Persistence and Change: Standards-Based Systemic Reform in Nine States. Massell, D., Kirst, M., Hoppe, M. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), RB-21, March 1997.

This policy brief highlights findings of a study conducted by CPRE researchers to examine the evolution of standards-based reform in nine states in 1994–95. Researchers interviewed state and district policy makers and educators in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas.

The authors cite three features common to standards-based reform, in general: 1) challenging academic standards set by the state; 2) education policies that are tied to the new standards; and 3) restructured governance that enables teachers and schools to decide how best to achieve the standards.

The nine states in the study each experienced steady, incremental progress towards systemic reform, according to the authors. While the pace was slow, states stayed the course through turnovers in leadership and financial setbacks. In addition to setting standards, many states set about aligning their testing systems to their standards. This often involved altering test formats to integrate performance assessments, as was done in Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Jersey.

Some states also made progress toward building teacher capacity. Florida, Connecticut, and Minnesota aligned entry-level teacher certification programs to the new standards. Subject matter and grade-level-based teacher networks proliferated during this time as well. In California, for example, the university system partnered with the State Department of Education to launch Subject Matter Projects, discipline-specific teacher networks that offered teachers guidance as they implemented standards in their classrooms.

The authors credit state policy makers, business and education communities, and national associations with sustaining the interest in standards-based reform and encouraging its steady progress. Support, however, has not been unanimous, they note. Reforms received the strongest criticisms when they focused on new education goals to the apparent exclusion of traditional goals and teaching methods. According to the authors, policy makers responded to criticisms by seeking greater balance between new and old goals. In Kentucky, for example, policy makers struck this balance by reintroducing multiple-choice items into the state accountability index while retaining the writing portfolio and other performance-based assessments. Even in California, where the backlash to standards-based reform was stronger than in most states surveyed, state laws were passed that enabled test developers to include both old and new testing and teaching approaches if they chose to do so.

In terms of local response to state standards-setting, the authors found that local staff viewed state standards as just one resource among many (including national and other districts’ standards and community input) for developing curriculum.

The authors conclude that while standards-based reform has achieved broad support and has persisted through difficult political and financial times, several challenges to its success remain:

1. Additional and more sustained training and professional development must be given to teachers and administrators. The authors assert that, while standards-based reform requires changes in teaching and administrative practices, states are not matching this need with the necessary supports. Interviewees echoed this concern, say the authors.

2. Attention must be focused on how to include special needs students in this reform effort. According to the authors, standards-based reform has largely been focused on general education.

3. In offering more balance between new and old education goals, policy makers have helped the standards-based reform movement move forward. However, the authors assert, policy makers must now ask themselves if these hybrid policies make sense in the classroom or send mixed signals.

4. External agencies help to connect people, but they also add a layer of complexity that could send educators on competing paths in developing curriculum. According to the authors, policy makers at the state level should look for ways to bring about greater coordination among these groups

To download a copy of this report from the Internet, go to: www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/Publications_Policy_Briefs.htm