Education Program

Standards/Assessment/Accountability

Currently, 49 states--including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico -- have a system of statewide academic standards in place. Iowa is the one state that continues to resist statewide standards. The idea is to set clear standards for what all students in the state should know and learn. The standards should be rigorous and set high.

There are two primary types of standards. Content Standards describe the knowledge and skills that schools should teach in order for students to attain high levels of competency in challenging subject matters. In setting the standards, various national groups such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have convened their members to develop content standards for various subjects. Similar efforts have been conducted the set content standards in the arts, civics, economics, English, foreign language, geography, history, physical education, science and social studies. States may then adopt these standards for their own schools.

Student Performance Standards define various levels of competence in the challenging subject matter set out in the content standards. Performance standards refer to a level of performance that states consider to be proficient. States then assess students to measure whether they are reaching these levels of achievement.

Several organizations including Education Week and the AFT have rated state standards setting efforts. Typically these reports have looked to rigor, comprehensiveness, clarity and specificity, but both sets of rankings are controversial.

Assessment

Now that most all of the states have a system of statewide standards in place, attention is turning to the development and implementation of statewide tests to assess how well students are doing in meeting the standards. This is an important step because assessments should be carefully aligned to the standards. Developing a state assessment is costly and complex. Some states are using norm-referenced, commercially developed standardized tests while others are contracting with testing companies.

According to the AFT, 46 states have or are in the process of developing assessments aligned to state standards.

Several states which have had statewide testing in place are beginning to experience new and unexpected results. In Michigan parents have raised a ruckus over the state test after a star student who had scored a perfect score on the ACT, failed the Michigan state test. Questions have been raised about the fairness of the test, its validity, and the potential impacts on otherwise good students. Parents have begun to opt out of the test in great numbers, fearful that it will hurt their otherwise good students from college admissions.

Kentucky is in turmoil after an academic researcher evaluating Kentucky's statewide test -- KIRIS -- the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System -- suggested that it may be flawed, and that reported test increases may be erroneous. The Legislature is now examining its options -- including refining the test, dumping the test, or use another test.

The controversy illustrates the crucial need for reliable tests when they are attached to "High stakes." Where schools may get rewards or face sanctions based on test scores.

In Washington, Colorado and Maryland, the first round of test scores were released to the public this year. In all cases, scores were relatively low. Florida will report their first round of scores this Spring. State education leaders rushed to put a good spin on the results, suggesting that the bar has now been significantly raised -- and thus the low scores are not surprising. But, public concern and backlash could mean a growing uneasiness with state assessments is brewing. Many say the low test scores reflect low expectations for student performance, and new state standards raise those expectations to very high levels.

Meanwhile, debate continues in Washington, DC over the President's proposed new national voluntary assessment. After a battle in Congress, study of the testing plan received initial approval. The National Assessment Governing Board and the National Research Council are studying potential impacts and issues. The test would be voluntary in 4^th grade reading and 8^th grade mathematics. But, the environment is highly charged and it is still unlikely that national tests will see the light of day.

Accountability

Now that most states have a system of standards and assessment in place, they are now enmeshed in the accountability debate. Clear standards are set, and tests are employed to measure progress. So, how should the state respond to this information? Legislators are beginning to believe that if schools are performing well, they should be rewarded somehow -- and if they are performing poorly, the state should take active steps.

Most states now have public reporting requirements, for schools to report various performance measures to the public although they vary on comprehensiveness of information. These measures usually include test scores, attendance and drop out rates, and teacher credentials. Those in favor of such reporting believe the public has a right to compare schools like any other "consumer good" and be able to make informed decisions about how schools are doing. Those opposed worry that such rankings and ratings unfairly penalize students in the more affluent suburbs. Also, performance alone may hide significant progress made toward goals -- some suggest a better measure is the amount of gain made in schools. And, some state reporting includes a measure of gain.

The hottest issue in school accountability right now is whether states should take a over low performing schools and school districts. Twenty-two states have developed academic bankruptcy laws to intervene in schools and districts that fail to meet state educational performance standards. State low varies on several dimensions, including terminology for performance, categories of school performance, and stages for addressing low performance. Statutes allowing state takeovers, but such dramatic use of state force is controversial. Most states provide warnings to low performing schools and allow for a probation period or give several opportunities for those schools to show improvement before takeover. Some states require schools to meet an absolute goal -- i.e., state standards. Others focus on the amount of improvement that is made in school.

So far the research has not contributed much information about whether takeovers result in improved student performance. So, most states are taking a cautious approach, delaying an actual takeover for as long as possible. In Michigan, the Governor and Superintendent are taking a slow and cautious approach to school sanctions, arguing that state takeover is to be avoided wherever possible and schools are to be given maximum opportunity to succeed.

For more information, please contact: Julie.Bell@ncsl.org