Putting Standards to the Test

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Systemic Reform — The Theory

Introduction: A Silent Revolution in American Education

Chapter II: The Theory in Action

Chapter III: Effects on Student Learning

Chapter IV: Conceptual Evaluation Design

Chapter VI: How Should We Measure Effects on Students?

Chapter VII: Bibliography

Chapter VIII: Appendices

Chapter I: Systemic Reform — The Theory

Introduction: A Silent Revolution in American Education

A silent revolution has transformed American education rivaling the Progressive movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. This new movement — which goes by the name of "systemic" or "standards-based" reform — now dominates education policy in nearly every state, and is the basis for essentially all federal policy-making targeted at K-12 schools. This is not to ignore other competing strategies for the reform of our schools, most notably the inclusion of market competition (e.g., charter schools, school choice, vouchers), but even when these options are implemented they are typically being implemented within the broader context of systemic school reform.

The spark that ignited this revolution came not from national leadership but from the states, especially the highly influential report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, The Nation at Risk (1983), which galvanized the education community around the goal of combating the "rising tide of mediocrity" that was purported to be destroying our schools and placing our children at risk of falling behind in the global marketplace. But even before the publication of this landmark report, a number of governors, especially those in the South, had placed education high on their political agenda based on a realization that without efforts to upgrade the skills of their state's children they would not be able to sustain economic growth in the new information-driven post-industrial economy.

By the end of the 1980's the governors were rapidly moving ahead with education reform and were then joined by President Bush in a 1989 "education summit" that created the first national education goals. A year later, President Bush proposed national legislation — the America 2000 Act — to implement the education goals using four strategies: (1) building local organizations to help achieve the national goals, (2) the design and implementation of "break the mold" schools, (3) demonstration grants to support school choice through tuition vouchers, and (4) voluntary national tests for grades 4, 8, and 12. It was the issue of national testing, however, that eventually defeated this proposal in Congress.

Following the 1992 election, President Clinton (a former governor who helped lead the creation of the national education goals) made another attempt at stimulating the federal role in school reform with the introduction of "Goals 2000: Educate America Act," and proposals for incorporating systemic reform into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (called the "Improving America's Schools Act" of 1994). In both cases, these legislative proposals represented dramatic departures from previous federal education policy. For more than three decades, the main purpose for federal intervention in locally-controlled public schools has been to promote an "equality of educational opportunity" for various groups of disadvantaged children. In 1965 Congress passed the initial landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which extended federal support to help disadvantaged students; this was followed by efforts targeted at bilingual students in 1968, the disabled in 1974, and minority students in 1983. Since the early 1990's, however, the thrust of federal policy has shifted more to the use of federal funds to encourage states to make broader changes in school systems. Most recently, we have seen this effort extended even farther with the use of federal funds to hire teachers, reduce class size, and increase school access to educational technology — all actions which are not necessarily targeted at specific groups of children.

The main change in the shift from previous federal legislation and the "America 2000" and "Goals 2000" programs was to a greater focus on state leadership as the driver of school reform, and the need for aligned and coherent policies regarding standards for what students are expected to learn, instructional materials and curriculum, teacher preparation, and accountability and assessment systems. The basis for this changed direction was derived in large part from the seminal work of Marshall S. Smith (later to become the Assistant Secretary of Education) and Jennifer O'Day, then at Stanford University. The legislation, enacted in 1994 after a year of continuing debates, acknowledged the role that many states were already playing in systemic reform. The legislation support states in focusing more on the outcomes of district and school efforts (e.g., student achievement and changes in instruction) and less on compliance with rules and regulations. Specifically, states were encouraged to develop content and performance standards in core subject areas, and to align their entire educational systems including assessment, curriculum, instruction, professional development, and parental and community involvement — around these standards. As a result, Goals 2000 began serving as a source of funds that could support state efforts already underway, as long as they conformed to the general principles of systemic reform.

Since passage of Goals 2000, Congress has appropriated over $2.5 billion for this purpose, with at least 90 percent of each state's award subsequently sub-granted to school districts and/or consortia of districts (after year 1, when 60 percent was sub-granted) to implement systemic standards-based reform efforts at the local level. According to a 1998 Government Accounting Office report, between 1994 and 1997, states made Goals 2000 sub-grants to over one-third of the 14,367 districts in the Nation. Generally, funds have been used to support state reform efforts through: the development of state and local standards, curricula, and assessments; professional development related to the new standards and curricula; and, improved pre-service teacher education.

This chapter presents the theory underlying the systemic reform movement in education. The next section details Smith and O'Day's approach to systemic reform, forming the theory behind the Goals 2000 legislation. The following four sections examine systems theory, how K-12 education in the United States functions as a system, and two conceptual models of how the U.S. K-12 education system operates under systemic reform. The chapter concludes with a brief critique of systemic reform and a rebuttal to this critique.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.