that he would like most for children to simply move into schools at a tender young age and stay there until they’re ready to graduate. Secondly, he supports “alternative routes” for teacher training, i.e. suggesting that current teacher certification requirements are too rigid.
The comical part of all this is that on the page before the Duncan interview is a table ranking countries by their outcomes in international student surveys in math and reading (not included in the online version of the article). Topping both lists is Finland. In Finland, students start school later than in the US, their school days are shorter, and the school year is roughly the same. There are national curriculum guidelines but not the incessant standards based testing we find in the US. Teacher certification requirements are very demanding. Master’s degrees are required and only the best of the best are accepted.
So, here it is, sitting right under Duncan’s nose, that more time in school need not make a difference. Rigid standards and assessment need not make a difference. What makes a difference is that teachers are highly qualified and have the flexibility to do what is needed to help their students learn (Duncan suggests that “teachers give students knowledge” – I don’t think so).
The Finnish example suggests that there are other, potentially more effective, ways of achieving the educational goals we strive for. For example, one way would be to standardize around teaching processes. Rather than testing the students to death, we could use a sort of “total quality control” formative evaluation to ensure that teachers do everything they can to meet students’ learning needs.
Before anything like this can happen in a country like the US, there needs to be significant change in the underlying system. In the US it seems like education officials have become so engrossed in standards and standards based assessment that they can’t even entertain the notion of even slightly more radical change. But, I think there’s another reason for this. US educational institutions (and this probably goes for many other countries as well) are so resistant to change that the only possible reforms are incremental. They’ve launched themselves onto the standards and assessment path and can’t change course. To get around this hindrance we need firm and decisive leadership. I’m getting the sense that Arne Duncan might not be it.