Measuring Up
2004
A Report on
Social Studies Standards for

NEW JERSEYACHIEVE’S
BENCHMARKINGINITIATIVE

Achieve, Inc.
Created by the nation’s governors and business leaders, Achieve, Inc., is a bipartisan,
non-profit organization that helps states raise academic standards, improve assessments andstrengthen accountability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, workand citizenship. Achieve has helped nearly half the states benchmark their standards and tests
against the best examples in this country and abroad and work in partnership to improveteaching and learning. Achieve serves as a significant national voice for quality in standardsbased reform and regularly convenes governors, CEOs and other influential leaders at
National Education Summits and other gatherings to sustain support for higher standards
and achievement for all of America’s schoolchildren.
Achieve helps states raise academic standards, measure performance against those standards,
establish clear accountability for results and strengthen public confidence in our education
system. To do this, we:■ help states benchmark their standards, assessments and accountability systems against
the best in the country and the world;■ provide sustained public leadership and advocacy for the movement to raise standards and improve student performance;■ build partnerships that allow states to work together to improve teaching and learningand raise student achievement; and■ serve as a national clearinghouse on standards and school reform.

Michael Cohen, President
Matthew Gandal, Executive Vice President
Jean Slattery, Director of Benchmarking

Measuring Up 2004
A Report on Social Studies
Standards for
NEW JERSEYACHIEVE’S
BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE

Copyright © 2004 Achieve, Inc.

All rights reserved

Not for reproduction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Review of New Jersey’s Social Studies Core Curriculum Standards ………………… 5
Results for New Jersey …………………………………………………….…………. 8
Appendix: Biographies ……………………………………………………………….. 14

Measuring Up — New Jersey

3

Achieve, Inc., 2004

REVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S SOCIAL STUDIES CORE
CURRICULUM STANDARDSJUNE 2004
In fall 2003, New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey and Commissioner of Education
William L. Librera asked Achieve to review the new academic standards the state had
developed in English, mathematics and social studies. They wished to learn how New
Jersey’s new standards compared with those of other states.
The 2003 review was conducted in two parts, and as a result, Achieve issued two separate
reports: one on social studies standards and the other on English and mathematics
standards and assessments. This summary report outlines the main findings fromAchieve’s review of the New Jersey social studies standards.
Achieve began its review of the New Jersey social studies standards in fall 2003. State
officials had asked that Achieve review a September 2003 draft to be considered for
adoption by the State Board of Education in early 2004. In January 2004, Achievedelivered preliminary findings to the state Department of Education and to the governor’s
office. In February 2004, officials at the Department of Education asked Achieve toreview a new draft of the social studies standards that had been revised, partly in response
to Achieve’s January recommendations. Our second review was dated February 27, 2004,
and has been under consideration by New Jersey officials since that time.
The summary review that follows focuses on New Jersey’s revised draft of February but
contains certain applicable elements of Achieve’s two reviews of January and February.

THE ACHIEVE BENCHMARKING PROCESS
Achieve’s benchmarking reviews involve a detailed and comparative analysis of a state’s
standards against the best standards available from other states and nations. To selectthese exemplary standards in history/social studies, Achieve evaluated standards
development efforts across the country to see which standards were deservedly the mosthighly regarded. We then commissioned leading subject matter content experts to provide
detailed reviews of those states’ documents and to help us narrow the list down to thebest. As a result, Achieve selected state standards from Alabama, California and Indiana
to serve as examples for history/social studies benchmarks. We believe these state
standards are the best in the nation. They are rigorous and well chosen; they provide
sufficient detail to local educators and parents who need to understand and use them; andthey do very well in combining the core disciplines of history, civics, geography andeconomics in a coherent set of expectations to guide K–12 education in their states.
To conduct the review of New Jersey’s standards, Achieve engaged national experts withsignificant experience in teaching social studies and its core disciplines and in writing

Measuring Up — New Jersey

5

Achieve, Inc., 2004

and reviewing social studies standards from around the country. Achieve provided themwith the three benchmark documents and a set of guiding questions to ensure that theiranalyses would focus on Achieve’s criteria for exemplary standards in social studies. Our
synthesis of their findings presents consensus opinions, but final judgments andconclusions rest with Achieve. Brief biographies of expert consultants who participatedin our reviews can be found in the Appendix.

ACHIEVE’S CRITERIA FOR HIGH-QUALITY STANDARDS
It may seem to some that the work involved in creating high-quality academic standards
is more trouble than it is worth. But in any state that values equal opportunity to learn, allelse — curriculum, assessment, professional development, school progress reports, andespecially day-in and day-out instruction — depends on the quality and clarity of its
standards. When standards are flawed, it is very difficult to achieve either quality or
equality in the rest of the school system. When standards are strong and well
implemented, teaching and learning are far more likely to improve.
Achieve judges the quality of standards according to the following criteria:•

RIGOR: What is the level of intellectual demand in the standards?

Expectations for student learning should be intellectually challenging enough to equip
students with the knowledge and skills they will need to succeed at the next grade level.
Rigor is a measure of how well the standards represent and build on the essential corecontent of a discipline — its key concepts and how they relate to each other. Rigor is themost complex of the criteria because it depends on the interplay of content chosen foremphases, how thoughtfully knowledge and skills are sequenced from grade to grade, andthe precision with which expectations for learners are expressed — as compared withother state and international standards.
•

CLARITY: Are the standards clearly written and presented in a logical, easy-touse format?

Clarity requires more than just plain and jargon-free prose. Each grade level’s
expectations must be communicated in language that is widely understood and acceptedby teachers, parents, school boards and others who have a stake in the quality ofschooling — including university faculties that will prepare teachers to convey thestandards and later receive those teachers’ students.
•

SPECIFICITY: Are the standards specific enough to convey the level of
performance expected of students?

High-quality standards offer enough detail to help teachers design their courses, but they
are not overly detailed, prescriptive or unmanageable, given teachers’ time for
instruction. Vague and general standards leave too much open to interpretation and makeMeasuring Up — New Jersey

6

Achieve, Inc., 2004

it likely that students will be held to different, unequal expectations. Standards that are
too detailed may encourage a “checklist” approach to teaching that undermines students’interest and overall grasp of the discipline. It is important that standards have a fairly
consistent level of precision (or “grain size”) that makes them easier to understand andteach in sufficient depth.
•

FOCUS: Have tough choices been made about what content is the most importantfor students to learn?

High-quality standards establish priorities of facts, concepts and skills that should beemphasized at each grade level. Selection needs to be based on what knowledge will be
expected of students at the next grade level. Also, to ensure that the amount of content at
each level is teachable in the limited time teachers have, standards need to distinguishbetween knowledge and skills that are essential and those that are not.
•PROGRESSION: Do knowledge and skills build clearly and sensibly on previous
learning and increase in intellectual demand from year to year?

Coherent understanding in a subject area requires an evolution of knowledge and skills,
moving from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract. Good standards set a
progression of knowledge and skills across the K–12 grades, and they prevent needless
repetition from grade to grade, while revisiting earlier learning when needed.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

7

Achieve, Inc., 2004

RESULTS FOR NEW JERSEY
In our January and February reports, Achieve provided officials at the New Jersey
Department of Education with detailed comparisons of the New Jersey social studies
standards with exemplary standards from other states. We limit ourselves in this report toproviding our most significant findings and recommendations from those reports.

STRENGTHS OF THE STANDARDS
Overall Improvement
The September 2003 draft of the New Jersey social studies standards improved on the1996 version in its chronology, course order, coverage of eras and clarity of topic
wording. It set a foundation on which it would be possible to build a superior set ofstandards. In this sense, it resembles early versions of documents that were graduallyrefined and became exemplars, such as those of Alabama, California and Indiana. With
some exceptions, the same is true of the New Jersey February draft, which Achieve also
reviewed.
Chronological Order
Main headings for U.S. and world history are in chronological order, as in all the better
state standards. New Jersey tries to avoid the futile attempts made by other states to teachall U.S. or world history in a one-year survey, in which coverage has to be hurried andsuperficial, leaving no time for in-depth studies related to the main chronologicalnarrative. Without alternating linked studies of depth and breadth, students will notunderstand the nature of history. Rushing through surveys also leaves no time for the
discussion, analyses, research and writing that most state standards, including New
Jersey’s, insist on.
Segmentation of Content
With exceptions noted below, the present draft improves on other state documents —especially in the civic/political education of citizens — by allowing districts to teach in
middle school world history up to 1750. If done, it lets high school teachers focus on
events, ideas and turning points of the past 250 years, knowledge which is indispensable
to the political sophistication of citizens. Many states begin high school world history at
1400 or so, forcing rushed coverage and making it impossible to reach recent decades.
Integration of New Jersey and U.S. History
The current draft brings U.S. and New Jersey studies together as a way to stimulate theinterest of students in both and to help them understand the workings of federalism andthe balance of powers written into the U.S. Constitution. It also helps to illuminate
today’s economic, social and political forces affecting state and national relations.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

8Achieve, Inc., 2004

Balance of U.S. and World History
In its general headings and broadly worded topics — although not always in its detail —the draft devotes a fair balance of time between U.S. history and world history. With
some exceptions noted in earlier reports, it also has reasonable balance among the majoreras of human history and between Western civilization and the other major world
civilizations.
The Civic Education of Citizens
In its broad headings and outlines for civics, world history and U.S. history, the document
suggests a “civic core” of learning that touches on, not always detailing, vital topics andquestions to achieve the often-stated, primary aim of social studies: to prepare citizens ofmature political judgment. Headings and outlines also could allow links to standards in
geography and economics to broaden such judgment.
Clear and Accessible Language
The content of the current New Jersey social studies document is set forth in mostly clear
and jargon-free language that is accessible to school administrators and teachers, parents,
the public, policymakers, and the media. Certain technical or specialized terms may
easily be presented in a glossary when needed.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENTManageability and Focus
High on Achieve’s list of needed improvements is a reduction in the number and scope of
topics in the standards. Our concern is that the standards may outline more material thanteachers can effectively teach during the school year. Rather than providing clear
guidance to schools and teachers about what is most important for them to focus theircurriculum and instruction on, the current standards may leave them with a difficult
decision: try to cover everything in the standards at a more superficial level or teach asubset of the standards in greater depth.
We encourage the state to sharpen the focus of the standards so that they define amanageable core. This will require making tough choices about what is most importantfor students — and by extension New Jersey’s citizens — to know. It will involve
distinguishing between essential knowledge and skills, those things that should remain in
the standards, and those that may be desirable for students to learn but are not essential.
This is not an easy step to take. To date, most states have had difficulty making the hard
choices necessary to define a manageable core because this task inevitably involves
cutting topics or events that some group of people feels is important. Nevertheless, wefeel it is the right thing for New Jersey to do.
An expectation for students at the end of grade 8 in economics is that they “discuss how
societies have been affected by industrialization and by different political and economic

Measuring Up — New Jersey

9Achieve, Inc., 2004

philosophies” (B.4). A grade 12 geography standard would have students “analyze how
cooperation and conflict influence the control of economic, political, and social entities
on Earth” (D.3). These are very broad standards that could be interpreted in very different
ways. The following world history standard from grade 12 is another example of an
overly broad standard that may unfairly burden teachers and students in its
expansiveness:
Grade 12, E.1: Analyze and evaluate how the following major developments
transformed European society and impacted on Asia, Africa, and the Americas
including:• The Renaissance and Reformation• The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment• European exploration, colonial empires, and the trans-Atlantic[slave trade]• Decline of absolutism and the rise of constitutional monarchies in Europe• The spread of Buddhism through trade and travel
The first four of these bullets would take no less than two weeks each — if students were
truly expected to “analyze and evaluate” how these major developments “transformed”
Europe and “impacted” the rest of the world. Given that there are 174 standards thatcomprise the entirety of New Jersey’s high school social studies standards and given thateven if they are divided equally among the four years of high school, at least 43 standards
would need to be covered each year, a standard such as this one will either take too muchtime or not be covered in sufficient depth. Also, none of the bullets includes specifics —required or as examples — to further focus the expectations.
Manageability is a problem throughout the standards, but it is a particular problem at thehigh school level. The segmentation of eras between middle and high school, cited earlier
as a strength of the standards, is contradicted by the mandated high school review of all
previous periods in both U.S. history and world history. By framing the high school
standards this way, it is possible that schools may feel compelled to add an additional
full-year history survey course to review previous material.
Specificity and Prioritization
A second critical area for improvement is increasing the level of precision in thestandards.
One of the purposes of setting standards in social studies (and other subjects) is to ensurethat all students across the state are exposed to a rigorous common core of knowledge
and skills. New Jersey and other states pursuing standards have decided that it is nolonger acceptable for some students to be offered a challenging curriculum while others
are not afforded that same opportunity. It is particularly problematic if students in urban
or other high-poverty areas are held to lower expectations than students in more affluent
communities.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

10Achieve, Inc., 2004

Achieve’s reviewers concluded that the current version of the New Jersey social studies
standards is not yet clear and specific enough to ensure that all students will be exposed
to a rigorous, common core. In addition to causing manageability problems, many of thestandards are too broad to provide clear guidance to teachers, students and parents, andwe are concerned that this could lead to a situation in which the standards are interpreted
very differently across the state.
Developing standards that are precise enough to provide clear guidance without
becoming too detailed is a challenge, particularly in a state such as New Jersey wherecontrol of the curriculum is in the hands of local districts. The states whose history/social
studies standards Achieve has chosen as benchmarks have tried to achieve this delicate
balance and have been largely successful. We encourage New Jersey to use these states’
standards as helpful examples to consider while pursuing a clearer and morestraightforward set of expectations.
Achieve’s reviewers found the specificity of the New Jersey standards to be well belowthat of the benchmark standards of other states. The following civics standard is a good
example of the tendency of certain standards to be too far-reaching in breadth to beeffective as guides for teachers and students:
Grade 8, E.5: Analyze how the life, culture, economics, and politics of the UnitedStates impact the rest of the world.
A grade 12 economics standard asks students to “evaluate international trade principles
and policies” (B.2), but it gives no indication of what these may be. At grade 4 in U.S.
history, students are asked to “evaluate information about historical events or current
issues” and in geography to “compare the patterns of past and present human migration.”
No direction in the form of examples such as specific historic events and developments isgiven to anchor these broad tasks and ideas.
Another illustration of lack of specificity diminishing the strength and usefulness of astandard is the treatment of the Enlightenment in New Jersey’s world history standards ascompared with its treatment in California’s and Indiana’s standards. Essentially, New
Jersey asks students to “analyze and evaluate” how the Enlightenment (as well as theother bulleted “major developments”) “transformed European society and impacted on
Asia, Africa, and the Americas” (grade 12, E.1). The scope of this task is enormous, andwith this lack of definition and direction it could be interpreted in vastly different ways
across the state. In California’s and Indiana’s standards, however, the student is asked toconsider the Enlightenment — among other historical developments covered — in a few
specific contexts: how democratic thought was influenced by it, its impact on thefounding of the United States, its influence on European political thought and its
relationship to emerging opposition to the slave trade. These specifics give teachers
necessary guidance and also ensure that students’ understanding of historicaldevelopments and events is not left at a superficial level.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

11

Achieve, Inc., 2004

In some cases, the lack of specificity and precision in the New Jersey standards leads to
key content getting underemphasized or omitted altogether. For example, neither theAmerican nor French Revolutions are addressed adequately in the standards. They arereferred to as examples under broader standards, but they are not identified as priority
areas that all students must study, nor are they supported with any specifics to indicate
what about those periods was most important.
In the area of U.S. history, there are a number of standards whose lack of specificity may
end up ensuring that they do not receive adequate attention in the classroom. Despite thefact that these standards introduce important topics in U.S. history, their most important
aspects may never be taught because specifics and context are missing. Some examplesof important specifics that go unmentioned are the compromise over slavery at theConstitutional Convention, slavery’s contribution to 19th-century national wealth, theNorthwest Ordinance, Jacksonian democracy, political and social conditions at the root of
Populism and Progressivism, and particular New Deal actions such as Social Security.
There are other important historical periods, developments, movements and figures inworld history that are not mentioned at all in the New Jersey standards. Among thesesignificant omissions are Humanism, the causes and ideas of the Protestant Revolution,
Martin Luther, John Locke, the Magna Carta, the 17th-century English Revolution andBill of Rights, the idea of Natural Law in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment,
and the causes and social effects of the 18th- and early 19th-century Industrial Revolution
in England and Western Europe.
The New Jersey standards should make clear which themes, topics and events are mostimportant; they should establish the priorities for student learning. We encourage thestate to adjust the emphases as necessary to achieve a more appropriate set of priorities.
Age-AppropriatenessA fourth area of concern for Achieve reviewers is the age-appropriateness of some of the
topics in the standards. Certain topics and ideas were judged to be too sophisticatedand/or time consuming for learners in the elementary, middle and even high school
grades at which they were pegged. For example, in New Jersey’s U.S. history standards
for grades 1 and 2, students are asked to “identify the beginning, middle and end of
historical stories, myths and narratives about local, state and national history.” This is askill that would be appropriately challenging for a 3rd or 4th grader. Additionally, if thisstandard contained some specifics about the task, its appropriate grade level would bemuch easier to determine.
New Jersey’s civics standards in particular place content at earlier grades that would
better be addressed in a later grade. The level of abstraction, as well as the complexity ofideas, in some of the civic standards for end of grade 4 reach beyond what is appropriate
at this age, especially considering that the end-of-grade-4 strand includes grade 3.
Standards A.1, “Differentiate between power and authority,” and E.2, “Describe ways in

Measuring Up — New Jersey

12Achieve, Inc., 2004

which the United States interacts with other nations through trade, diplomacy, cultural
exchanges, and wars,” are examples of standards that are more appropriate for middle
school and even high school. End-of-grade-8 civics standards also include some abstract
concepts that would be more appropriate to teach at the high school level, such as B.1,
“Discuss the major historical and contemporary conflicts over United States
constitutional principles,” and A.3, “Compare and contrast democratic and authoritarianor totalitarian systems of government.”
Geography standards that New Jersey expects 3rd and 4th graders to study also involve
concepts that are more appropriate for older students, such as D.3, “Compare the patterns
and processes of past and present human migration,” and D.4, “Explain and identify
examples of global interdependence.” At the grade 8 level, a standard asks students to“describe and explain the significance of patterns of cultural diffusion in the creation ofvaried cultural mosaics” (D.3). Students in the later high school grades are better
equipped to study the concepts implicit in this standard.
Not only do these standards present a problem for students by inappropriately challenging
their cognitive ability, but students at the different grade levels also simply have not yet
been exposed to enough preliminary subject matter to be prepared for these sophisticatedconcepts. Moving some of these standards to later grades, or at least clarifying the levelof depth that a 4th or 8th grader would reasonably be expected to handle by including
some specifics under them, would help to make New Jersey’s social studies standards
appropriately challenging and rigorous for all students.
***

The new draft social studies standards are a considerable improvement over New Jersey’s
previous standards. They are well organized; they are balanced in their treatment of state,national and world history; and they have the potential to provide the foundation for arigorous core curriculum for all students. That potential, however, may not be realized
unless additional steps are taken to focus the standards on the most critical topics andevents — a manageable core — and to clarify what about those topics and events is mostimportant for students to learn. Only then will the standards provide sufficient guidance
to educators, curriculum designers and others who will rely on the standards to guidetheir daily work.
Achieve encourages New Jersey to take steps to refine the standards. We believe this canbe accomplished by a small team of teachers and scholars who are well versed in all fivesocial studies fields, who are focused on what is most important for citizen education andwho possess a shared regard for the limited instruction time that schools have. It will
require some tough choices, but a clearer, more manageable set of standards will greatly
benefit New Jersey educators and students for years to come.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

13

Achieve, Inc., 2004

APPENDIX: BIOGRAPHIES
EXPERT REVIEWERSROGER M. DOWNS
Roger M. Downs chairs the department of geography at The Pennsylvania State
University. He also has held positions at Johns Hopkins University, Colgate University
and the University of Washington. From 1995 to 1996, Downs was geographer-inresidence at the National Geographic Society. Prior to that, in 1994, he was the writing
coordinator for the Geography Education Standards Project, which produced Geography
for Life: The National Geography Standards. Downs has served as an expert consultant
to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), federal and state agencies,
educational publishers, the Council for Basic Education, and the National Geographic
Society.

PAUL A. GAGNON (LEAD REVIEWER)Paul A. Gagnon is professor emeritus of history and former dean of faculty at the
University of Massachusetts Boston. Gagnon is now senior research associate at Boston
University’s Center for School Improvement. He has served as a consultant, working
with classroom teachers on K–12 history and social studies standards. Gagnon also has
been a consultant to the Council for Basic Education; American Federation of Teachers;
the New Standards Project; Achieve, Inc.; the National Council for History Education;and several state departments of education, including Arizona, California, Indiana,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Vermont.
His 50-state review of state civics standards, Educating Democracy: State Standards to
Ensure a Civic Core, was sponsored by the Albert Shanker Institute of the American
Federation of Teachers (2003). During his long career, Gagnon served as chief of staff for
the Bradley Commission on History in Schools, was the executive director of the
National Council for History Education and was resident scholar at UCLA’s Center for
History in the Schools.

JESUS GARCIA
Jesus Garcia is professor of education and director of the University of Kentucky’s
Initial Certification in Secondary Education Program. As a specialist in curriculum andinstruction and a social studies educator, Garcia has focused his work on the middle andhigh school years. In 2003, he was elected president of the National Council for theSocial Studies. He is also the co-author of the middle school U.S. history textbook
America’s Past and Promise; a teacher education textbook, Field Experiences: Strategies
for Exploring Diversity in Schools; and a K–8 social studies methods textbook, Social
Studies for Children: A Guild to Basic Instruction. In addition, Garcia has been aconsultant to Riverside Publishing Company and Advanced Systems in New Hampshire.
Prior to joining the staff at the University of Kentucky, Garcia served as professor ofsocial studies education at the University of Illinois.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

14

Achieve, Inc., 2004

JOHN J. PATRICKJohn J. Patrick is director of the Social Studies Development Center and director of the
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education at Indiana University.
Patrick has served on the planning committees for the 1994 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in U.S. history, as well as in civics (1998). Patrick was thelead content consultant for the development of Indiana’s highly regarded social studies
standards in 2001. In addition, Patrick is a noted author of many books on civic
education, history and political thought, and he has traveled extensively in the former
Soviet Union as a consultant and lecturer. Since 1995, he has directed a Civitas
International Civic Education Exchange Project in that region. Patrick has been visiting
professor at the University of Sarajevo and has won the John W. Ryan award for
distinguished achievement in international programs.

SHELDON M. STERN
Sheldon M. Stern was historian at the John F. Kennedy Library at Harvard University
from 1976 to 1999. Prior to that, Stern was assistant professor of history at the Universityof Massachusetts Boston. While at the J.F.K. Library, Stern directed the American
History Project for High School Students, the Library Summer Institute for Teachers,
Elderhostel on the American Presidency and the Oral History Program. During that time,
he also directed a summer institute for the Massachusetts Department of Education on
implementing the state’s history and social science curriculum framework. He also served
the Bay State as a member of the Massachusetts Joint Commission on Educator
Preparation and helped develop the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
for history and social science. Stern’s national work includes assisting in the developmentof the national history standards for the National Council for History Education. In
addition, Stern is a prolific author. Among his most recent publications, Effective State
Standards for U.S. History: A 2003 Report Card was written for the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.

W. CHRIS STEWART
W. Chris Stewart is president and chief executive officer of Educational Dimensions,Inc., a minority-owned organization providing leadership training and support for school
districts. During Stewart’s 20-year career with District of Columbia Public Schools, she
was director of D.C.’s English Language Arts and History Curriculum Framework
Project. She also presided over the D.C. Council for the Social Studies, representing theDistrict at the Middle States Council for Social Studies, and she co-chaired the
Exemplary Programs for the National Council for the Social Studies. She also has served
as adviser to the National Council for the Social Studies, the Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, the Council for Basic Education, the National Center on
Education and the Economy, and the Council for Chief State School Officers.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

15

Achieve, Inc., 2004

T. JASON WEEDON
T. Jason Weedon joined the Washington, D.C. office in September 1999. He currently
directs several of Achieve’s trademark activities, including its National Education
Summits and policy institutes held throughout the year. In addition, he oversees theorganization’s strategic operations and communications activity.
Previously, Weedon managed Achieve’s Public Leadership Initiative and staffed
Achieve’s Benchmarking Initiative, assisting in the development of its standards andassessment alignment studies. He also provided ongoing research and analysis of key
issues in standards-based educational reform.
Prior to joining Achieve, he taught academic writing, public speaking and English as asecond language at the high school and college levels in Budapest, Hungary.
Weedon holds a master’s degree in educational leadership from the George Washington
University and a bachelor’s degree in history and English literature from the College ofWilliam and Mary.

Measuring Up — New Jersey

16

Achieve, Inc., 2004

Board of Directors, Achieve, Inc.
Co-Chairs
Arthur F. Ryan, Chairman and CEO
Prudential Financial
Governor Bob Taft
State of Ohio
Co-Vice Chairs
Governor Gary Locke
State of Washington
Kerry Killinger, Chairman, President and CEO
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Board Members
Craig R. Barrett, CEOIntel Corporation
Governor James E. McGreevey
State of New Jersey
Governor Bill Owens
State of Colorado
Governor Edward G. Rendell
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Governor Mike Rounds
State of South Dakota
Edward B. Rust, Jr., Chairman and CEO
State Farm Insurance
President
Michael Cohen
Chairman Emeritus
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.

Achieve, Inc.
www.achieve.org

1775 Eye Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 419-1540
Fax: (202) 828-0911