In a few short years, the idea that the United States ought to have national standards for what students learn has emerged as one of the most widely discussed options for improving the U.S. education system. In a sign of growing American concern with education as a national issue, the standards movement has won over a significant number of supporters—among them President Bill Clinton and a surprising number of prominent educators.
In the course of its meteoric rise on the education agenda, scenarios that once seemed implausible have become almost commonplace. Until recently, could anyone have foreseen that specialists in the myriad scientific disciplines would attempt to set aside their parochial interests to agree on a core of knowledge and skills that all students—not just the high achievers—should be taught? Or that experts in social studies, a field torn by divisions over issues such as multiculturalism and global education, would attempt to do the same? For that matter, who would have imagined a politician jetting around the country making speeches in support of a curriculum report, as Colorado Governor Roy Romer has done tirelessly in the past two years, waving a battered copy of curriculum standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)?
Yet that's precisely what is occurring, as experts in nearly every subject of the curriculum scramble to become part of the standards conversation (see box titled “National Standards: Who's Doing What”). Within the next decade, proponents believe, national standards describing essential outcomes in various school subjects could become the glue holding together many pieces of the education system—curriculum frameworks and guides, textbook adoption, staff development, and, perhaps most significantly, assessment—at the local, state, and national level. Already, more than 40 states have begun to revise their curriculum frameworks to reflect the mathematics standards, for example, and a privately funded project will draw upon the emerging content standards in establishing a first-of-its-kind system of national student exams (see “Assessment as the Catalyst of School Reform,” p. 11).
National Standards: Who's Doing What
Although the call for national standards for what students know and can do seems fairly clear, the details of developing such standards are considerably more murky. As educators in the various subjects areas have embarked on their standard-setting ventures, they have not followed parallel paths.
First, the similarities among the projects. All of them intend to spell out—in some form—the type of knowledge and skills that all students should attain as a result of their schooling. They all feature a consensus-based process to shape their recommendations. A broad range of stakeholders are represented on the standard-setting panels, and drafts of the standards go through several iterations of comment and review.
Important differences among the projects are apparent, however. While the mathematics community delineated 40 curriculum standards for grades K–12, other standards-efforts, such as history, seem destined to include far more. The specificity of curriculum standards is likely to vary considerably among the various efforts. Too much detail—or too little—could ensure a cold reception.
The presence or absence of student performance standards marks another distinction among the efforts, as does the issue of whether to set one or more performance levels. The projects must confront the questions of whether one performance standard will become a minimum competency and whether multiple performance targets might reinforce low expectations and tracking.
While some projects will yield linked standards for curriculum, teaching, and assessment, others are focusing only on curriculum.
Finally, some, but not all, of the projects have been graced with federal grants (by such agencies as the U.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, or the National Endowment for the Humanities). Others rely on foundation money and membership dues to fund their efforts.
The chart illustrates the major ongoing efforts to establish national standards.
Can National Standards Make a Difference? - table
Current Status | Standard Setters | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Social Studies: Efforts to set standards for the social studies began with history and geography, two of the five subjects singled out in the National Education Goals issued in 1989. More recently, efforts have been launched to establish standards in civics and in social studies broadly. Here's where things stand: | History: National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California-Los Angeles is the lead group, with 30 other groups as partners. Contact: National Center for History in the Schools, UCLA, 231 Moore Hall, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024. | Content and student performance standards will be established. A draft version of the standards was issued last fall; a finished product is expected in late 1993. |
| Geography: The National Council of Geographic Education is the lead group, in coordination with leading geography groups. Contact: Geography Standards Project, 1600 M St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. | Content standards and performance standards are being drafted. The finished product is expected late this year. | |
| Civics: The Center for Civic Education is overseeing the effort, in cooperation with the National Council for the Social Studies. Contact: Center for Civic Education, 5146 Douglas Fir Rd., Calabasas, CA 91302. | A draft of the standards is expected this year, and a final version is anticipated in 1994. | |
| Social Studies: National Council for the Social Studies, through its National Task Force for Social Studies Standards. Contact: NCSS, 3501 Newark St., N.W., Washington, DC 20016. | Aims to establish standards for the social studies broadly, emphasizing the social studies as an integrative field. Will include content and performance standards and sample assessment tasks and vignettes. Standards are expected to be ready late this year. | |
| English: Partners are currently working on a prospectus and framework for the project. The finished product will include specific standards for teaching and learning and classroom vignettes illustrating their application. | Three groups—the National Council of Teachers of English, the International Reading Association, and the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign—are coordinating the Standards Project for the English Language Arts. Contact: Center for the Study of Reading, 174 Children's Research Center, 51 Gerty Dr., Champaign, IL 61820. | The final standards document is expected in late 1994 or 1995. |
| Mathematics: Mathematics educators are ahead of the curve: consensus standards for what math students should learn and how it should be taught have already been published. Efforts are now under way to create assessment standards. | National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Contact: NCTM, 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091. | Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics published in 1989. Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics issued in 1991. Assessment standards are expected in 1994–95. |
| Science: Standards are being drafted in the areas of curriculum, teaching, and assessment. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, coordinated by the National Research Council. Numerous major science groups are represented in the effort. | Contact: National Science Education Standards, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., HA 486, Washington, DC 20418. | Draft standards are expected early this year, and a complete set of standards is anticipated in late 1994. |
| The Arts: Left out of the National Education Goals, the arts launched a public relations blitz that led to a belated grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Standards are being established for art, music, dance, and theatre. | A National Oversight Committee for Standards in the Arts will set the standards. The Music Educators National Conference is coordinating the effort with the American Alliance for Theatre and Education, the National Art Education Association, and the National Dance Association. Contact: MENC, 1902 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091. | A draft version of the standards is expected this year and a final document in 1994. |
| Physical Education: Although the field did not launch its effort with the express purpose of defining standards for content and performance, physical education experts have covered similar terrain. Last year, the National Association for Sports and Physical Education issued a statement of outcomes of quality physical education programs. | Contact: National Association for Sports and Physical Education, 1900 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091. | Outcomes of Quality Physical Education Programs issued in 1992. It spells out characteristics of physically educated students, desirable student outcomes, and benchmarks. |
Confusion over Terms
Although the idea of national standards for American education has attracted considerable attention, it is still not altogether clear what is meant by the term “standards,” let alone what a system of national standards would look like in practice.
In the national discussions regarding standards over the past few years, for example, standards have been defined, variously, as “what students need to know and be able to do,” the essential core knowledge in a particular subject area, a passing score on an assessment, or a model demonstration worthy of emulation (much as an expert figure skater or diver “sets” the standard). Some uses of the term “standards” address the content of schooling, while other uses suggest the need for some form of assessment of whether students are learning that content.
- National standards should be developed that include content standards (what students should know and be able to do), student performance standards (the level(s) of student competence in the content), and system performance standards (to assess the success of schools, districts, states, and the nation as a whole in helping all students attain high performance standards). In addition, the Council said that states should develop school delivery standards to judge whether schools are providing students with the opportunity to attain these high standards.
- A national assessment system linked to these standards should be developed. The assessment system would feature two components: large-scale sampling assessments, which would be provided by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and other assessments capable of producing results for individual students. In other words, no single national test would be created, but multiple assessments would be linked to common national standards to provide a complete portrait.
- The National Education Goals Panel would appoint members to a new group, called the National Education Standards and Assessments Council. The Council would establish guidelines and, jointly with the Goals Panel, would certify content and student performance standards and criteria for assessments linked to those standards.
Needed: Standards for Delivery
In Standards of Practice for Learner-Centered Schools, Linda Darling-Hammond reasons that tougher achievement standards will not lead to better schools unless “delivery standards” and “standards for practice” receive equal attention. “Outcome” standards alone can result in the misuse of test scores and other measures to determine high-stakes consequences for students (decisions about tracking, promotion, or graduation) and for schools. The result can be school practices that may be damaging to less advantaged students, who are likely to be excluded from programs seeking to maintain high test scores. In the end, accountability can actually be undermined.
In contrast, standards for professional practice would ensure the responsible treatment of children, equal access to educational opportunities, and use of the best available knowledge to develop appropriate strategies for teaching each child. In delineating 12 standards, Darling-Hammond describes the commitments, processes, and resources that are essential for learner-centered schools.
To obtain a copy of the booklet, contact the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Box 110, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, (212) 678-3432. Fax. (212) 678-4170. All orders must be prepaid by check/money order payable to NCREST.
Legislation in Congress to adopt the Council's recommendations last year fell victim to partisan bickering, but the new partnership between the White House and Capitol Hill is likely to yield some legislation this year addressing the establishment of a national system of standards and exams.
Questions Raised
- Is it really possible to create standards that apply equally to all students?Those establishing national standards (and their supporters at the policy level) are struggling with some basic questions of expectations and rigor. With all the variability among students' opportunity to learn, their motivation and interests, and other factors, is it really possible to design a challenging set of content standards appropriate for all pupils, including those with language or other special needs? Even if all children were to have access to a curriculum defined by high content standards, wouldn't their achievement in that curriculum (measured against performance standards) be varied?All of the efforts to establish national standards in various subject areas at this point affirm the goal that all students should be expected to master a core set of content standards. On the matter of student performance standards, the current projects diverge. The standards efforts in history and science, for example, appear to have settled on one performance standard for all students, under the assumption that multiple standards would encourage differential expectations and tracking. Most of the other standards efforts, opting to acknowledge that some students will develop more specialized expertise in a particular content area, favor two or more levels of performance standards.Attempting to help all students attain higher standards is an unprecedented venture for American education. So it remains to be seen if the isolated examples of Jaime Escalante and others can become more widespread.
- What will be done to build schools' capacity to help all students attain these higher standards?Critics of national standards frequently warn that if a national system of standards and assessments is created before basic inequalities among schools are addressed, students will be the ones paying the price. At present, issues such as class size, outmoded facilities, and inequitable school financing are on the back burner as some race ahead with a plan to establish standards and tests. “That's the wrong sequence,” Coalition of Essential Schools architect Ted Sizer has warned. “We will end up proving once again that poor kids don't score as well as rich kids.”The most hotly debated issue before the National Council on Education Standards and Testing was whether districts, states, and the nation as a whole would be accountable for providing educators with the necessary resources to help students reach the new higher standards. The panel's Republicans, in particular, worried that national guidance on school “inputs” would be intrusive and, more to the point, might appear to commit the federal government to giving more resources to schools.In a political compromise, the panel decided that the criteria for whether schools were equipped to help students attain higher standards—the so-called “school delivery standards”—would be developed by the states collectively, with individual states choosing among the criteria it found useful. That decision has contributed to the feeling among some educators that policymakers are more committed to holding schools accountable than to helping change the conditions to allow students to meet higher standards.
- What kind of tests will be used to measure whether students have attained the new standards?The proliferation of standardized tests, many assessing low-level skills, is considered a primary cause of the curriculum's focus on the basics. But many worry that the exams that will be used to measure how well students do on new content standards will be little different from exams currently in use. That argument intensified when former President George Bush (in America 2000) and others called for national exams by 1993—which would just about guarantee that the new tests would be very similar to the ones now criticized for pushing classroom instruction in the wrong direction. Although the chorus for tests right away has died down, the newer performance assessments being touted as capable of leveraging positive changes in instruction have raised feasibility questions of their own.Many critics are concerned that it's premature to construct an examination system designed for the high-stakes uses ultimately planned for that system, such as judgments about the success or failure of individual students or schools. After examining some of the issues surrounding a proposed examination system linked to national standards, the Office of Technology Assessment last year warned against putting an exam system in place before some of these important issues are resolved. An exam system rushed into place too quickly “could easily become a barrier to many of the educational reforms that have been set into motion, and [it] could become the next object of concern and frustration within the American school system.”
The Mathematics Example
Perhaps the most important question being raised regarding the standards movement is: will it make any difference?
Although it is still too early to evaluate its impact, the effort to set standards in mathematics provides an interesting case in point. Time and again over the past two years, leading educators and politicians supporting national standards have cited the mathematics standards as proof of the feasibility of their ideas.
It's no surprise that the mathematics field was the first discipline out of the gates when it launched its standard-setting effort in 1986. For better or worse, mathematicians seem better able to arrive at a professional consensus about what all students ought to know than, say, English or history educators. And unlike other subjects, math is clearly emphasized across grades K–12.
In short, if national standards are the linchpin to better teaching and learning, evidence of their impact is likely to be felt in mathematics, if anywhere.
During the three years preceding the publication of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics in 1989, the standards went through several drafts, with hundreds of mathematics educators suggesting revisions or commenting on them. The NCTM has spent millions of dollars of its own money to develop the standards and support their implementation.
Yet, despite the considerable efforts of NCTM and other mathematics groups, the impact of the standards has been mixed.
On the positive side, many states are revising their curriculum frameworks to reflect the standards, and some of the new performance assessments being tried in states like California and Vermont stress open-ended problems that call on students to discuss their reasoning, in accordance with NCTM's guidance.
Still, it remains to be seen whether classroom teachers broadly begin to teach in ways consistent with the math standards. A survey conducted for the NCTM in late 1991 found that only about 22 percent of teachers in grades K–4, 31 percent of teachers of grades 5–8, and 48 percent of teachers of grades 9–12 say they are “well aware” of the NCTM standards. Although it's possible that some math teachers may be teaching in ways congruent with the standards without being aware of their existence, it's also true that it takes much more than being aware of the standards to revise one's teaching of math in the directions the standards imply.
NCTM is planning to better monitor the impact of the standards, but it does not underestimate the array of changes needed to improve math programs nationwide to better reflect the consensus professional vision. “We still have a good long way to go,” says Mary Lindquist, NCTM's president. “We look at this as long-term change—we didn't expect an impact overnight.”
The mathematics field's experience with standards, it seems, suggests that proponents should be cautious in their hope that standards can help to spur widespread improvement in teaching and learning. With the many changes necessary to boost student achievement—including better textbooks, improved staff development, and so on—the establishment of standards is only one piece, albeit an important one. Jeremy Kilpatrick of the University of Georgia, an observer of the effort to set standards in math, notes that any progress on changing American schools to better reflect higher standards is likely to result from persistent effort over time. “How do you get radical change?” he asks. “I guess the answer is, you don't—you get cumulative change.”
