![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
One reason other countries are successful in teaching a rigorous curriculum is because all the major elements of their educational systems are aligned, with uniform, high standards at the core. Not all high-achieving countries have "national" standards in the sense of being mandated from a central government. But they have reached a national consensus about what constitutes the basics, grade by grade, and this consensus guides their educational systems (Schmidt and Valverde, 1997). This contrasts markedly with the U.S. approach wherein each locality essentially defines its own standards.
In this sense, the TIMSS findings can be seen as supporting the movement in the United States toward standards-based, systemic reform--although not necessarily in its current forms. Standards can help the United States realize many of the curricular and instructional improvements implied by TIMSS. They can keep distractors out of the curriculum. They can set high goals for students and teachers to strive for. Standards can guide compatible changes in other elements of the educational system. And they can serve as a rationale for all major policy decisions; for example, policymakers can evaluate a school finance plan or a categorical program in terms of whether it will help students achieve standards.
The TIMSS research shows that high standards are not at odds with the goal of increased educational equity. Many high-achieving TIMSS nations have implemented a "high standards for all" approach that applies to low-income and educationally disadvantaged children, as well as the more advantaged (Schmidt and Valverde, 1997). In these nations, high standards are commonly used to justify policies to provide disadvantaged children with the resources necessary to meet the standards.
Most U.S. states are already implementing systemic, standards-based reforms, but the task is complex, given our pluralistic governance system. Some versions of standards may actually be compounding the problem of curriculum overload (Elmore, TIMSS Policy Forum). States, districts, and professional organizations are producing an abundance of standards--often with real teeth--but they are not always grappling with the hard choices of which topics to cover, how to build coherence over time, or how to translate broad expectations into effective instruction.
There is a gap in the United States between what educators say--most report being well aware of current reforms in their field--and what they actually do in the classroom, as illustrated on the TIMSS videotapes. Math teachers have changed some aspects of their teaching in response to NCTM professional standards, such as using real-world problems, manipulatives, or cooperative learning, but they apparently have not changed the more fundamental scripts from which they work.
Bridging this gap will require more than just telling teachers what the expectations are. The real challenge is how to develop standards that are concrete enough to be useful to teachers--in other words, that identify a limited number of topics to be taught at each grade with advice on how to teach them. Standards should also be high by international standards. Right now this isn't the case; in several states, a student who performs at the "proficient" level on the state math assessment may actually be performing well below international standards of proficiency.
Accountability is another critical element of standards-based reform. A major policy challenge for the United States is how to encourage educators and policymakers to adopt more effective approaches to teaching and learning that include accountability for high student performance. Incentives to develop such approaches--which are central in systems like Japan's--exist only in a haphazard way in the United States.
Many states and school districts are already implementing data-based accountability. The Boston Public Schools, for example, have set up an accountability system based on test data and other performance measures, and is also developing indicators for other important school variables such as parent involvement. Schools that show improvement by these measures are eligible for awards of up to $25,000 ( Donahue, TIMSS Policy Forum).
Community District 2 in New York City is taking another approach to accountability by holding all the professionals in the system--including the principals--accountable for effective instruction, and ultimately for student performance. As this strategy recognizes, new forms of curriculum and instruction often demand new kinds of leadership. Just as teachers are being asked to take risks as part of standards-based reform, principals and superintendents must also be willing to take risks; for example, by giving teachers permission to do things differently (Elmore, TIMSS Policy Forum).
TIMSS also can help spur discussion about the respective responsibilities of the local, state, and national levels in standards-based reform. Often in the United States debate about these issues becomes hung up on the merits of "top down" versus "bottom up" reform. In many other TIMSS countries, even those highly centralized systems, curriculum and instruction is a hybrid of both top down and bottom up actions; goals and content are decided nationally, and issues of pedagogy are determined locally. Research indicates, moreover, that having national standards or similar transcendent standards need not preclude innovation; many countries with national standards have implemented effective innovations (Schmidt and Valverde, 1997).
Reforms in the United States are most likely to succeed if they combine top down and bottom up strategies, while still taking into account the decentralized nature of our system. Instead of trying to put responsibility on some other level, educators and policymakers need to focus on what they can accomplish at their own level. For example, reforms in instruction could combine statewide changes in teacher preparation and professional development with school-based changes in teacher interaction.
As the primary movers of standards-based reform, states have a particular role in implementing ideas from TIMSS. States have authority over critical elements of education, such as curriculum, teacher preparation, and funding formulas. In addition, the states are the most logical level for doing the rational, coordinated planning that is necessary to bring cohesion to school improvement.
National testing or national standards is one way to bring focus and rigor to the U.S. curriculum (Martin Orland, NCES, TIMSS Policy Forum). National tests could provide a focus for instruction and a reason for educators, policymakers, and citizens to take school reform more seriously. An alternative strategy is for states to establish collaborative structures for making their policies and standards more uniform across the nation. States could also share curricula or endorse various curricula developed by professional organizations.
The federal government can also encourage improvements that are compatible with TIMSS. In addition to continuing to disseminate information about TIMSS, the Department of Education could serve as a "supermarket of ideas" and curriculum models that are compatible with TIMSS and that states and local districts could adopt or adapt.
[Using TIMSS to Build Public Support for School Improvement]