Standards-Based English Education

 Christine Gates

Introduction:Educational testing has become a large part of the lives of students and their families. From entry to kindergarten to admission to higher education, tests mark some of the most important educational and career decisions in a student’s life. While tests open up windows of opportunity for some students, they act as a barrier for others.  Although literacy is said to be a primary goal of American education, government intervention has created controversy over the best way to educate our students.  The implementation of state standards has been the main focus of the U.S. government and education system.  While standards act as a guide to ensure equal education opportunities for all students, the imposition of tests has generated a debate as to the validity of the assessment procedure.  New York and other states have been subjecting students to state tests for almost a decade.    Political as well as educational leaders rallied together to ensure that all students were given the opportunity to receive a top-notch education.  But rather than come together as a country to create a national curriculum, the United States gave each state the ability to create its own standards and tests.  Under the original vision of standards-based reform, schools and teachers were to be provided with flexibility to make the instructional, structural, and fiscal changes they determined were needed to achieve the standards. How they got there was their choice.  If all the pieces were in place--standards, assessments, accountability, and flexibility--teaching and learning were expected to improve. Unfortunately, this vision of standards-based reform has been lost in the rush for quick fixes and obscured by competing political and educational agendas.  

Former Assistant Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, is commonly recognized as one of the chief architects of the modern standards movements.  In her book, National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide (1995), Ravitch explains the rationale for standards in a straightforward manner:          Americans…expect strict standards to govern construction of buildings, bridges,   

highways, and tunnels; shoddy work would put lives at risk.  They expect stringent standards to protect their drinking water, the food they eat, and the air they breathe…Standards are created because they improve the activity of life. (89)

 Ravitch asserts that just as standards improve the daily lives of Americans, so too will they improve the effectiveness of American education: “Standards can improve achievement by clearly defining what is to be taught and what kind of performance is expected.” (25) The establishment of educational standards can have a great impact on local school systems.  In order to comply with state standards, schools have begun to align their curriculums to meet these standards.  It is essential that standards-based education not be clouded by improper test use and that tests be used responsibly and in ways that support, rather than undermine, the teaching and learning process.  If we want every student to reach higher standards, states and school districts must pay more attention to proper implementation.  Sufficient resources must be available to get the job done.  Teachers must understand what the standards are and how to teach them.  This paper focuses on governmental influence and the onslaught of tests; curriculum alignment, which is what school districts are doing to successfully meet the demands of this new regime; the implications teachers must face by conforming to this type of curriculum; and the role assessment and accountability will play.

  Educational Reform Tests have become the main focus of our educational system; the force behind standards.  Standardized testing poses as an obstacle to high standards and improving education. The onslaught of tests is directly related to two major documents: A Nation at Risk (ANAR) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB).   A Nation at Risk, a 1983 report presented by the Reagan administration, which claims that there are severe deficiencies in the United States education system, focuses on five major areas of education: content, standards, time, teaching, and leadership and fiscal support. It has specific recommendations about the content that should be implemented in the classroom today.  However, these suggestions are not easy to put into practice.  According to the actual document, “The teaching of English in high school should equip graduates to: (a) comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and use what they read; (b) write well-organized, effective papers; (c) listen effectively and discuss ideas intelligently; and (d) know our literary heritage and how it enhances imagination and ethical understanding, and how it relates to the customs, ideas, and values of today's life and culture.”  Many educators see this report as the initiating event of the modern standards movement. (Hillocks 3-4)  According to Patricia Freitag-Ericsson, author of “Raising the Standards for Standards: A Call for Definitions,” the report believes that the problems associated with the education system can be solved with more standardized testing” (226). According to George Hillocks, author of The Testing Trap, the goal of implementing standards appears to be the easiest of these recommendations, especially in the area standardized tests.  This faction of the reform movement is the most widely adopted because it offers a concrete grade.  A Nation at Risk recommendations regarding standardized testing are as follows: 

“Standardized tests of achievement (not to be confused with aptitude tests) should be administered at major transition points from one level of schooling to another and particularly from high school to college or work. The purposes of these tests would be to: (a) certify the student's credentials; (b) identify the need for remedial intervention; and (c) identify the opportunity for advanced or accelerated work. The tests should be administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local standardized tests. This system should include other diagnostic procedures that assist teachers and students to evaluate student progress”   (“NatAtRisk”)  Due to the shortcomings of  “A Nation at Risk’s” proposal, further educational revision was in order.  While some of the student’s needs were being met, some of them were still left out in the cold.  In 2001, the "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB) was signed into law, promising to produce widespread change and promote improvement in the public schools.  Under the act's accountability provisions, states must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. “Among the law's requirements are that all students make yearly academic progress (grades 3 through 8) across the spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds, first languages, and race. Schools falling short of that goal for three consecutive years are labeled "failing," and must offer students tutoring or transportation to another school.  Schools must use disaggregated data (test results are sorted by groups of students who are economically disadvantaged, from racial and ethnic groups, have disabilities or have limited English proficiency) to ensure that all groups of students are making adequate progress” (“Columbia”).  The purpose of NCLB provides strong leverage for guaranteeing all children an opportunity to learn from a high quality curriculum delivered by highly qualified teachers with high standards as the expectation for all. But has NCLB brought us closer to the

desirable goals of higher standards, greater accountability, and better public schools?  The focus has shifted from individuality to accountability.  The new onslaught of tests do not necessarily promote better opportunities for students, but rather a better chance for students to fail. Many states altered their testing and accountability systems to comply with the No Child Left Behind law.  Under the NCLB, states must now use test results to rate all schools and determine whether the schools are making "adequate yearly progress," or AYP.  As is true for standards and accountability, some of the policy shifts across states stem from requirements in federal law.  Specifically, the NCLB Act requires that teachers in the core academic subjects be "highly qualified" in each subject they teach by the end of the 2005-06 school year. That has left states scrambling to ensure their new teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency before they enter the classroom. The area experiencing the most growth is teacher testing. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia now require high school teachers to pass subject-knowledge tests to earn their initial licenses.  At least six more states are either in the process of implementing such tests or say they plan to do so in the near future.  In addition, 12 states hold their teacher- preparation programs accountable for the performance of their graduates in the classroom.  The problem with the assessment procedure is that it is hypocritical: states develop their own standards, but it is the federal government, in conjunction with McGraw/Hill, that provides the grade.  Alfie Kohn, author of The Case Against Standardized Testing, argues that the problem with assessment lies with what he calls the “ulterior motives” for testing.  Without naming names he adds that the corporations that manufacture these exams are the same ones who turn around and sell teaching manuals on how to raise the test scores (3). 

Some states, in order to alleviate embarrassment for public officials, began to lower their standards in an attempt to raise their scores on tests.  One of the main problems is a conflict among the parties.  The democrats are opposed to testing, while the Republicans are against the idea of a national curriculum.  Government involvement clouds the ultimate goal for education: a uniform curriculum that will allow all students an equal opportunity education (Ravitch NYT).  The English Language Arts Learning Standards What are Learning Standards? Although standards are continually revised and revamped, it is certain that the idea is an invariable part of the educational framework.  According to Ericsson, the lack of universal definitions and misinformation regarding standards has led to confusion on how to implement a successful program.  She states, “I argue that careful attention to definitions is a step toward reforming the standards movement from one that has handcuffed teachers and hobbled students, to a movement that can work to actually improve the quality of education for all stakeholders” (225).  The overall definition of standards focuses on the idea of assessing what students know and should be able to do in a given time period.  It seems as though the general definition of standards is similar across the nation, however the problem lies with the subdivision of these definitions.  Education Week’s website labels standards as “benchmarks to measure students’ academic achievement,” while then going further to subdivide this definition by discussing what is called a curriculum standard, which is a standard that  “drives what students learn in the classroom” (Ericsson 229).  Each individual subject has a set of individualized standards, which usually focus on the specific skills of the

individual (read, write, listen, speak). According to Alabama’s Department of Education, content standards are “fundamental and specific but not exhaustive.”  In developing local curriculum plans, school systems may include additional content standards to reflect local philosophies and add implementation guidelines, resources, and/or activities, so not only are there different definitions across states, but also across school districts as well (CEP).   According to the New York State Department of Education’s website, learning standards, within the curriculum framework, are defined as “the knowledge, skills, and understandings that individuals can and do habitually demonstrate over time as a consequence of instruction and experience.”  This emphasis on habitual performance suggested that what learners do in varied contexts over time is more important than isolated demonstrations of learning (“NYSED”).  There are three kinds of standards: content standards, performance standards, and Opportunity to Learn (OTL) standards.  These definitions seem to remain consistent across the nation.  Content standards describe what students should know and should be able to do.  An example of this would be that “students should be able to write for a variety of diverse audiences using conventional grammar, usage, sentence structure, punctuation and spelling.” Performance standards act as a rubric, assessing how well the student meets the content standard.  An example of a performance standard would be an essay students write, after reading Animal Farm by George Orwell, addressing the theme of socialism (“Concept to Classroom”).  Ratvich states, “Content standards without performance standards are meaningless (qtd in Ericsson 13).  The third standard is called the OTL Opportunity to Learn) standard, which “defines the availability of programs, staff, and other resources that schools, districts, and states provide so that students are able to meet challenging content and performance standards” (Ericsson 231).  The actual definition of the OTL

standards varies by state or school district depending on its specifics.  For example, this standard could be applied to money spent on provision in instruction or availability of trained teachers (“Concept to Classroom”).   The implementation of standards into the education system was intended to be used as a tool to guide students to higher learning, more critical thinking.  Standards were set in place for two reasons: for one, to address the concern that America is falling behind other countries, and two, to address the gap that exists between high and low achieving students.  The problem is that if our students are failing it is due to inadequate preparation, and that because of this ill-equipped system the belief is that our economy will suffer as a result.  The Four ELA Learning Standards: Standard 1: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for information and understanding. As listeners and readers, students will collect data, facts, and ideas, discover relationships, concepts, and generalizations; and use knowledge generated from oral, written, and electronically produced texts. As speakers and writers, they will use oral and written language to acquire, interpret, apply, and transmit information. Standard 2: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for literary response and expression. Students will read and listen to oral, written and electronically produced texts and performances, relate texts and performances to their own lives, and develop an understanding of the diverse social, historical, and cultural dimensions the texts and performances represent. As speakers and writers, students will use oral and written language for self-expression and artistic creation. Standard 3: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for critical

analysis and evaluation. As listeners and readers, students will analyze experiences, ideas, information, and issues presented by others using a variety of established criteria. As speakers and writers, they will present, in oral and written language and from a variety of perspectives, their opinions and judgments on experiences, ideas, information and issues. Standard 4: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for social interaction. Students will use oral and written language for effective social communication with a wide variety of people. As readers and listeners, they will use the social communications of others to enrich their understanding of people and their views. Standards describe the state’s expectations for what the students should know and should be able to do in grades K-12.   These standards represent a broad consensus of what parents, classroom teachers, school administrators, academics, and business and community leaders believe schools should teach and students should learn.  The idea of implementing a set of standards was to shift away from isolated facts and memorized procedures and toward conceptual understanding and problem solving (“Concept to Classroom”).

Alignment of Curriculum to Standards   

What is the 2005 English Language Arts Core Curriculum? “The core curriculum is an outline that provides an additional level of specificity to the ELA learning standards.  It respects the tradition of local (school/district) choice in New York that empowers educators to select texts, identify products, and use a rich array of instructional strategies and activities to meet student-learning needs.  Local school districts organize, plan, and align

local curriculum around NY State standards and core curriculum and, in so doing, shape and implement their local philosophy” (“NYSED”).  Ideally, students learn better in a standards-based environment because everybody's working towards the same goal. Teachers know what the standards are and choose classroom activities that enable students to achieve these standards. Students know the standards, too, and can see scoring guides that embody them.  Parents know the standards as well and can help students by seeing that their homework aligns with the standards.  A visitor to a standards-based classroom should see a lot of high-level activity -- questioning, reflecting, analyzing, doing experiments, discussing, and writing.  The classroom should also be equipped with a rubric for any major assignments.  This will set out for the students exactly what work warrants the highest score (See rubrics in Appendix D, E, F) and what low-scoring work would be.  This activity gives students the opportunity to achieve a higher score on school assignments as well as the state tests, because students know exactly what is expected of them (“UTF”). A standards-based curriculum consists of a current collection of proven, standards-referenced instructional materials—lessons, units, and assessments perfected through action research. Both new and veteran teachers can examine these targeted materials, learning from and adding to the richness of the faculty's repertoire. Because of these rich resources, new and struggling teachers achieve confidence and competence much more rapidly, and experienced teachers have the opportunity to make a meaningful, ongoing contribution to their craft while being renewed by instructional ideas that are engaging for students. Proven methods, practices, and lessons aligned with established standards become the center of the professional dialogue. As a result, the outcome on local, state, and formative assessments get better and better. Such an alignment leads inevitably to better short- and long-term results on

local and state assessments as well as on norm-referenced, alternative, and criterion-referenced assessments (“Concept to Classroom”). In order to align State Standards to the curriculum, a committee must be put in place.  This committee is usually chosen by the school district themselves, and it generally consists of area schoolteachers, as well as administration.  However, since this is a task that asks teachers to give up their evenings and weekends with out additional pay, not all are willing to participate.  In order to implement a core curriculum specific to the New York State standards, a variety of things needs to be considered.  First, a set of objectives needs to be put into place, such as in the area of State content standards the essential standards need to be developed.  The committee needs to decide learner-appropriate material specific for each grade. They also need to examine high stakes assessments and analyze district wide data (district report cards).  Academic goals then need to be decided.  These goals are based upon the answers to various questions: What do we want students to know?  How do we know when they’ve learned it?  What do we do when they haven’t?  This portion of the paper will describe the Windsor School district’s Core Curriculum as the model for standards-based education, specifically, 7th  grade.  Windsor Middle School is located in Central New York and is considered a rural area school.  The overview for this particular section begins with the main objective for the first 25 weeks of the school year: “students should practice tasks parallel to those that will be given on the NYS exams for the corresponding year”.   The goal for the last fifteen weeks is to expose the students to actual examples of tests from the 8th grade ELA exams (See Appendix A) .  The overview is set up to assist the teacher in creating standards-based lessons in their classrooms (WCC).  

Teachers begin the process by reviewing the four ELA Standards (See English Language Arts Standards in Appendix B).  The committee then examines the Core Performance indicators (See Grades 7-8 Core Performance Indicators Appendix C), which illustrate the skills that the student should possess in the areas of reading, writing, listening, and speaking after successful completion of the grade.  These indicators are created with the idea that students will be able to master these skills due to the fact that the content standards (tasks) will work in conjunction with the performance standards (assessment) to ensure this accomplishment.  The New York State Department of Education (or any state for that matter) is responsible for supplying schools and teachers with updated information regarding State Standards.  This can usually be found on their website.  According to the State Department of Education (SED), “the performance indicators for each grade level (preK-12), based on the four ELA standards, should be defined - along with a glossary of terms (e.g., tone, thesis, voice, etc.).  SED will form a committee to provide the field with an up-dated preK-12 Resource Guide with Core Curriculum reflecting grade-by-grade performance indicators” (“NYSED”).  The performance indicators work in conjunction with each of the four ELA Learning standards: information and understanding, literary response and expression, critical analysis and evaluation, and social interaction.  For example, social interaction would enable students to “use the rules of conversation, such as avoid interrupting and respond respectfully” (See Appendix C). This paper will discuss a 7th grade Writing lesson within this framework.  Teachers will use the Core Performance Indicators to construct an Instructional Alignment Chart (See Appendix H) for various lessons in the curriculum.  The Chart contains specific goals as well as instructional techniques, including student expectations.  The alignment chart contains three specific, scaffolded objectives: a prerequisite objective, an overall objective, and a subsequent objective.  The overall objective is for students to

make connections between information or ideas presented in the text and the assignment (Standard 2):  “Students will make some connections between the information or ideas presented in text and assigned task” (Appendix H). The prerequisite objective asks that students understand and answer all parts of the task using information from the text (Standard 1): “Understand and answer all parts of the task using information from the text” (Appendix H).  The subsequent goal is the idea that students will be able to take the extra step and make a connection (Standard 3): “Students will make explicit connections between information or ideas in text and assigned task (bullets, dots) (Appendix H).  The next sector of the guide asks which standards this task applies to which in this case are standards 1,2, and 3. The following section is labeled “Bloom’s Taxonomy.”  Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist during the 1950’s. Bloom's Taxonomy identifies six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recall or recognition of facts, as the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, to the highest order, which is classified as evaluation.  Bloom’s taxonomy is incorporated into the curriculum because its main goal is to create student-centered learning.  After all, the whole concept of a standards-based curriculum is to create contextualized lessons, thereby encouraging a constructivist classroom.  For this particular task the areas of Application, Synthesis, and Interpretation are the main focus.  Bloom’s Taxonomy: Verb examples that represent intellectual activity on each level are listed here: Knowledge: arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce state.Comprehension: classify, describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, recognize, report, restate, review, select,

translate,Application: apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use, write.Analysis: analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test.Synthesis: arrange, assemble, collect, compose, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write.Evaluation: appraise, argue, assess, attach, choose compare, defend estimate,                judge, predict, rate, core, select, support, value, evaluate. The next section is labeled “Graduate Outcomes.” When the task is complete, the student should be able to do the following: a) clearly express ideas and feelings to others; b) communicate through self-expression via written and oral language skills, c) exhibit listening skills; d) be a critical thinker; e) possess problem-solving skills; f) display independent logical thinking.  This area focuses on content standards, emphasizing a student’s knowledge and ability, while the bottom section of this chart focuses on actual assessment.  The section titled “How Assessed,” concentrates on what specific tests this knowledge will encompass.  For example, the exams related to NYS Standards, End of Course (EOC), American College Test (ACT), SAT, Local Assessments, etc. are listed in this section.  This assessment will be based on student writing (i.e. parallel tasks, journals, etc.) (See Appendix D, E, F,G). The alignment chart also contains a section that houses actual strategies, resources, as well as additional support necessary to implement this type of curriculum. Modeling, Big/Little (building on concepts), and cooperative learning are the instructional strategies for this particular task, while state assessment models are the only resources listed.  Additional support includes web sites or

any other support the teacher is able to employ.  For this particular task, these sections are left blank, but they will be helpful to teachers as they continue to fine-tune these lessons (Appendix I).  School districts in other parts of New York State are improving instruction by aligning their curriculum to the NYS standards.  The Corning Painted Post Area School District is making progress on a District-wide proposal to align its Math and English and Language Arts (ELA) curricula across grade levels.  “District-wide curriculum alignment can produce work ready high school graduates, with the knowledge and critical thinking skills they need to be life-long learners. By creating an integrated, aligned educational system, student learning is better connected grade-to-grade, helping us close the gaps in student achievement so that all our students can succeed.”  (“Corning”) The ultimate goal of a standards-based education curriculum is to inform students, parents, teachers, and administrators exactly what standards are and why we need them. A Standard–based curriculum’s main focus is to help students achieve the standards. This includes the organization and use of time, finances, instructional materials, educational programs and staff development (Windsor Core Curriculum).  In order for standards-based education to succeed, everyone the school system must work together.  Students have to be responsible for their own learning.  Parents will also play a key role by becoming an active participant in their child’s studies, while teachers create the learning environment necessary to help students meet targets. The ELA learning standards are intended to provide a “common lens” for observing, assessing, and reporting authentic language use at different stages of development.  These standards were intended to “assist teachers in monitoring growth in language achievement, in using common vocabulary for describing that growth, and in developing plans for fostering that growth.” 

(“NYSED”) Some researchers argue, “the degree to which education time is related to student learning depends on the quality of the time. When school schedules maximize the amount of time available for learning; when instructional time is devoted in large part to academic subjects; when classroom time is well managed; and when curriculum and instruction are appropriate and motivating, students can be expected to learn. Under these conditions, increasing time for learning is likely to lead to increased student learning.” (“Michigan”) The alignment of the curriculum to the New York State Standards is an arduous process that involves hours, days, and weeks of careful planning and construction.  Without some form of recognition or compensation for teachers, the government runs the risk of alienating their key players in this task.  The Standards and students with Disabilities: The standards movement is about setting high expectations for all students. Yet because so many students with disabilities have been denied access to the general curriculum and excluded from assessment, there are questions and concerns about how they can be successfully included in education reform efforts. The goal of standards-based education is to make sure that all students, including students with disabilities, learn.  Advocates of a Standards-based education system claim that there is an abundance of support materials as well as successful lesson plans to accommodate special needs students as well as “mainstream” students.  They are available to teachers, but teachers are not sure how to obtain this information.  It is the job of administration to involve itself in all aspects of the curriculum; staff should be involved from the get-go in planning, decision-making, and curriculum alignment. (“UTF”)

Implications:

The pressure for teachers to provide adequate support for standards-based education is enormous.  According to Carol Mikoda, an eighth-grade middle school ELA teacher, she as well as her peers are expected to align the curriculum on committees made up of teachers and administrators in the district.  The project is to be worked on during evening and weekend hours offering no incentives or better yet no additional pay.  This is a highly volatile situation because although teachers are willing to work on this project they feel that they are not being compensated.  A state, school, or district wishing to establish standards based on the national documents must first identify what they mean by a standard and the format their standards will take.  Next, they must systematically analyze all the national documents translating them into a format and conceptual base compatible with their own.  This can be a labor-intensive endeavor that calls for a variety of resources (“NCTE”). In an ideal world, teachers would have time to internalize the standards, adjust their teaching to their demands, gather the necessary instructional resources, receive training, and even provide input into revisions of the standards.  Teachers were introduced to standards through the assessments instead of the other way around. Teachers soon viewed the assessments as a threat instead of a tool, and felt enormous pressure to raise test scores instead of teaching a learner-appropriate curriculum. After having the opportunity to see Windsor’s Core Curriculum, it was apparent the amount of effort and creativity that goes into the alignment process.  It’s unfortunate that the government, who will soon require that this task be completed in all schools, does not compensate these overworked teachers.  I believe that this curriculum will benefit students in the end, because not only does it focus on the tests, but also it allows students to build on prior

knowledge.  The idea is to create scaffolded curriculums where students build their knowledge from one grade to the next.  If the shift moves from testing to a more reliable form of assessment, there is always a possibility. Assessment and Accountability Assessment is designed to identify, monitor and report learning.  The ELA assessments focus on students’ actual performances as readers, writers, and listeners and are directly connected to curriculum and instructional practice through the performance indicators.  How well does current large-scale testing assess a student's reading ability and identify where help is needed?  This section of the report will focus on the assessment and accountability aspects of standards-based education, especially standardized testing.  In his book, The Case Against Standardized Testing, Kohn attacks the failure of standardized testing.  Kohn successfully argues that the tests not only do not do what they are supposed to do--measure and increase student learning--but that they actually undermine true education.  Kohn is less successful when proposing what should be used in their place. Described in Time magazine as “perhaps the country’s most outspoken critic of education’s fixation on grades [and] test scores,” Kohn sees current assessment standards (letter grades) as detrimental to education. He claims that when assessed in such a fashion, "students think less creatively, they lose interest in what they’re learning, and they try to avoid challenging tasks.” (2) Critics argue that multiple-choice tests do not measure student knowledge accurately.  The tests focus on time, which illustrates that they are more concerned with quantity rather than quality (12).  The term, “norm-referenced” tests, a phrase coined by Robert Glaser, refers to tests that “provide little or no information

about…what the individual can do.”  Instead, this creates a process in which students are sorted into winners and losers (14).  Kohn believes that tests ignore the process by which students arrive at an answer.  By focusing on the finished product, the test does not give the student recognition for his/her critical thinking skills (8).  Kohn also voices his concerns regarding test anxiety, which he believes to be a major factor in low-test scores.  Students are so focused on the actual exams that their nerves cause them to do poorly.  Kohn states, “Exams used to be administered mostly to decide where to place kids or what kind of help they needed; only recently have scores been published in newspaper and used as the primary criteria for judging children, teachers, and schools…we subject children as young as six to standardized exams” (2).    Hillocks questions standardized testing as well.  He asks, “Does a writing test assess what its proponents claim? Does it indicate how well a student may be able to write in any given situation? Are these tests meaningful measures of individuals and schools?” (68).  When he began the study to examine whether state writing tests in Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, New York, and Texas actually improve students' ability to express their thinking in writing, thirty-seven states had some sort of writing assessment, and only a handful of them allowed for developing a piece of writing over more than one session.  Through my observation at Windsor Middle School, I was able to confer with teachers on the curriculum alignment staff as to the amount of writing students perform on the exams.  Carol Mikoda, an eighth grade teacher, informed me that writing was a very minute part of the exam (See Appendix J, K).  As a teacher of Nancy Atwell’s Reading and Writing Workshop, Mikoda found this very troublesome. But the key threads of Hillocks’ argument go far beyond the validity of state-mandated, on-demand, single-prompt tests. Much of his study focuses on the discrepancy between testing rubrics or criteria and the standards they supposedly reflect. He argues that, in most states, the rubrics are vague and the instruction they

promote is of low quality and little use to students. He cites, for example, assessment prompts that ask students to write quickly on random topics without offering data or information cause classroom instructions to rely on mechanical writing such as the five-paragraph essay and he says they  “engender vacuous writing”… setting low standards for teaching and eliminating “the need for critical thought” (114).  It [the five-paragraph theme] teaches students that any reasons they propose in support of a proposition need not be examined for “consistency, evidentiary force, or even relevance” (136).  The tests and the preparatory practices they engender in classrooms invite writing that Hillocks sardonically dismisses as “blether,” a word his Scottish forebears used “to indicate talk that was unfocused, rambling, and . . . thoughtless” (77). In a careful deconstruction of rubrics and benchmark papers used in assessments of persuasive writing, Hillocks observes that while many states highlight “organization” and “elaboration of evidence” as the main criteria, their standard for elaboration is purely quantitative, i.e., the number of supports for a claim is considered but not their quality or accuracy.  But, Hillocks argues, more is not necessarily better.  In Illinois and Texas, rubrics fail to measure how well ideas are developed or the relevance of the evidence used in supporting claims. As a result, there is no way to evaluate the quality of support made for an assertion. The end result illustrates that what matters is the form not the content, and students needn’t be responsible for what they write, only how it conforms to the formula.  Tests undermine the standards they are meant to support, he argues, and, worse, encourage bad writing and bad teaching practices.  In Hillocks’ view, only Kentucky and Oregon have developed assessments congruent with what their standards and to what the research have shown to be effective classroom practices.  President Bush's recent education proposal (2004) indicates even greater reliance on educational tests for high-stakes decisions.

Among other things, his plan calls for testing children in reading and math every year from grades three through eight and granting federal education funds only to schools that meet state-determined achievement standards.  This proposal is set to take place in 2006, while “field testing at Grades 3-8 needs to be conducted in 2005 so that the results and data collected from these items can be used as the basis for the development of the operational tests to be administered in 2006” (“NYSED”).  These new tests are on the New York State Department of Education’s website (NYSED).  Because growing national attention on accountability in education has heightened the seriousness of such tests' consequences--both for individual students and for schools and districts--federal lawmakers are proposing legislation to help ensure that states deploy such tests fairly and appropriately (“NYSED”).  The reason that some states have begun to create tests that are “easier” is due to the high-stakes accountability. The recent influx of testing is the crux of the “dumming down” process.  The focus on student achievement is shifting away from its original goal of assisting those students in need, and the new focus is on promoting success in schools with a monetary reward.  Accountability asks that stakeholders be held responsible for ensuring that all students receive the support necessary for achieving the standards. There is no evidence that high stakes testing improves the education system. The idea of the standards movement has been clouded by the requirement that everyone must be proficient by 2014, resulting in an onslaught of tests as the proposed cure for failing schools.  States will in turn create easier tests in order to receive recognition, which defeats the purpose of a quality education for all students (Resnick & Zurawasky 19) Although there are many arguments as to the validity of standardized testing, the standards movement does have its staunch supporters.  According to Lauren Resnick and Chris Zurwasky, authors of “Standards-Based Reform and Accountability: Getting

Back on Course,”  “In examination-based education systems, it is normal and appropriate that curriculum and teaching are related to exams and aimed at helping students do well on them. In most European and Asian countries, for example, secondary school students take subject-matter examinations that are directly linked to a publicly specified curriculum”(15).  Resnick and Zurwasky argue for standards-based education, even teaching to the test.  The authors have been proponents of the standards movement from the get-go and they believe that the standardized testing is beginning to work, even in the poorest districts, and that its opponents need to be patient (8). The Center for Education Policy claims that U.S. Public schools have improved in many ways since the movement to reform education by raising the standards first took shape twenty years ago.  They claim that more Americans are completing high school or college: in 1985 to 2002 the percentage of Americans 25 or older who completed high school jumped from 74 to 84%, and the number of students who completed college rose from 19 to 27%.  The increase is believed to have occurred as a result of a more challenging curriculum.  Students at the high school level completed a core curriculum involving four years of English, three years of Math, Social Studies, and Science.  From 1982 to 2000 students completing more advanced math and science courses rose from 14 to 57%.  The gaps in test scores amongst the white and minority students have begun to narrow (“CEP”). David Abrams, assistant commissioner of standards, assessment, and reporting for the New York State Education Department, is also an advocate of standards-based education, especially the use of annual tests as an assessment tool.  He believes that the test will accurately measure a student’s knowledge because the tests will work in conjunction with the actual curriculum.  He states, “This uniformity will generate clean and consistent data that will allow for longitudinal studies in which student progress can be tracked

over time” (Basler 11A).   Uniformity can also be a deterrent in assessment as well.  Because of the way most high-stakes assessments are designed and the way scores are reported, students with different strengths and weaknesses can actually receive the same score. Sharon Valencia and Marsha Riddle Buly, authors of “Below the Bar: Profiles of Students Who Fail State Reading Assessment,” conclude that scores from large-scale tests do not take into account the variety of differences associated with reading comprehension.  Tests only look at the finished product and neglect the actual thinking process. Because of the diverse learning styles of each individual, it becomes evident that there is no “one size fits all” type of test.  Every failing grade does not warrant the same type of remedial instruction (7).Valencia claims that generalized remedies fail the students. She feels that isolated test scores by themselves aren't particularly helpful in understanding what individual students need. And policies based on a single test score can lead to inappropriate decisions, “We have to peel back lots of layers to find out what's at the core of a specific student's difficulty. In addition, we need to develop more detailed images of student progress. Even if students haven't read at their grade level on a large-scale test, we need an assessment system that can show when they've made progress in that direction." (7).Using a variety of individualized assessments similar to those many teachers use in the classroom, Valencia and Riddle Buly identified six distinctive profiles of students who had failed the test. These six groups showed various strengths and weakness in three major areas of reading: word identification, comprehension, and fluency. For example, among the students who failed the test were fourth-graders whose word identification abilities tested at the ninth-grade level and others who tested at the first-grade level, just learning to read words. Similarly, some of the students read quickly and with expression, while others read haltingly or with little phrasing and expression. Furthermore, although many intervention programs for

struggling readers target word identification or phonics, more than 50% of the students who failed were strong in word identification. They had needs in comprehension, not in phonics. Valencia and Riddle Buly conclude that additional testing, such as that promoted by No Child Left Behind, will not improve student achievement. But better instruction, focused on students' needs, will. Results of their study suggest that this kind of instruction cannot be evaluated by scores of large-scale assessments. However, instruction can be informed by classroom assessments and implemented by teachers who are supported in developing their expertise.  Their research also illustrated that reading problems are much more complex and multi-faceted than a single score suggests. While their study focuses on Washington State's reading test, their results are not unique, but indicative of a larger, nationwide issue (16).  Another area of concern regarding high-stakes assessments relates to “what data the basic model should employ. Some possibilities include current status, comparisons of cross-sectional cohorts of students at different grades in the same year, comparisons of cross-sectional cohorts in a fixed grade from one year to the next, longitudinal comparisons of school aggregate scores without requiring matched individual data, and longitudinal comparisons based only on matched student records. Should simple change scores be used or some form of regression-based adjustment? And, if regression-based adjustments are used, what variables should be included as predictors? In particular, should measures of socioeconomic status be used in the adjustments?” (Linn par. 11) Robert Linn feels that by attaching a “high stakes” label to assessments they lose much of their dependability and credibility.  “The unintended negative effects of the high-stakes accountability uses often outweigh the intended positive effects”.  More emphasis needs to be placed on comparisons of performance from year to year than from school to school.  This allows for differences in starting points while maintaining an expectation of improvement for all. Put in place a system for evaluating both the intended

positive effects and the more likely unintended negative effects of the system” (Linn para. 15).

It is necessary to take a look at both sides of the argument concerning assessment and accountability.  While proponents for the standard movement recognize that a contextualized curriculum helps students build knowledge through connected lessons, those who are opposed recognize that the assessment process is faulty.  The monetary rewards offered to the schools have caused standards to be lowered, which shifts from the original goal of higher standards for all students.  With the alignment of the curriculum to the standards being implemented in some schools, the assessment process needs to move from multiple-choice tests to an evaluation process that identifies student’s strengths as well as weaknesses.  Isolated test scores do not accurately measure knowledge, but better instruction will create life-long learners.

Conclusion:Organizing schools around standards is not an easy task—no one size fits all.  Standards-based approaches must be tailor made to the specific needs and values of individual schools and districts.  The ability to communicate well - to read, write, listen, and speak – is an essential human discipline.  Students in the end will have the ability to think critically.  Scaffolded lessons that are grade-appropriate and contexualized will allow students the ability to build on prior knowledge.  Standards-based education allows teachers and students to work together towards the same goal. 

   

 Works Cited

  Basler, George.  “How Much is Too Much?” 

       The Press & Sun Bulletin  20 Nov. 2005: 1A+ CEP on the Web. 5 October 2005. Center on Education. 5 October 2005.            <http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/LatestGoodNews/NewsReleaseGoodNewsAugust2005.doc Teachers College Columbia University.        “Education Policy Panel Discusses the Real-World Impact of No Child Left Behind”

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news/article.htm?id=4657&tid=119

 Ericsson, Patricia F. “Raising the Standards: A Call for Definitions. “ 

 English Education, 37 (3), 223-241. 

Faust, Mark A., and Kieffer, Ronald D.  “Challenging Expectations: Why  

   We Ought to Stand by the IRA/NCTE standards for the English   Language Arts.”  Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.  41.7.

         (1998): 540. Hillocks, George. The Testing Trap: How State Writing Assessments  

Control  Learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2002.

 Kohn, Alfie. The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the            

      Scores,  Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann, 2000.

 Linn, Robert L. (2001). “Assessments and Accountability” (condensed     

  version). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7.11 (2001):          5 Oct. 2005. < http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=11. NCTE on  the  Web. 3 Oct. 2005. National Council of Teachers. 5 October 2005.   <http://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards

 Michigan on the Web. 7 April 2005. State of Michigan. 5 October 2005. <       http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-1883518897-72339--,00.html NYSED on the Web. 3 Oct. 2005. State Education Department. 5 Oct.            2005 < http://emsc33.nysed.gov/ciai/ Ravitch, Diane. “Every State Left Behind.”         New York Times 7 Nov. 2005 Ravitch, Diane.  National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s   .         Guide.  Washington, DC: Brookings, 1995 Resnick, Lauren, and Zurawsky, Chris. “Getting Back on Course.”         American Educator. Spring 2005: 8-19, 44-45. Riddle Buly, M., and Valencia, Sheila W. “Below the Bar: Profiles of Students Who Fail          State Reading Assessment.”  Educational and Policy Analysis. 24 (Fall), 1-56.      

http://www.readingfirstohio.org/worddocs/Salinger_Below_the_Bar1.doc Szalavitz, Maia. Concept to Classroom.  “Teaching to Academic         Standards.” Thirteen Ed Online May 2004.           < http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/standards/index.html UFT Teacher’s Center. 5 Oct. 2005. United Federation of Teachers. 5 Oct.

   2005. < http://www.ufttc.org/curricshcase2.html Winerip, Michael. “Holdouts Against Standard Tests Are Under Attack in  

   New York.” New York Times on the Web 15 June 2005. 5 October   2005 < http://www.lizkrueger.com/news/news49.html

 Windsor Core Curriculum 2005-2006 http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html - offers the Recommendations originally advised on the 1983 document.  http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/index.php - open forum for teachers to voice their concerns over a variety of topics http://www.corningareaschools.com/release11.cfmCorning Painted Post School District website