Proponents of standards-based reform argue that flexibility in past reform efforts have not necessarily been shown to be successful.  State tests can highlight gaps and promote pressure for improvement, and these gaps will direct the resources to the most needy schools.  On a wider scale, a major advantage of standards-based reform is that standards and assessments can allow access to curriculum for all students, as well as more equitable outcomes.

However, it is generally agreed that in order to be successful, these higher standards must be aligned with reforms in testing, teacher education, improved teaching practices, and proper allocation of resources.

Please refer to the following links (a summary is provided at the end of this page):
 
 

Executive Summary:  "Standard-Based Reform in New York State"

• The following link contains a summary of a 1997 article assessing the effectiveness of the standards-based reform movement in New York.  It addresses strengths and shortcomings, and makes suggestions for improvement.

Standards-Based Accountability:  Ten Suggestions

• This CRESST policy brief by Robert Linn discusses current advantages and disadvantages of standards-based accountability. Linn gives ten suggestions for improving the implementation and interpretation of standards and accountability.

Alignment:  Policy Goals, Policy Strategies, and Policy Outcomes

• The following link is for the Winter 2000 Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.  The opening article addresses issues of alignment in standards-based reform efforts.

Implementing Standards to Improve Student Achievement

• This website is a Power Point presentation by Deputy Commissioner Kadamus of New York.  This site presents objectives and performance data for the Regents Exam of New York State.  It then describes the political opposition and support for the Exam, as well as the arguments for and against it.

Will Raising Standards Improve Student Achievement? A Review of the Literature

• By Ming Xu, Ph.D.  This literature review summarizes research about the policy and practice of higher content standards, gives different points of view of prominent educators and officials, and presents empirical evidence on student performance.

SUMMARY:  ADVANTAGES

In spite of the debate over state and national standards reform efforts, it is universally agreed by educators and experts that a key component of improving student achievement is raising standards.

In the 1996 National Education Summit, state governors, education leaders, and business leaders came to a consensus that use of standards will:

1. Help all students learn more by demanding higher student proficiency and providing effective methods to help students achieve high standards;

2. Provide parents, schools, and communities with an unprecedented opportunity to debate and reach agreement on what students should know and be able to do;

3. Focus the education system on understandable, objective, measurable, and well-defined goals to enable schools to work smarter and more productively;

4. Reinforce the best teaching and educational practices already found in classrooms and make them the norm;

5. Provide real accountability by focusing squarely on results and helping the public and local and state educators evaluate which programs work best.

Proponents of standards-based reform argue that flexibility in past reform efforts have not necessarily been shown to be successful.  State tests can highlight gaps and promote pressure for improvement, as well as demonstrate that these gaps will drive the resources to the most needy schools.  On a wider scale, a major advantage of standards-based reform is that standards and assessments can allow access of curriculum for all students, as well as more equitable outcomes.

However, it is generally agreed that in order to be successful, these higher standards must be aligned with reforms in testing, teacher education, improved teaching practices, and proper allocation of resources.
 

SUMMARY:  DISADVANTAGES

While several states are implementing some form of standards-based reform, there is very little empirical evidence to prove that standards, assessment, and high-stakes accountability programs are effective in improving public schools.  In many states, such as California, attempts to implement standards-based reform are inconsistently or carelessly aligned with quality research. The following are some of the shortcomings of standards-based reform.

1. Recent reports on the standards-based reform movement in New York suggest that in many schools the careless implementation of standards and assessment may have negative consequences for students.

2. Vague and unclear standards in several subject areas in several states complicate matters and do not serve as concrete standards defining what students should know and be able to do.

3. Top-down standards imposed by the federal or state government are also problematic.  They impose content specifications without taking into account the different needs, opportunities to learn, and skills that may be appropriate for specific districts or regions.

Copyright © 2000, Education 388A, Stanford University