INTRODUCTION

Improving America’s Schools

Through Standards-Based Education
By Joan L. Buttram and J. Timothy Waters

he calls to expectations for U.S. schools continue. Forty gover-

raise
M nors and than 45 business leaders called for higher standards for
more

student achievement at the second Education Summit in Palisades,

N.Y., last fall (National Governor’s Association, 1996). President Clinton
endorsed the need for higher national standards in his 1997 State of the Union
message. The annual poll on education conducted by Phi Delta Kappa (Elam,
Rose, and Gallup, 1996) as well as other polls con-
ducted by Public Agenda (Johnson and Immerwahr, ...this report’s primary
1994) document that policymakers’ concerns are
criticism was that our
shared by the public. Their concerns are fueled by
national and international reports on the performance youth were not Learn-
of U.S. students (e.g., NAEP, SAT, TIMSS).
ing enough, and that
Such calls for raising standards are not new. In
the report of the National Commission on we needed to improve
April 1983,
Excellence in Education declared the United States to
the nation’s education
be a &dquo;nation at risk... [whose] educational founda-
tions...are presently being eroded by a rising tide of results significantly.
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation
and a people.&dquo; As Manno (1994) notes, this report’s primary criticism was that
our youth were not learning enough, and that we needed to improve the

nation’s education results significantly. Its publication is often credited as the

initiating event of the modern standards movement (Shepard, 1993; Marzano
and Kendall, 1996).

From Inputs to Results

Prior to its publication, the emphasis had been on inputs (Finn, 1990;
Manno, 1994); policymakers and educators alike were more concerned with
trying harder to reach more students (Finn, 1990). These efforts continued

Joan L. Buttram, Director of Research and Evaluation of the Mid-continent Regional Educational
Laboratory (McREL), is co-guest editor (with Robert J. Marzano) of this theme section; J. Timothy
Waters is executive director of McREL. Readers may continue the dialogue on the Internet with
Buttram at jbuttram@mcrel.org and with Waters at twaters@mcrel.org.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
1
 despite the finding that the quality of educational inputs had little to do with
student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966). With the publication of the
Nation at Risk report, elected officials and policymakers began demanding
that educators be held accountable for results. This switch in emphasis
(from inputs to results) set the stage for the delineation of standards, or
what students should know and be able to do.
As early as 1987, groups of educators began to respond. In 1989, the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics and Project
2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
published Science for all Americans. In the following years, other disciplines
followed with their own attempts to define essential knowledge and skills,
including history, civics and government, geography, health, English, for-
eign languages, and fine arts.
At the same time, most states began setting standards for student
. achievement (Gandal, 1995a; 1995b). Fifteen states have set standards in all
core subjects that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core

curriculum (Gandal, 1996). Thirty-one states have

or will have students’ assessments linked to stan- Elected officials and
dards (Gandal, 1995a). These trends reinforce the
conviction that standards-based education will
policymakers see stan-
succeed or fail at the state level (Olson, 1995). dards-based education
Elected officials and policymakers see as a powerful tool for
standards-based education as apowerful tool for
improving the outcomes of public education for improving the outcomes
students (Ravitch, 1995; Education Commission
of public education for
of the States, 1996b), but not all observers report
that the standards movement has pushed educa- students.
tional reform in the right direction. They point to
- ..-

the gigantic volumes of standards developed by the professional associa-

tions (Brandt, 1995), the over-mechanization and routinization of education
(Eisner, 1995), and the political campaigns to stop the standards movement
(Marzano and Kendall, 1996).
These same opinions are shared by educators in many schools
(McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993; Education Commission of the States,
1996a; Buttram, in press). Some welcome the introduction of stan-
dards, clarifying expectations for students and educators. Some assert
that education has always had standards in one form or another (e.g.,
Carnegie units, curriculum guides). Others believe the standards
movement has more to do with sorting students, teachers, and schools
into &dquo;haves and have-nots&dquo; than with raising expectations for all stu-

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
2
dents, teachers, and schools. Still others believe it is unfair to hold
students, teachers, or schools accountable for meeting standards until
the necessary educational resources and parental/community support
are widely available.

Regardlessof what one believes, standards-based education contin-

ues to be a major force in our schools (Education Commission of the States,

1996a; 1996b). If used correctly, it can help drive school reform in several
important ways.
Standards-based education helps educators and their communities
to identify explicitly what students must know and be able to do. This

process of identifying and setting standards helps clarify the goals and
expectations for the educational program (Rosenholtz, 1989; Education
Commission of the States, 1996a).
Once standards are set, teachers can focus and organize their cur-
riculum and instruction to help all students meet standards (O’Day and
Smith, 1993; Education Commission of the States, 1996b; Schmoker, 1996).
Given the information explosion and the plethora of content standards from
professional associations, teachers need help figur-
ing out what to include and exclude from their Standards-based educa-
classroom instruction. Content standards, in particu-
lar, help them to make smart choices (Marzano and tion helps educators
Kendall, 1996). and their communities
Standards also school administra-
can help
tors and teachers decide what resources they need. to identify explicitly
Textbooks and other curriculum material, equip-
what students must
ment, and staffing needs become more apparent
once standards are set (O’Day and Smith, 1993; know and be able to do.
Education Commission of the States, 1996b).
Professional development needs are revealed as the discrepancies become
more explicit between current content and pedagogical knowledge and

those more closely aligned with standards adopted by the state or district
(National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996).
Finally, standards-based education establishes criteria for holding
students, teachers, schools, and school systems accountable. We all know
the adage &dquo;What gets tested gets taught.&dquo; In standards-based education
lingo, &dquo;What gets made into a standard gets done.&dquo; Districts that systemati-
cally focus on collecting and reporting student performance data tied to
explicit outcomes (i.e., standards) find that student achievement improves
(Waters, Burger, and Burger, 1995).
Standards-based education is not, of course, the panacea for all of
public education’s woes. Like any policy tool, it has the potential for mis-

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
3
 use (Fuhrman, 1994). This happens when standards are purposely set low
so that all students can meet them (O’Day and Smith, 1993). Other misuses
occur when high standards are set but timelines are too short, the resources

are unavailable to help teachers and students achieve them, or no comple-

mentary accountability system is put in place (Rosenholtz,

assessment or

1991; Fuhrman, 1994). When any of these situations occur, standards-based

education becomes a tool to wreak havoc on an educational system already
under duress (Marzano and Kendall, 1996).
The following articles in this Bulletin
standards-based edu- explore
cation from several perspectives. Governor Roy Romer of Colorado
describes the role that standards-based education can play in ensuring that
all young people succeed. Christopher Cross, President of the Maryland
Board of Education and the Council for Basic Education, and his colleague
from CBE, Scott Joftus, suggest that standards-based education is at a cross-
roads ; whichever path is taken has the potential for creating significant
gains or losses for students. James Popham joins the

discussion by suggesting that standards have the ...standards-based

potential to be &dquo;the emperor’s new clothes.&dquo;
Robert Marzano and John Kendall
education is at a
provide an

update onthe status of national and state efforts to crossroads; whichever

set standards for student achievement in a variety of
content areas. Five articles follow that discuss the path is taken has the
implications of standards-based education for practi- potential for creating
tioners. Miles Myers contrasts two approaches for
thinking about literacy standards. John Sutton and significant gains or
Alice Krueger discuss recent assessments of U.S. stu-
losses for students.
dents in mathematics and science, the implications
of these assessments on mathematics and science standards, and what
needs to happen next. Grant Wiggins cuts across disciplines, discussing the
need to move beyond content and performance standards and develop
work-design standards to focus and align curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Robert Monson and Michele Monson describe alternative

designs for professional development to facilitate teacher implementation of

standards in the classroom. Susan Danin describes the challenges faced by
classroom teachers in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey
as they implement standards in their classrooms. -B

References
Brandt, Ron. "Overview: What To Do with Those New Standards.
Educational Leadership, March 1995.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
4
Buttram, Joan L. "Curriculum and Instructional Issues in the Central Plains."
1997 Noteworthy. Aurora, Colo.: Mid-continent Regional Educational
Laboratory, in press.

Coleman, James S.; Campbell, E. Q.; Hobson, C. J.; McPartland, John; Mood,
A.; Weinfield, F. D.; and York, R. L. Equality of Educational Opportunity.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
Education Commission of the States. Cross-Cutting Issues of Standards-Based
Education Reform: A Report of a Standards Workshop. Denver, Colo.:
ECS, 1996a.
—. Standards and Education: A Roadmap for State Policymakers.
Denver, Colo.: ECS, 1996b.
Eisner, Elliot W. "Standards for American Schools: Help or Hindrance?" Phi
Delta Kappan, June 1995.
Elam, S. M.; Rose, L. C.; and Gallup, A. M. "The 28th Annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools."
Phi Delta Kappan, September 1996.
Finn, Chester E., Jr. "The Biggest Reform of All." PhiDelta Kappan, April 1990.
Fuhrman, Susan H. "Challenges in Systemic Education Reform." CPRE Policy
Beliefs. New Brunswick, N.J.: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, Rutgers University, September 1994.
Gandal, Matthew. Making Standards Matter: A 50-State Progress Report on

Efforts To Raise Academic Standards. Washington, D.C.: American

Federation of Teachers, 1995a.
—.
Making Standards Matter 1996: An Annual 50-State Progress Report
on Efforts To Raise Academic Standards. Washington, D.C.: American
Federation of Teachers, 1996.
—. "Not All Standards Are Created Equal." Educational Leadership,
March 1995b.

Johnson, J., and Immerwahr, R. First Things First. What Americans Expect
from the Public Schools, A Report from the Public Agenda. New York:
Public Agenda, 1994.
Manno, Bruno V. Outcome-Based Education: Has It Become More Affliction
Than Cure? Minneapolis, Minn.: Center for the American Experiment, 1994.
Marzano, Robert J., and Kendall, John S. A Comprehensive Guide to Designing
Standards-Based Districts, Schools, and Classrooms. Alexandria, Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.

McLaughlin, Milbrey W., and Talbert, Joan E. "How the World of Students and
Teachers Challenges Policy Coherence." In Designing Coherent Policy:
Improving the System, edited by S. Fuhrman. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-
Bass, 1993.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1983.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
5
 National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. What Matters Most:
Teaching for America’s Future. New York: NCTAF, 1996.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation
Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM, 1989.
National Governor’s Association. 1996 National Education Summit Policy
Statement. Washington, D.C.: NGA, 1996.
"National Update on America’s Education Reform Efforts." The National
Report Card, November 20, 1995.
O’Day, Jennifer A., and Smith, Marshall S. "Systemic Reform and Educational
Opportunity." In Designing Coherent Policy: Improving the System, edited
by S. Fuhrman. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Olson, Lynn. "Standards Times 50." Struggling for Standards: An Education
Week Special Report, April 12, 1995.
Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science
for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: AAAS, 1989.

Ravitch, Diane. National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s

Guide. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1995.

Rosenholtz, S. J. Teacher’s Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools.

New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.
—.
"Workplace Conditions That Affect Teacher Quality and Commitment:
Implications for Teacher Induction Programs." The Elementary School
Journal, March 1989.
Schmoker, Mike. Results, The Key to Continuous School Improvement.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1996.
Shepard, Lorrie. Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement.
Stanford, Calif.: National Academy of Education, Stanford University,
1993.
Waters, T.; Burger, D.; and Burger, S. "Moving Up Before Moving On."
Educational Leadership, March 1995.

Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 26, 2015
6