Standards-based Reform Movement Research Articles

Transforming fear into rigor, love, freedom, and joy: A new paradigm of standards-based reform

In the liberatory spirit of Black scholars and honoring the pioneering work of motivation theorists dedicated to a democratic vision of education, this article calls for a new paradigm of standards-based reform. Specifically, we maintain that current standards largely reflect the interests of White, male elites and elevates the economic agenda above other important purposes of education. Moreover, we argue that the standards movement aims to motivate educators to improve the quality of teaching primarily through rewards or fear of public shaming—an approach that is unlikely to lead to a transformation of the system toward racial equity, lifelong learning, wellness, and citizenship. We call for a reframing of educational standards to also include outcomes that nurture and honor the whole human experience—a North Star rooted in the outcomes of rigor, love, freedom, and joy that can serve as a beacon for transforming education toward humanistic outcomes in a racially-divided world. This article is organized into three main sections. First, a historical review of standards-based reform movement is provided followed by an overview of the empirical research underlying the proposed North Star. Finally, we conclude with implications of this new paradigm for research, practice, and advocacy.

Promoting Access through Segregation: The Emergence of the “Prioritized Curriculum” Class

The continuously evolving standards-based reform (SBR) movement is one of the most prominent features of today's educational policy landscape. As SBR has continued to drive educational policy, local schools and districts have adopted many approaches to comply with legal mandates. This article critically examines one particular resultant phenomenon of the SBR movement—the emergence of a new track of self-contained classes called Prioritized Curriculum classes, designed to provide students with disabilities access to standards-based general education curriculum, but in a segregated class. In this article we document the emergence of such courses and critically analyze the rationales and policy loopholes that have led to their creation.

Teachers as Creative Designers in Transnationalism

The current goals of the standards-based reform environment can be limiting to teachers’ freedom and creativity. This occurs at a time when immigrant diversity transforms U.S. cities and innovative pedagogical responses are increasingly necessary. The confluence of these two processes is underexplored. Ethnography in New York City and Los Angeles demonstrated how, in classrooms serving immigrant ELs often characterized as the forgotten, neglected “margins” (hooks, 1994) three teachers responded to their transnational, multilingual contexts by developing creative practices. Case studies describe teachers as designers who enacted (a) contextually relevant curriculum making, (b) epistemically open assessment, and (c) critical languaging. It is argued that teachers who work with immigrant ELs in complex contexts are provided with opportunities to be creative designers—an opportunity currently limited by the standards-based reform movement in schools.

The public understanding of assessment in educational reform in the United States

The United States education system depends on legislation and funding at the federal, state and local levels. Public understanding of assessment therefore is important to educational reform in the USA. Educational reformers often invoke assessment information as a reason for reform, typically by citing unacceptable achievement on some measure or indicator. Recent educational reforms in the US also rely on assessment information as evidence of the effectiveness of the reform, designing some sort of accountability system into the reform. Public opinion about testing in three recent waves of US educational reform (the minimum competency movement in the 1970s, the standards-based reform movement in the 1980s and 1990s, and the No Child Left Behind era beginning in 2002) shows two themes. One is public belief in the objectivity of testing. The other is public belief in using tests data comparatively and competitively.

Reconciling an Ecological Curricular Framework Focusing on Quality of Life Outcomes with the Development and Instruction of Standards-Based Academic Goals

The emergence of the standards-based reform movement has raised a number of issues related to the design of educational programs for students with severe disabilities, and a debate has arisen that presents an “either/or” choice between the general education curriculum and an ecological curricular framework that has traditionally guided curriculum development. In this paper, the authors propose that, to adequately meet the needs of students with moderate to severe disabilities, an ecological approach focusing on quality of life outcomes must be reconciled with the development and implementation of standards-based academic curricula. To accomplish this reconciliation, the authors recommend that individualized education plan teams engage in a process that allows them to work within an ecological curricular framework to develop standards-based goals that reflect meaningful knowledge and skills that are tailored to students' individual needs and applicable to their everyday lives. They propose that quality of life goals expand beyond home, friendships, community participation, and work to include academic goals that are life enriching and promote lifelong learning that can be linked to a broader range of subject area domains in the core curriculum. In addition, they suggest instructional approaches that promote effective instruction and generalized outcomes for both academic and functional skills. Finally, they outline a number of issues that require additional reflection, discussion, and research.

Education Reform and the Political Safeguards of Federalism

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001 sparked widespread controversy over the federal government’s proper role in public education. Opponents criticized the legislation as an unprecedented federal intrusion on state and local governments’ policymaking authority. Whereas previous incarnations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) required local schools and districts to comply with detailed rules about how to spend categorical funds, federal moneys were never before made contingent on a rigorous testing and accountability regime. By requiring annual testing and tying federal funding to student outcomes, the new legislation signaled a shift in the federal government’s role vis a vis subnational governing bodies. This shift in authority led some to question whether state and local governments’ structural protections from federal overreaching are dead — at least in the field of public education. In The Political Safeguards of Federalism, Herbert Wechsler argued that because states’ rights are preserved through the legislative process, the Supreme Court need not intervene to protect states from federal regulatory intervention. The legislative process shelters state autonomy, Wechsler argued, by ensuring that federal legislation must gain the approval of the Senate, which is responsive to state interests, the House, whose congressional districts are dictated by state legislatures, and the President, who depends on states through the electoral college system. According to critics, congressional acquiescence in President George W. Bush’s drive for top-down standards-based reform (SBR) demonstrates the failure of these traditional safeguards. Beginning in the 1990s the Supreme Court stopped deferring to federal regulatory authority and began striking down legislation it deemed overly intrusive. According to the Court, national political institutions had failed to protect state interests, thus necessitating a more robust role for the judiciary in preserving the delicate balance between state and federal interests. Because federal legislators are under pressure to solve pressing national problems but are not responsible for implementation, they will inevitably pass the buck to state representatives by voting for coercive, unfunded mandates. Bipartisan support for NCLB, which brought together the likes of Representative Tom DeLay, a fierce opponent of federal intervention who once sought to eliminate the Department of Education, and liberal Democrats such as Senator Edward Kennedy, lends support to the Supreme Court’s more aggressive stance. It could be argued that federal representatives arrived at a legislative compromise without seriously considering NCLB’s impact on a broad spectrum of state and local constituents. In response to mounting criticism of Wechsler’s theory, Dean Larry Kramer has developed an alternative version of the political safeguards framework. He posits that the political party system itself protects states from federal intrusion because each party has representatives operating at multiple layers of government, all of whom are mutually dependent. According to this theory, representatives at the national level must respond to local and state concerns in exchange for political support, thus producing a natural check on federal encroachment. Dean Kramer further characterizes the proliferation of bureaucratic agencies beginning with the New Deal as an additional political safeguard of federalism. Like national political parties, regulatory agencies link federal, state, and local administrators together because the federal government relies on administrators at lower levels of government to implement policy. Dean Kramer’s revived political safeguards theory has interesting implications for the education field because of the unique role that politics and bureaucracy have played in the promulgation and implementation of federal education legislation. In this paper, I will apply Kramer’s political safeguards thesis to four educational reform movements: a New Deal Youth Program, administrative progressivism, the ESEA, and the modern standards-based reform (SBR) movement culminating in NCLB. Specifically, I will draw on educational reforms of these four periods to explore the extent to which bureaucracy and the party system can successfully mediate disputes over the division of power between local, state, and federal government. I will begin by comparing the role of bureaucracy in furthering or frustrating federalist aims in education governance under President Roosevelt’s New Deal and President Johnson’s Great Society. Then, I will consider the role of party politics in federal education reform, from progressives’ attempt to depoliticize the field to the political consensus embodied in NCLB.

Is There a de Facto National Intended Curriculum? Evidence From State Content Standards

State content standards are the backbone of the standards-based reform movement. Content standards provide teachers with a set of guidelines for what students are expected to know and be able to do, defining the intended curriculum. And although the current 50-state system of education gives each state the task of setting content standards, there has been little empirical investigation of the similarities and differences among state content standards. This analysis uses the content analysis procedures of the Council of Chief State School Officers/State Collaboratives on Assessment and State Standards to consider whether there exists a de facto national curriculum as defined in state content standards. Data from English/language arts and reading (ELAR), science, and mathematics for Grades 4, 8, and K–8 are used. Results suggest considerable variability among states in the content of content standards, particularly in individual grades, but also for the aggregated standards. Further analysis suggests that state standards are no more well aligned to national professional standards (i.e., National Science Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) than to other states’ standards. Still, there exists a small “core curriculum” across states in each content area. The level of focus of the state standards varies substantially across states, and the redundancy of the standards is such that alignment within state, across grades is often as high as alignment within grade, across states. Policy implications are briefly discussed.

Peer Supports as an Alternative to Individually Assigned Paraprofessionals in Inclusive High School Classrooms

Promoting access to the general curriculum has emerged as a central theme of the standards-based reform movement, challenging educators to identify effective strategies for supporting students with disabilities to access the numerous social and learning opportunities within general education. We examined peer support interventions as an alternative to one-to-one, adult-delivered support in high school science and art classrooms. All four participants with severe disabilities engaged in substantially more peer interactions when working with a peer support relative to when receiving direct support from a paraprofessional or special educator. Students' levels of academic engagement were not diminished because of participation in peer support arrangements. We discuss the contributions of these strategies to promoting peer interaction within inclusive classrooms, as well as offer recommendations for further refinement of this intervention approach.

Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Strategy Instruction on the Written IEP Goal Articulation and Paragraph-Writing Skills of Middle School Students With Disabilities

The current standards-based reform movement, which emphasizes teaching academic skills to all students, holds promise for students with disabilities. However, there is concern that this movement's sole focus on academic skills will leave less room for teaching self-determination skills. One possible solution is to identify interventions that can teach self-determination and academic skills simultaneously. This study investigated the effects of such an intervention (i.e., GO 4 IT . . . NOW!) with 12 middle school students with high-incidence disabilities. The findings showed a functional relationship between the instruction and (a) students' abilities to articulate Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals in writing and (b) paragraph-writing skills in students' IEP goal paragraphs.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Evidence and Decision Making

Much of the methodological literature currently influential in the education policy community has focused on research studies and assessments intended to support generalizable conclusions about “what works” or what students “know and can do.” Until recently, far less attention has been paid to how educators actually interpret and use this information in making routine decisions in their local contexts of work; to what kinds of evidence may be needed to support those decisions; to the social structures, organizational routines, and patterns of interaction that shape the ways in which information is interpreted and used; or to how these practices might be improved to better support learning. As Phillips (this volume) notes, “the complex relation between evidence and generalizations, and particularly between evidence and courses of action, tends to be oversimplified” (p. 377). The standards-based reform movement, with its emphasis on performance-based accountability, has further focused attention on a particular source of evidence—standardized tests of student achievement— and a “theory of action” for how this information would function within the system. As framed by Elmore and Rothman (1999), following the 1994 reauthorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):

Mayoral Leadership in Education: Current Trends and Future Directions: Mayors and Public Education: The Case for Greater Involvement

Over the last generation, a new politics of education has evolved throughout the United States. Since the 1983 watershed report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), the country’s most influential business and political leaders — and, more recently, mayors — have spearheaded efforts to improve student achievement in America’s schools in unprecedented ways. Their concerns about the quality of education have been predicated on widespread apprehension that if its schools remained mediocre, the nation will be unable to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy (Friedman, 2005). The demands of political and business leaders for greater accountability in public education have been sustained for more than two decades and show little sign of abatement. Indeed, the standards-based reform movement has spread on a bipartisan basis to virtually every state in the country. Nowadays, every governor seeks to be an “education governor,” and our most recent presidents have sought to expand the influence of the federal government in the traditionally local sphere of public education. Ironically, through the No Child Left Behind Act, President George W. Bush — an avowed “compassionate conservative” — has expanded the influence of the federal government in a manner inconsistent with traditional Republican ideological opposition to centralized big government. This has been the case in particular in the field of education, which historically has been under the purview of state and local authorities (Usdan, 2005). Throughout the twentieth century, presidents, governors, and mayors have played subordinate and relatively passive roles in shaping educational policy. Professional educators in state education departments, local school boards

Standards, Accountability, and School Reform

The standards-based reform movement has led to increased emphasis on tests, coupled with rewards and sanctions, as the basis for “accountability” systems. These strategies have often had unintended consequences that undermine access to education for low-achieving students rather than enhancing it. This article argues that testing is information for an accountability system; it is not the system itself. More successful outcomes have been secured in states and districts, described here, that have focused on broader notions of accountability, including investments in teacher knowledge and skill, organization of schools to support teacher and student learning, and systems of assessment that drive curriculum reform and teaching improvements.

Standards, Accountability, and School Reform

The standards-based reform movement has led to increased emphasis on tests, coupled with rewards and sanctions, as the basis for “accountability” systems. These strategies have often had unintended consequences that undermine access to education for low-achieving students rather than enhancing it. This article argues that testing is information for an accountability system; it is not the system itself. More successful outcomes have been secured in states and districts, described here, that have focused on broader notions of accountability, including investments in teacher knowledge and skill, organization of schools to support teacher and student learning, and systems of assessment that drive curriculum reform and teaching improvements.

Preparing Youths with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders for Transition to Adult Life: Can it be done within the Standards-Based Reform Movement?

This article identifies (a) what we know about youths with emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) and what works in preparing them for the transition to adult life; (b) the key features of No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and (c) recommendations for working within the requirements of this legislation to promote the successful transition of youths with E/BD to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education. Recommendations address the need to (a) use transition planning as a framework for developing the content and performance components of standards-based education and (b) ensure that preparation for employment and other areas of adult life are infused in the general education curriculum and in the standards-based reform movement.

Adolescent needs, curriculum and the Eight-Year Study

This paper explores the concept of needs as a basis for curriculum development through the deliberations of the US educators associated with the Progressive Education Association's Commission on the Secondary School Curriculum of the Eight-Year Study (1933-1941). Noting how divergent views of 'needs' influenced American educational thought from the 1930s to the life-adjustment movement of the late 1940s and 1950s, the importance of social philosophy is underscored as a pre-requisite for curriculum development and criticize the current standards-based reform movement in US education for the lack of concern with both student needs and social theory.

Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement

In this article, Jennifer O'Day builds on her earlier work defining and examining the standards-based reform movement in the United States. Here, O'Day explores accountability mechanisms currently associated with standards-based reform efforts that "take the school as the unit of accountability and seek to improve student learning by improving the functioning of the school organization." She examines such accountability mechanisms using the theoretical framework of complexity theory and focuses on how information travels through complex systems, with the understanding that information, its existence and usage, is key to improving schools. Drawing on work conducted with researchers at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education(CPRE), she contrasts the Chicago Public Schools' outcomes-based bureaucratic accountability approach with the combination of administrative and professional accountability found in the Baltimore City Schools. She argues that the combination of administrative and professional accountability presents a much more promising approach for implementing lasting and meaningful school reform.

Standards and Accountability in Washington State

In the early 1990s, Washington State was in the vanguard of the standards movement. Democratic governor Booth Gardner and leaders of the Washington Roundtable?a coalition of business leaders? agreed to press for a comprehensive statewide education reform package modeled after Kentucky's. David Hornbeck, who drafted the Kentucky con sent decree that started the standards-based reform movement, advised on drafting of the state's reform bill. An omnibus reform package was passed in early 1993. By 1994, the National Business Roundtable rated Washington as one of four states that had enacted the most complete standards-based reform program. Washington political and business leaders intended to transform public education from a bureaucracy controlled by mandates and enforced compli ance into a performance-based system. They envisioned standards-based reform as a rational approach to improving public education. They sought to set standards that define what children need to know and be able to do, develop measurement systems to test performance against those standards, help schools find and use methods of instruction effective enough to allow them to meet the standards, give schools the freedom of action necessary to adjust their methods of instruction to meet student needs, and reward schools that meet standards and punish those that do not. Like proponents of standards-based reform in other states, Washington State policy and business leaders assumed that establishment of a perfor mance-based system would change the behavior of teachers, parents, school administrators, and students.1 Teachers and parents, informed by the stan 199

Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools and Students who Don't Fit Them

There have always been students who do not meet the educational expectations of their time—students outside the mainstream mold who do not fit dominant notions of success. The differences between schools and these students can be thought of as a “mismatch” between the structure of schools and the social, cultural, or economic backgrounds of students identified as problems. In this essay we examine the history of these students who have not been able to do what educators wanted them to do. We look at how educators have labeled poor school performers in different periods and how these labels reflected both attitudes and institutional conditions. We then summarize four major historical explanations for why children fail in school—individual deficits or incompetence, families, inefficiency in schools, and cultural difference. Finally, we explore what implications this history has for students in the current standards-based reform movement, including implications for social promotion and the age-graded school. To avoid a mismatch in the standards movement, we argue that educators should focus on adapting the school better to the child, addressing social inequalities that extend beyond the classroom, and undertaking comprehensive changes that take no features of current schools for granted.

Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools and Students who Don't Fit Them

There have always been students who do not meet the educational expectations of their time—students outside the mainstream mold who do not fit dominant notions of success. The differences between schools and these students can be thought of as a “mismatch” between the structure of schools and the social, cultural, or economic backgrounds of students identified as problems. In this essay we examine the history of these students who have not been able to do what educators wanted them to do. We look at how educators have labeled poor school performers in different periods and how these labels reflected both attitudes and institutional conditions. We then summarize four major historical explanations for why children fail in school—individual deficits or incompetence, families, inefficiency in schools, and cultural difference. Finally, we explore what implications this history has for students in the current standards-based reform movement, including implications for social promotion and the age-graded school. To avoid a mismatch in the standards movement, we argue that educators should focus on adapting the school better to the child, addressing social inequalities that extend beyond the classroom, and undertaking comprehensive changes that take no features of current schools for granted.

The TAAS Case: A Recapitulation and Beyond

The authors organize this article around five areas of discussion: First is a recapitulation of the major issues germane to the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills case. Next, the authors discuss the second wave of standards-based school reform in Texas, embodied in Senate Bill 4, pending legislation that would eliminate social promotion and institutionalize retention at several promotional gates for students who fail the state-mandated achievement test. The third section discusses a development at the federal level that could have profound effect on limiting the use of high-stakes tests in standards-based school reform movement in the United States. The fourth part, addressed to psychometricians and policy makers, reviews some of the lessons learned about state-mandated testing from the TAAS case. The final section speculates on what the real agenda for the TAAS may be in terms of maintaining the general social and economic value of the high school diploma at the expense of nondominant racial/ethnic students.