Two decades after being diagnosed as "a nation at risk," academic standards for U.S. primary and secondary schools are more important than ever-and the quality of those standards matters enormously.
In 1983, as nearly every American knows, the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared that "The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people." Test scores were falling, schools were asking less of students, international rankings were slipping, colleges and employers were complaining, and too many high school graduates were semi-literate. America was gripped by an education crisis centering on weak academic achievement in its K-12 schools. Though that weakness had myriad causes, it quickly occurred to policymakers, business leaders and astute educators that the surest cure would begin by spelling out the skills and knowledge that children ought to learn in school, i.e. setting standards against which progress could be tracked, performance be judged, and curricula (and textbooks, teacher training, etc.) be aligned. Indeed, the vast education renewal movement that gathered speed in the mid 1980's quickly came to be known as "standards-based reform."
In 1989, President George H. W. Bush and the governors agreed on ambitious new national academic goals, including the demand that "By the year 2000, American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography."
In response, states began to spell out academic standards for their schools and students. In 1994, Washington added momentum via the "Goals 2000" act and a revision of the Title I program that asked every state to set standards and track student and school progress in relation to them.
Two years later, governors and business leaders convened an education summit to map out a plan to strengthen K-12 academic achievement. The summiteers called for "new world-class standards" for U.S. schools. "Too often," said then-Nevada governor Bob Miller, "we seem too willing to accept underachieving standards suitable only for a Beavis, a Butt-head, or a Bart Simpson. The nation's governors and CEOs are fed up with passive acceptance of mediocrity."
By 1997, 28 states had outlined standards in core subjects and we at the Fordham Foundation took it upon ourselves to find out whether they were any good. That year we published State English Standards, our first such appraisal. Three years later, when we published the State of State Standards 2000, 48 states had academic standards for English. And while it was understood that standards are just one leg in a reform tripod that also required assessments and accountability, every leg must be sturdy or the structure will topple.
In her 2000 review of state English standards, Sandra Stotsky found their most common failings in the teaching of beginning reading and the study of literature: less than half the states expected systematic phonics instruction, only 31 had decent literary standards, and just 21 specified the study of American or British literature. A third of the states had standards that were not even measurable, and half failed to reflect increasing levels of intellectual difficulty, thus providing scant guidance to curriculum developers, test-makers and teachers.
Standards-based reform has since received another major boost from NCLB. Prior to its enactment in 2002, Washington encouraged states to set standards. Now, as a condition of federal education assistance, they must set such standards in reading and math (and, soon, science) in grades 3-8; develop a testing system to track performance; and hold schools and school systems to account for progress toward universal proficiency as gauged by those standards.
Though tying federal dollars to school accountability has been controversial and, in some quarters, deplored and resisted, it was precisely the impetus that many states needed to improve their English standards. Looking across all the states in 2005, Stotsky finds substantial gains, especially in reading standards, which bear the heaviest weight under NCLB. The average state grade rose from 1.98 in 2000 to 2.41 in 2005. Most states have also heeded the emerging research consensus on early reading instruction and are incorporating the recommendations of Reading First into their standards, including systematic phonics instruction. Overall, they do a better job of addressing listening, reading, and writing skills and strategies than five years earlier.
That's the good news. Despite the gains, however, just 19 states earned "honors" grades on this year's evaluation of English standards, while eight received marks of D or F. Moreover, literature remains sorely neglected-even worse than before, particularly in high school. This is now the great weakness in state English standards, perhaps because NCLB focuses predominantly on grades 3-8. Uncorrected, it portends a generation of Americans who may know how to read but, by the end of high school, cannot be assumed to have read much that's worthwhile, let alone acquired a suitable grounding in the great works of our shared culture.
The Bush administration has made its top education priority the revitalization of American high-school education in general and its inclusion under an NCLB-style accountability regimen in particular. Half the states already have high-school exit exams with consequences for students. If the President has his way, Washington will be pushing every state to set and enforce rigorous academic standards at the high-school level.
Yet in just a handful of states are the high-school English standards ready to sustain that solemn burden. More than half do not even acknowledge American literature in their standards and only four-Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Massachusetts-provide sufficient specifics to frame a good high-school literature curriculum. Unless America is ready to settle for graduates who possess reading skills but have read little of significance, the success of the President's proposal is going to hinge on another bold transformation of state English standards in the years ahead.
This editorial is adapted from the "Foreword" to The State of State English Standards 2005.
"Math, English standards edge up," by George Archibald, Washington Times, January 5, 2005
"Indiana sets bar high for students," by Staci Hupp, Indianapolis Star, January 5, 2004
"Study flunks state's math, English criteria, Foundation describes standards as 'poorly written, pretentious,'" by Gregory Roberts, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 5, 2004
"State math standards ranked last nationally," by Treena Shapiro, Honolulu Advertiser, January 5, 2004
