![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
As Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy states, "When everyone needed to reach high levels for the first time in American history, we discovered that we had never come to any consensus on what the students needed to achieve." (The State of Standards, 1998, p. 3) Standards define the goal of what every children should know and be able to do. They provide the target on which all other efforts and structures should be focused.
States are increasingly concentrating on developing and defining challenging standards. In 1994, only 16 States had completed content standards in the four core academic areas--English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies (State Baselines for Goals 2000 Implementation, CCSSO, April 1994); by 1996, that number had increased to 26 (States' Status on Standards, June 1996). Today 36 States have established content standards in the core areas (math, English/language arts, social studies, and science). The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reports that 49 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico "have or will have common academic standards for their students" (not always exclusively in the core subjects for many States). In addition, 39 States have developed or revised their standards since 1996, demonstrating their recognition that standards development is an ongoing process. (Making Standards Matter, 1997, p. 13.)
| Colorado "has adopted well-regarded model standards for what students should learn in six academic subjects. Local school districts must meet or exceed the model state standards. And they must revise their curricula, instruction, tests, and continuing education for teachers to reflect the standards." (Education Week, January 22, 1997, pp. 13-14.) |
In its 1997 report, the AFT indicated that the quality of State standards had improved since the 1996 report. Fourteen States produced stronger standards, 8 were cited for great improvement (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, West Virginia), and most States (29) were described as having clear, specific, and content-focused standards in at least 3 core areas. The AFT affirmed the value of strong standards driving all elements of reform, particularly assessment. For the first time, teachers, students, and parents understand and agree on what it is they are working to achieve.
Clear, focused content standards guide local curriculum development and help supply meaningful information about best practice to teachers and parents. Yet standards alone will not bring about the major improvements in student performance and school quality that are needed. (The Progress of Education Reform: 1996, p. 10.) Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch write, "... the content standard is necessary but insufficient as a basis for education reform. Only when student performance standards are specified do we have actionable education standards." (Finn and Ravitch, "Education Reform 1995-1996," Part II, 1.)
Performance standards clearly define what student work should look like at different stages of academic progress and for diverse learners. They describe how good is good enough in reaching the content standard.
In 1996, 19 States reported having performance standards or achievement levels on assessments that referenced their standards, while 15 others said they were in development. (CCSSO, States' Status on Standards: 1996 Update, June 1996.) Seventeen States and Puerto Rico have developed performance standards--with three defined levels of proficiency--through a process approved by Title I; the remaining States are currently working to complete performance standards. Goals 2000, Title I, and several other federal education programs continue to provide support for development of performance standards, largely by linking experts from across the country to share their knowledge and experience concerning this relatively new field.
| "Most state-assessment programs are not actually set up to support high-quality student learning." For the movement to hold all students to high academic standards, "tests have to improve," said Monty Neil, Associate Director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (NCFT). "Still, about one-third of the states 'are making pretty good progress. Ten years ago,' Mr Neil said 'we might not have found any.'" (Education Week, September 3, 1997.) |
One of the most common approaches to providing the information necessary to track and inform progress is the process for developing and implementing valid, nondiscriminatory, and reliable State assessments (Sec. 306 (c)(1)(B)) that are aligned to State standards, involve multiple measures of student performance, and include all students. Goals 2000 plays an integral role in the development, alignment, and implementation of both State and local assessments of student performance.
With the ongoing support of Goals 2000, States are designing assessment systems to serve multiple needs: to support the improvement of teaching and learning; to inform the public; and to influence education policy.
Connecticut State Education Commissioner Theodore Sergi describes the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) as "an important tool for improvement. It is the first high school test that assesses students' ability to apply academic skills and knowledge in a real-life context and that requires students to combine skills and use them across all subject areas .... We hope that these test results will encourage local educators at all grade levels to continue to review their curriculum and instructional practices with an eye toward invigorating teaching and learning. We also hope that parents and students will talk about academic achievement in relation to the scores and make plans to work together on improving performance." (CDoE, News Release, 10/20/97.)
| Vermont is often considered a pioneer for its work in portfolio assessment. Each year since 1990, schools participating in the assessment "must submit a selection of work in writing and mathematics for each 7th and 8th grader. And each summer, hundreds of teachers from across the state have scored the portfolios." Although voluntary, more than 90% of schools take part in the Vermont portfolio review, which serves not only to assess progress but to improve both teaching and learning. "A 1994 RAND Corp. Study suggested that portfolios had brought about significant changes for the better in teaching practices." (Education Week, January 8, 1998, p. 221.) |
Though 45 States report using a State-wide assessment (Profile of 1994-95 State Assessment Systems and Reported Results, National Education Goals Panel), "just under half the States reported that they were administering assessments aligned with content standards in reading/language arts [22 States] and mathematics [21 States]." (Living in Interesting Times, p. 44.) However, "[an additional] eight States expect to have assessments aligned with content standards by 1998"--another four by 1999, six by 2000, and five after 2000. (Living in Interesting Times, A-2.) Consistent with Title I requirements, all States are expected to have valid, reliable, and aligned assessments by 2000-01.
| Teachers in Sarasota County, Florida have used Goals 2000 support to develop and publish The Teacher's Guide to Student Progress, a guide to using authentic assessments in evaluating student performance to the Sunshine Standards in math and language arts. The district is also developing model lesson plans that demonstrate approaches to effectively integrating assessments into classroom practice. The products will be posted on the district's web-site to support improved teaching throughout Sarasota |
Most State assessment programs exclude--in some manner--children in both of those categories. States offer little data on the numbers or percentages of students excluded from assessments or rationale for their exclusion. Similarly, guidelines and criteria for the inclusion of particular students are inconsistent across and within States. "Many elements of the implementation of standards for special needs students have not yet been addressed or, if they have been considered, are not well developed." In most cases, "these issues were left to districts and schools, whose staff in general were more focused on how to make the standards work for ... [the majority of] all students." (CPRE, "Persistence and Change," p. 50.)
There are some notable exceptions. In Kentucky, Nebraska, and Vermont, special educators participated on committees that developed content standards and/or curriculum frameworks. In Missouri, special educators, working at the State level, developed teaching tools to show how performance standards could be applied to students who have cognitive disabilities; and in Colorado, "general and special educators are looking together at ways to assist students with diverse needs to meet new State and district standards." (Fraser, 1996, p. 19.) In a few States--Kentucky, New Jersey, and Vermont--special educators are involved in developing assessments. (Fraser, 1996, p. 20.) Similarly, such States as Texas and Massachusetts are developing State-wide assessments in languages other than English, and still others are considering ways to validate their tests for LEP students.
| With Goals 2000 support in both 1995-96 and 1996-97, Delaware's Brandywine School District has been able to focus on bringing reform to the classroom by developing curriculum guides aligned to the standards and demonstrating lessons in mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social studies. One of the State's four largest districts, Brandywine has seen an annual increase in the percentage of students reaching the standards. (Education Week, January 8, 1998, p.221.) |
Yet some States and districts are showing demonstrable improvements in student achievement linked to standards. In 1995, districts implementing reform in Maryland saw increases in the number of schools approaching or meeting the State's 3rd-grade math standards, up to nearly 300 from 113 schools in 1993.
In Kentucky "student achievement in reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies ... increased by 19% between 1992 and 1994 .... About 95% of schools raised the level of student performance, 38% of them improving enough to earn rewards." (The Progress of Education, 1996, p. 17.)
In Delaware, average student scores increased on the writing assessment given to students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. According to the State education department, "The 5th graders showed the greatest improvements; 40 percent scored at or above 3.0 [on a scale of 1 to 4, with 3 representing "good, solid writing"], up from 20 percent in 1996." As Governor Carper said, the scores "signify that we're on the right track." (Education Week, January 8, 1998, p. 124.)
In Kansas, Goals 2000 is supporting local implementation of the Kansas Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA) process. By last year, with the standards completed, Kansas "had amassed two to three years' worth of test results that showed students were slowly progressing toward meeting them." (Quality Counts, Education Week, January 8, 1998, p. 158.) Across grades 3 and 7, the average percent of correct answers on both the Kansas math and writing assessments consistently increased between 1995 to 1997.
In addition, seven States--Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia--have been recognized by Education Week for achieving "significant gains between 1992 and 1996 in the percent of their 4th graders who scored at the 'proficient' level or above on the math portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress." (Education Week, January 8, 1998, p. 6.)
| Although Connecticut's urban students are still performing below the state average, 1997 test scores show that they have improved in the past two years. The State's "four largest urban districts registered improvements in average scores, percentages of students achieving at goal level, or both." (CDoE, press release, October 1997, p. 4) Hartford has the highest numbers of welfare recipients, single-parent families, and non-English-speaking households in the State. However, its students, who are the poorest and traditionally the lowest scorers on State assessments, are increasing their average scores on all tests. |
The greatest challenge is to improve the academic performance of the lowest-achieving and most disadvantaged students. Forty-three percent of minority children attend urban schools and most often where more than half the students are poor and predominantly minority.
Low expectations and limited support systems have meant that "in about half the States with large cities, a majority of urban students fail to meet even minimum standards on national tests," and that "urban students are far less likely to graduate on time than nonurban students." (Education Week, January 8, 1998, p. 6.) Standards-driven change is designed to help guard against the self-fulfilling prophecy of low achievement that low standards produce. In a few States and districts there have been some signs of progress in closing the achievement gap.
| ||||
For example, Texas reported student performance improvements for all groups on its 1996 4th grade assessment over the last three years, demonstrating Texas' progress in closing the achievement gap. (Texas, Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997.)
Each State improvement plan shall establish strategies for improved governance, accountability and management of the State's education system, such as -- (1) aligning responsibility, authority, and accountability throughout the education system, so that decisions regarding the means for achieving State content standards and State student performance standards are made closest to the learners ... (Title III, Sec. 306(e).)
| Michigan has developed a school accreditation system that rates each institution based on the extent to which it has pursued its own improvement plan and the percent of students who have passed each of the four sections of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program. With the support of its Goals 2000 funds, the State is helping to improve low performing schools by: 1) providing evaluation services; 2) designing district-level support plans; and 3) expanding and enhancing the alignment between the schools' curriculum and the assessment (PSA, Goals 2000: Supporting State and Local Educational Improvement). |
In simplest terms, a standards-based accountability system focuses on measuring success--in ways all participants understand--against clearly defined standards (LeMahieu, P. Marsha, D., 1996) and providing the supports needed to accomplish the task.
Most educators agree that "reform initiatives could be strengthened greatly by being integrated with ... high academic standards and related accountability systems." (The Progress of Education Reform: 1996, vi.) Twenty-nine States now authorize the use of sanctions against schools that fail to meet minimum standards of progress and 23 of them have academic bankruptcy or intervention policies. (The Progress of Education Reform: 1996, p. 12.) Practices range from citations and audits to the transfer of students, and dissolution of districts or schools, and public notification of school performance.
In addition, the Southern Regional Education Board has described a trend toward States providing financial rewards to schools and districts for improved student achievement. Within its region, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas provide such incentives, and though Florida does not designate specific funds to do so, it encourages districts and schools to reward progress.
| Much of Minnesota's reform is being propelled by the State's new graduation standards. The graduation requirements are moving from basic standards and Carnegie Units to higher standards of "The Profile of Learning." (These include 10 content areas that are to be adopted this spring.) Goals 2000 continues to support many of the products, positions, and professional development activities needed to implement the Graduation Standards. Those include the Implementation Manual, a graduation standards "technician" in each district, and district analyses and plans to ensure the local curriculum provides students opportunities to learn material related to the new standards. Ninety-seven percent of the State's districts report focusing their Goals funds on staff development for purposes of implementing the Graduation Standards. (Minnesota Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997.) |
In 1989, Maryland began Success for Schools, a State-wide school reform initiative. The comprehensive effort included: mandatory kindergarten; programs for at-risk students; content standards; high school graduation requirements keyed to the standards; and an aligned State performance-based assessment system, the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). The MSPAP informs an index of school performance and a developed accountability system. In addition, with the support of Goals 2000, Maryland is developing high school exit exams that are also aligned to the standards. These will improve the rigor of the State's current competency exam which is required for graduation and benchmarked at about the 8th grade level.
MSPAP results describe school performance and encompass five proficiency levels. The MSPAP does not represent a single test. It is a systemic approach to accountability that includes: 1) indicators and standards of student participation and achievement; 2) an annual school performance report on progress in meeting standards; 3) a school performance "report card" used to make instructional and program decisions to improve school performance; 4) sanctions and recognition that include "watch lists" of schools failing to make significant progress; and 5) a State Challenge program to provide additional resources for selected low-performing schools.
Maryland schools that lie seriously below State improvement standards and are suffering from declining student achievement become subject to State intervention or reconstitution. Designated schools must submit proposals outlining how they and their districts will remedy major performance problems. If approved by the State Board, a proposal becomes a plan of action for the school and is thereafter carefully monitored by the State Department of Education. If necessary, the State can subsequently intervene directly.
| "Accountability, coupled with aligning authority and responsibility to local levels, is the best change we can possibly make to achieve excellence for every child,' Gov. George Bush told reporters at an education conference." (Education Week, January 22, 1997, p. 14.) |
Texas tracks student test scores and dropout and attendance rates to inform school and district ratings and accreditation. Low-performing sites are subject to sanctions ranging from public hearings to State takeovers that can result in the removal of school staff.
| "More than 12% of all newly hired teachers enter the workforce without any training at all, and another 15% enter without having fully met state [teaching] standards. More than 50,000 people who lack the training required for their jobs have entered teaching annually on emergency or substandard licenses." (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.) |
"The most important factor in successful reform is the presence of a strong professional community in which teachers pursue a clear, shared purpose for student learning; engage in collaborative work; and take collective responsibility for student learning." (The Progress of Education Reform: 1996.) Goals 2000 awards recognize and support the need for teacher knowledge and skills to be aligned to expectations for what students should know and teachers should teach. About 60 percent of Goals 2000 subgrants support teacher preservice and/or professional development efforts.
New standards require new pedagogy, instructional organization, and attitudes. If teachers are to change the way in which they teach and think about learning, professional development must change as well. States are increasingly looking to teacher preservice, licensing, and recertification requirements to support reform. (Massell, D., Kirst, M., and M. Hoppe, CPRE "Policy Briefs," March 1997.)
| Before 1990, and the implementation of the standards-based Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), the State did not provide any support for the professional development of teachers. "But after the state raised its standards ... it stepped up to the plate to help teachers hone their skills. For the 1996-97 school year, the state appropriated $14.5 million to support continuing education for about 42,000 teachers and administrators." (Education Week, January 22, 1997, p. 15.) |
Nevada convened a pre-K-16 Education Summit addressing the issue of recruitment and retention of highly qualified educators, particularly from minority groups. Other States--Minnesota, North Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts among them--are creating a smoother transition between Pre-K-12 and higher education by working with institutes of higher education to implement the new standards in teacher education, State licensure, and re-certification.
| With the support of Goals 2000, Maine has both developed professional performance standards for educators and piloted performance assessments to measure them. With the initial work on teacher certification standards completed, local districts and their partner teacher certification (teacher education) programs will collaborate to implement the changes they've identified. The State Board of Education, which is responsible for initial teacher certification, is now drafting legislation to enact the new teacher performance standards. |
Goals 2000 funds support a variety of preservice and professional development approaches, including alignment of teacher and student standards, peer mentoring, content study groups, additional course work, summer institutes, and action research.
Massachusetts has developed a coordinated effort to strengthen preservice teacher education by combining federal funds from Goals 2000 and the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. The State Boards of Education and Higher Education committed $1.4 million federal dollars to partnerships of local school districts and colleges/universities to concentrate on three areas: 1) recruitment programs to create a more diverse teacher workforce; 2) redesign of preservice preparation to maximize the contributions of both schools and colleges to teacher education; and 3) support for mentoring programs to help new teachers as they begin their careers (MDoE, news release, September, 1997).
Albuquerque Public School District is using its $30,000 Goals 2000 grant to improve preservice education programs around serving language minority children. Through collaboration with the University of New Mexico, the district is developing a course in linguistic diversity. It will be a requirement for all of the University's teacher candidates, and it will help to focus preservice education on the needs of LEP students.
The Fort Kent school district in northern Maine has used its Goals 2000 award to focus the district and community on improving student achievement. The district schools concentrate all professional development efforts--across all disciplines--on classroom level planning aligned to both the State standards and its process for assessing ongoing progress. Increasingly, teachers are organizing their daily lesson plans and assessments around the standards and measurable performance indicators. In 1997, the district averages on the Maine Educational Assessment met or exceeded State averages in almost all content areas and grade levels.
In Washington, grants support both higher education and K-12 faculty. The Puyallup School District effort, for example, uses telecommunication links among its mentor teachers and student teachers, professors, and field supervisors from Western Washington University's Education Department to increase opportunities for sharing experiences related to teaching and learning to the standards.
| Results of Sheridan, Colorado's Goals 2000 supported Leaders in Learning professional development program--in which teachers from three metropolitan districts were trained in inquiry-based science at the University of Denver Science Laboratory--demonstrated improved student performance, an increase of an average 3.73 points on a 14-point scale. (Colorado Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997, p. iv.) |
Colorado has developed plans for several technology training centers for teachers as well as a K-16 professional development center for mathematics, science, and technology. The State will evaluate the effects of those initiatives on student achievement.
Goals 2000 subgrantees in Colorado use their awards to support professional development and improvements in instruction aligned to the standards. In the words of a teacher in Thompson Valley, "[W]ithout ... this Professional Development Center [supported by Goals 2000] for the implementation of standards-based education, there is no way I could make the progress I need to make."
| As one State-wide activity supported with Goals 2000 funds, Ohio initiated the Transforming Learning Communities Project (TLC) with twelve Ohio schools. The project, which began in the spring of 1997 and will continue through the fall of 1998, involves a team of researchers from Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the International Center for Educational Change. It will result in case studies generated by school and nearby university faculty about each school's improvement efforts. The project offers opportunities for teachers and university faculty to collectively engage in an inquiry process that includes the support of nearby universities. The study is designed to: 1) develop and examine a range of strategies for building the capacity of schools to form transforming learning communities; 2) define and represent a framework for understanding and stimulating the development of schools capable of achieving systemic reform; and 3) create resources to support schools in creating and sustaining cooperative, integrated, and inquiry-oriented learning communities. (Ohio Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997.) |
Michigan uses Goals 2000 funding to help teachers and principals in low-performing schools more closely align curriculum and assessment. Maryland combines Goals 2000 with Title I, Christa McAuliffe, and AT&T funds to initiate partnerships between ten Blue Ribbon Schools and ten low performing schools. The professional development steps have included special training on "mentoring" so that teachers and principals are able to effectively share ideas and best practices across schools.
Building support for and sustaining educational change necessarily involves parents, other family members, and business and community leaders. States have used their Goals 2000 funds to coordinate and hold meetings, conferences, and study groups to provide citizens the opportunity to "deliberate, discuss, and decide on State plans and goals. In addition, plan development has often been followed by training and other types of State-sponsored assistance that encouraged and facilitated local implementation." (PSA, 1997, p. 4.)
State, district, and school personnel continue to develop collaborative partnerships with their communities by improving communications that enhance understanding of educational change and standards-based reform. For example, West Virginia used Goals 2000 money to fund State-wide planning and training sessions to help teachers and community members redefine State goals and incorporate them at the local level. Goals 2000 funding also sponsored training for the Local School Improvement Councils that are charged with increasing the level of community support for and involvement in local education decisions.
| "The Goals 2000 grants have supported Colorado's locally developed and implemented efforts to improve student achievement." According to Colorado Governor Roy Romer, "Goals 2000 represents a flexible partnership that has allowed us to "transform the federal grant into local action." |
In Colorado, CEOs are leading the effort to provide business support for standards and assessments. "Teaming for Results" has developed clear opportunities for business leaders to participate in policy decisions, public forums, and support teams that have "greatly enhanced implementation of standards across the State." (Colorado Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997.) In addition, all of Colorado's 1996-97 Goals 2000 local improvement awards emphasized collaboration and networking. These grants emphasized learning communities for sustainable partnerships. Over 50 percent of the subgrantees focused their efforts on parental involvement and parenting skills. The initiative continued with Student-Initiated grants, which also emphasized improved collaborations and networks within their communities; parents and community members were encouraged to become more active in their schools. (Colorado Goals 2000 Annual Report, 1997.)
| "When schools make a concerted effort to enlist parents' help in fostering children's learning, student achievement rises." (Overcoming Barriers to Family Involvement in Title I Schools, February 1997, I.) |
Ninety-four percent of the States indicate that Goals 2000 funding supports their family involvement activities. (CCSSO, January, 1997.) "For example, one of the six policy goals that shape Michigan's education reform efforts and that guide the allocation of Goals 2000 funds is the goal of increasing connections between schools and families. As part of this effort, the State has used its Goals 2000 funds to support: 1) school choice and charter schools; 2) parental participation in the development of curriculum frameworks and school improvement plans; and 3) the Alliance for Children's Education--an organization that establishes and supports volunteer and mentoring programs in schools." (PSA, p. 7.)
In addition, Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act helps foster parental involvement by authorizing grants to nonprofit organizations, and nonprofit organizations in consortia with local school districts, to establish and fund parent information centers that provide training, information, and support to parents. (See appendix C for more information on the parent centers.)
Many States have reorganized and restructured their departments of education to better support the changes suggested by Goals 2000--namely increased cross-program coordination and a sharper focus on teaching and learning. Louisiana created a new department of education organizational structure that provides more technical support to the local systems and is paying particular attention--at both the State and local levels--to the coordination of Goals 2000, Title I, Title II, Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF), and the Louisiana Quality Educational Trust Fund. Maine, like several other States, is currently using the Goals 2000 planning model to support coordinated local planning for federal education programs in a consolidated Improving America's Schools Act application and performance report.
Similarly, several States including New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wyoming are emphasizing educational technology by uniting Goals 2000 and TLCF competitions and awards. Oregon has developed a plan for coordinating Goals 2000 and the newly authorized Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program.
-###-
[IV. Goals 2000: Continuing The Effort]