A Lapse in Standards

Little empirical evidence supports or refutes the existence of a causal link between standards and enhanced student learning. In its absence, the authors articulate five theories of action, discuss a study that proposes one such concrete mechanism, and present two small case studies that suggest how standards can affect student learning in day- to-day practice. DAVID HORNBECK, until recently superintendent of schools in Philadelphia, is a true believer. He believes that high academic standards will lead 95% of Philadelphia's public school students to achieve a rating of proficient on the standardized Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) by the year 2008.1 Critics wonder how that's possible in a city where 80% of the students live in poverty.2 How does Hornbeck think this will work? What's his theory of action?3 He suggests that students need somebody to believe in them. Communicating high expectations for all students conveys to them that you believe that they can meet the standards. Says Hornbeck, If you don't have real faith that every child can succeed, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.4 Is faith in students enough? What mechanisms actually link the act of raising standards with improved student achievement? Little empirical evidence supports or refutes the existence of a causal link between standards and enhanced student learning. In its absence, we articulate here five theories of action by which standards might improve student achievement. We also discuss a study that proposes one such concrete mechanism, and we present two small case studies that suggest how standards can affect student learning in day-to-day practice. Definitions We begin with brief definitions of the different types of standards that reformers have proposed to raise student achievement. The most commonly discussed standards are content standards, performance standards, and opportunity-to-learn standards.5 Content standards. Sometimes called curriculum frameworks, content standards define the specific subject matter that students are expected to master.6 For example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has created a comprehensive set of K-12 mathematics content standards and has taken the next step of suggesting teaching methods that can support students' learning the prescribed content.7 The process of creating content standards can be complex. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has analyzed the standards-setting process in five states and three national curriculum projects and has offered a set of nine suggestions to guide those who would set standards.8 Performance standards. The notion of performance standards covers one or more of three ideas: 1) how students will demonstrate mastery of the content defined by the content standards (e.g., by solving a set of math word problems and explaining the process of solution); 2) the degree of mastery expected in a student's performance (e.g., a certain percentage correct on an assessment with given content), and 3) the proportion of students in a school expected to perform at or above a specified level.9 Opportunity-to-learn standards. Such standards require that students have adequate resources (e.g., supplies, textbooks, good teachers) available before they are penalized for failing to attain the standards set for them. Vermont's supreme court, for example, ruled in 1997 that it was the state's responsibility to provide for all Vermont students substantially equal access to a high-quality basic education, and this means a more equitable funding mechanism. Included in Vermont's new education funding law is a set of statewide performance standards. Progress toward meeting those standards is to be assessed and reported to the public annually.10 Other kinds of standards mentioned less frequently include certification standards and world-class standards. …