State Standards for Accountability
Setting appropriate goals, in the form of standards, to measure the academic achievement of students is the first step in creating a strong school accountability system. Effective standards are clear, rigorous and aligned.
Academic standards need to clearly define what students should know and be able to do in core subjects at each grade level. They consist of content standards, which describe the body of education knowledge that all students should know (what they should know), and performance standards, which describe the level of student knowledge (how well they know it). Performance standards typically use defined levels, such as advanced, proficient, basic, or below basic, to measure student achievement. Together, content and performance standards define what students should know at different grade levels and measure student progress at meeting these goals.
Setting challenging goals is another important aspect of an effective standards-based accountability system. Standards must be rigorous enough to challenge students to learn difficult material without being too rigorous that they discourage students or are unachievable. Setting low standards can make students appear as though they are achieving high levels, but they do not motivate children to reach their full potential. Setting high standards challenges students to achieve more. But, if standards are set so high that they are unachievable by most students, the state or school may appear to be failing to educate its children adequately. States have very different levels of standards for student achievement. It is important to keep that in mind when trying to compare the student achievement levels of one state to another. The disparity between state standards makes it difficult, if not impossible, to compare state achievement levels.
Key Terms
Standards-Subject-matter benchmarks to measure students' academic achievement. Curriculum standards drive what students learn in the classroom. Most agree that public schools' academic standards need to be raised. However, there is national debate over how to implement such standards, how prescriptive they should be, and whether they should be national or local, voluntary or mandatory.
Provided by Education Week.
Alignment between state standards and the curriculum is necessary for a standards-based accountability system to work properly. A key concern of policymakers is how to ensure that the material being covered in the classroom is helping students meet the goals set by the state. The Council of State School Officers (CCSSO) has published a report, Models of Alignment Analysis and Assistance to States, which offers state leaders assistance in measuring how well their state has aligned its education system. Without alignment, the components of a standards-based education system operate independently and the system lacks cohesion.
The emphasis on standards is a trend sweeping across the country, with states adopting policies regarding what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level. There remains however, great disparities between state standards. Making Standards Matter 2001, a report published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), tracks state efforts to institute a standards-based education system and rates current state standards. It finds that over the past two years, 44 states have developed standards or made improvements to existing standards. All states, exceptRhode Island, now have standards in the four core subject areas-English, mathematics, social studies, and science-at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Rhode Island does not have social studies standards, but it has established the other standards at the three education levels. Furthermore, 30 states, eight more than in 1999, now meet the AFT criterion for strong standards.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation also publishes a report rating the quality of state standards. In the State of State Standards 2000, states receive an average grade of C- for 2000, up from a D+ in 1998. They argue that states have become more serious about their responsibility to identify essential knowledge and skills; however, a majority of states hold "mediocre" expectations for their students.
The greatest challenge facing states is not in the development of state standards, but in the implementation. Many educators and policymakers are questioning if our schools have the capacity to successfully integrate standards into the classroom. Two specific concerns are whether our teachers are receiving the professional development to help facilitate this integration, and if there is sufficient instructional time to teach standards without compromising other important aspects of the curriculum.
Some states have taken extra steps to help address these issues. For example, the Virginia state department of education is asking all 87,000 public school teachers in the state how they believe their schools are handling the Standards of Learning program, which incorporates statewide standards, assessments and a system of accreditation for schools and districts. The on-line survey will ask teachers about their teaching method, whether there is sufficient classroom instructional time and if they believe they are receiving quality staff development. State officials hope the survey will provide information about how the standards are being implemented and the usefulness of the professional development. The results from the survey will be part of an indicator of school performance on the annual school report card.
Proponents of standards argue that clear and specific standards can help to guarantee that all children, regardless of background or socioeconomic status, receive a rigorous academic curriculum. Standards alone however, will not ensure a standards-based accountability system. States will have to further develop a curriculum to support their standards, implement high-quality assessment indicators, align tests to state standards, and provide additional resources to assist students who fail to meet state expectations.
|