## Archived Information Objective 1.1: States develop challenging standards and assessments for all students in the core academic subjects.

### National Need

**National Concerns.** As we begin the 21^st^ century, educators in the
United States are called on to meet the challenge of ensuring that *all*
students in *every* school meet high expectations for achievement. Data
show that some children are at great risk of being left behind in an
economy driven by expanded information, increased knowledge, and higher
skills. In some schools, and most often in high-poverty schools, student
achievement and expectations are low. Gaps in student achievement
between high- and low-poverty students and between minority students and
their peers have persisted and in some cases widened in recent years.

American public education is rising to meet the challenge of higher
expectations and achievement. Across the Nation, states and school
districts are more focused than ever on helping students master
challenging material by setting high standards for learning, holding
schools and students accountable for performance, and providing schools
and students with the assistance they need to improve.

Much progress has been made, but there is much work still to be done.
Almost all states have standards in place, but independent reviews
suggest that standards vary in rigor across the states. Setting high
standards is just a first step. Making sure that all students reach high
standards requires states to implement system-wide strategies to align
curriculum, assessments, teacher training, and instruction with
challenging standards. Accountability for student performance must be
shared by: schools, teachers, students, and families. These systemic
changes take time and will be a continuing challenge for public
education.

**Our Role.** Meeting the goal of helping all children reach high
standards is a cross-cutting objective in which every Federal education
program has a role to play. In particular, the 1994 reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), along with the
creation of Goals 2000, has supported the development of challenging
state standards and assessments, and brought Federal program support and
accountability in line with state and local reform efforts. Title I of
the ESEA is focused on ensuring that all students meet high standards,
especially students who are at risk of educational failure in
economically disadvantaged communities. Particularly through these key
programs, the Department of Education (ED) is helping states, districts,
and schools to develop challenging content and student performance
standards and assessments; bring standards into the classroom; hold
schools accountable for results; and assist states, districts, and
schools in aligning all aspects of their educational systems with high
standards of learning.

In addition, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 1998 (Perkins III) requires that states use their Federal vocational
education funding to support the development of challenging academic
standards. Perkins III provides grants to states to improve the academic
performance of students through various strategies, including
professional development and innovative instructional approaches. It
also requires that students who participate in vocational education meet
the same challenging academic standards as all students in the state.

Recent reports suggest that ED has played an important role in raising
standards. A 1998 report by the General Accounting Office on the
activities of Goals 2000 praised the program for its work in helping
states and districts implement standards-based reform. The report noted,
"Many state officials report that Goals 2000 has been a significant
factor in promoting their education reform efforts and, in several
cases, was a catalyst for some aspect of the state's reform movement.
State and local officials said that Goals 2000 funding provided valuable
assistance and that, without this funding, some reform efforts either
would not have been accomplished or would not have been accomplished as
quickly." In addition, a recent Department survey shows that almost half
of district administrators report that Title I is a force behind
bringing about standards-based reform in the district to a moderate or
great extent, and 60 percent report that Title I is driving
standards-based reform in the highest poverty schools in the district.

By the 2000-01 school year, the ESEA requires states to have their final
standards and assessment systems in place. To prepare states for meeting
this statutory requirement, ED has widely circulated guidance and held
training workshops for states on the evidence that they will need to
submit to the Department to verify that standards and assessments are
implemented. ED supports the use of peer review teams, including
researchers and state and local practitioners, to review evidence on
state standards and assessment systems.

As states make progress in developing challenging content and student
performance standards, ED will increasingly focus on helping states and
districts monitor performance, building the capacity of schools and
teachers to deliver high-quality curriculum and instruction, and
providing students with the support they need to meet high standards for
learning. Programs such as the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
(CSRD) program, and the Reading Excellence Act (REA) programs support
this focus. The Department's proposal for reauthorizing the ESEA would
continue and strengthen the commitment to rigorous standards for all and
accountability for results.

Our Performance

#### How We Measure. The performance indicators for this objective focus on state progress in developing state content, student performance standards, and aligned assessments. The indicators include measures of the rigor of standards and assessment systems, as well as measures of the extent to which standards are moving from states to use by teachers in schools and classrooms. 

#### By the 1997-98 school year, each state was to have adopted challenging content standards, in at least reading and math, that specify what all children are expected to know, as well as challenging performance standards that describe students' mastery of the content standards. States are to adopt or develop student assessment systems that are aligned with standards in at least reading/language arts and math. These final assessments, which states must implement by the 2000-01 school year, are to be administered at least once during grades 3-5; 6-9; and 10-12, and are to allow for reporting based on standards. The assessments are to include reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with diverse learning needs, including students with limited English proficiency (LEP). The assessments must allow for disaggregation and reporting at the state, district, and school levels of students' results by gender, major racial/ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant status, disability, and economic status. ED has developed detailed guidance for states and a peer review process for examining evidence on final state standards and assessment systems.

The initial challenge for states was to develop challenging content and
student performance standards. The second challenge is to implement
standards in the classroom. For this reason, this objective includes a
measure of the extent to which standards actually move into the
classroom. The indicator reflects a need to move to actual
implementation of the standards---particularly for disadvantaged
students in high-poverty schools where expectations for achievement are
often low.

**Indicator 1.1.a. By the end of the 1997-98 school year, all states
will have challenging content and student performance standards in place
for 2 or more core subjects.**

**Assessment of Progress**. Positive trends toward the targets for both
content and performance standards. The goal for 1999 was for all states
to have content standards in place. As of 1999, the Department of
Education has approved the development process for content standards in
48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see Figure
1.1.a.1). One additional state is still in the process of developing
state content standards, and the other state has submitted evidence to
the Department that is now under review. The goal for 1999 was to have
the development process for state performance standards approved for 38
states. To date, 24 states and Puerto Rico have demonstrated to the
Department that they have completed the development of both content and
student performance standards (see Figure 1.1.a.2). Results on
performance standards fall short of the target because many states are
developing student performance standards along with their final
assessment systems, which are not required to be in place until the
2000-01 school year. Rather than developing student performance
standards as a template for assessments to come online later, many
states are developing their assessment instruments and constructing
performance standards from pilot tests of their new assessments. States
will submit evidence that performance standards are in place as part of
the peer review process for final state standards and assessment
systems.

![](media/image2.wmf) Figure 1.1.a.1 Figure 1.1.a.2

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Source:** Fig. 1.1.a.1 and 1.1.a.2. Consolidated State Plans,
Department of Education review of evidence submitted by states to
demonstrate their standards and assessment development process.
*Frequency***:** Annual. *Next Update***:** 2000. **Validation
procedure:** Data verified through ED peer review process. Although
states are not required to submit their standards to the Department of
Education for review, they must demonstrate that they have developed
content and performance standards. Upon completing the development of
standards, each state is required to submit evidence to the Department
that standards are in place and that a rigorous process was used to
adopt standards. This evidence is examined by teams of peer reviewers,
including researchers and state and local practiti1rs, to assess whether
states have met statutory requirements. The peer reviewers offer several
ways for states to demonstrate that the content and performance
standards were challenging, including conclusions from an independent
peer review panel convened by the state to review its standards; a
detailed description of the process the state used to develop its
standards and review their rigor (for example, a process to benchmark
state standards to nationally recognized standards, which includes input
from experts and other stakeholders); or evidence that student
performance on an aligned state assessment is comparable to student
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
**Limitations of data and planned improvements:** States are expected to
submit evidence that standards are in place; however, states are not
required to submit their standards to ED. Therefore, the Department can
only evaluate whether states used a rigorous process in developing and
adopting standards, not the quality of the standards themselves.

**Indicator 1.1.b. By 2001, all states will have assessments aligned to
challenging content and performance standards for 2 or more core
subjects.**

**Assessment of Progress**. Target not met. States are not required by
Title I to have final state assessments aligned with challenging
standards in place until the 2000-01 school year. To date, no state has
yet submitted evidence to the Department of Education that final
assessments are complete and implemented. Final assessments must include
all students, and states must be able to disaggregate performance by
student groups.

The 1999 goal of 28 states having final assessments in place was based
on an early review of state progress on implementing ESEA requirements.
According to that review, in 1997-98, 14 states indicated that they had
in place assessments aligned to state content standards (see Figure
1.1.b.1). However, to date, the Department has not formally approved any
state final assessment system. This approval process will begin in 2000.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="2.990972222222222in"
height="2.2666666666666666in"}As an indicator of the rigor of state
standards, Figure 1.1.b.2 compares student performance on state
assessments with student performance on the state National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment. The results indicate that
states' own performance measures may be more or less rigorous when
compared with an independent assessment such as NAEP.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.2083333333333335in"
height="4.141666666666667in"} Figure 1.1.b.1 Figure 1.1.b.2

**Source:** Fig. 1.1.b.1. Schenck and Carlson, "Standards-Based
Assessment and Accountability in American Education: A Report on States'
Progress (draft)" 1998; Fig. 1.1.b.2. National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), National Center for Education Statistics; Council of
Chief State School Officers/U.S. Department of Education, State
Education Indicators with a Focus on Title I 1999. *Frequency:* Fig.
1.1.b.1 ongoing beginning in 2000. *Next Update:* 2000. Fig. 1.1.b.2
annual for state assessments, NAEP biannual. *Next Update*: 2000
**Validation procedure:** Figure 1.1.b.1 includes an early estimate of
states with assessments aligned with standards based on a review of
consolidated state plans submitted to the Department of Education in
1996-98. These data were supplied by states several years before final
assessments were required to be in place and no formal verification
procedure applied. Data based on ED peer reviews of final state
assessments will begin to be available in 2000. Figure 1.1.b.2 compares
student achievement in reading on the 1998 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) with achievement on various state
assessments collected by the Department of Education in collaboration
with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The data were
validated by NCES and CCSSO review procedures. **Limitations of data and
planned improvements:** Figure 1.1.b.1: The 1998 estimate for aligned
assessments and standards was based on self-reported and incomplete data
during the transitional assessment period. The criteria used to make
this estimate is not the same as what will now be required as part of
the Department's peer review process for state standards and assessment
systems---which will include more rigorous evidence of alignment
(including inclusion policies and reporting) and technical quality.
Beginning in 2000, the peer review of final standards and assessment
systems will yield a more accurate report of states' status. Figure
1.1.b.2: N/A.

**Indicator 1.1.c. Increasing percentages of teachers will feel very
well prepared to implement new higher standards.**

**Assessment of Progress**. No significant change between 1996 and 1998.
No 1999 data available because data are collected every 2 years. Related
data released from the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change (LESCP)
in Title I schools demonstrate a challenge to achieving this target. In
the 1998 LESCP, among a sample of 71 high-poverty schools receiving
Title I finds, slightly less than half of teachers were "very familiar"
with the content and performance standards of their state or district in
mathematics and reading. No 2001 goal has been set because the next data
collections will be in 2000 and 2002.

######  Figure 1.4.a.1

![](media/image2.wmf)

**Source:** Teacher Quality Fast Response Survey (FRS). *Frequency:*
Every 2 years. *Next Update:* 2000. **Validation procedure:** Data
validated by NCES's review procedures and *NCES Statistical Standards*.
**Limitations of data and planned improvements:** Indicator is based on
teacher self-reported data. In addition, the exact question differed
across the 2 years of data collection: in 1996, teachers reported how
well prepared they were to implement "new, higher standards"; in 1998,
teachers reported how well prepared they were to implement
"state/district standards." In 2000, teachers will report how well
prepared they are to implement "state/district standards." This
indicator is intended to be a measure of teachers' readiness to
implement standards. However, in some cases, it may inadvertently only
measure whether a teacher is aware of the standards.

######## How We Plan to Achieve Our Objective

#### How ED's Activities Support the Achievement of this Objective. ED strategies are focused on helping states develop challenging standards, adopt aligned assessments, implement standards-based reform, and help students with special needs meet high standards. In 1999, the development of the ESEA reauthorization proposal, among other things, was a major strategy for the Department. Other strategies include supporting standards-based reform at the state and local level, overseeing compliance reviews of state standards, assessment, and accountability systems; producing and disseminating guidance and support materials on standards and assessments; providing technical assistance and consultants to states on standards and assessment issues; and developing policies to effectively move standards into the classroom through professional development and public awareness campaigns.

-   **Challenging state content and student performance standards.** To
    ensure that states follow a rigorous process for continually
    upgrading and improving challenging content and performance
    standards, the Department has created a peer review process to
    examine the evidence submitted by states about the process they used
    to adopt challenging standards; providing technical assistance to
    states through peer consultants, comprehensive assistance centers,
    and regional labs; and raising public awareness of standards and
    assessment issues.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Peer consultants.** The Department of Education is helping states
    develop performance standards by supporting teams of peer
    consultants to work with the states. The peer consultants convene
    Title I, assessment, and other state officials and experts to
    clarify issues, give technical assistance, and help develop a
    timeline for the implementation of standards.

-   **Handbook and guidance.** ED has also published a handbook on
    performance standards developed by a collaboration of about 20
    states---the State Collaborative on Assessments and Student
    Standards (SCASS)---that are working together through the Council of
    Chief State School Officers on standards and assessment issues. The
    handbook has been broadly disseminated and is being used as a guide
    for several workshops the Department is holding for states facing
    challenges in putting performance standards in place.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Assessments aligned with high standards.** Using Title I and Goals
    2000 grants, ED helps states meet the statutory requirements that
    they have assessment systems in place to measure student performance
    against state standards for at least reading and mathematics by
    2000-01. ED has published detailed guidance and technical handbooks
    on standards and assessment requirements under ESEA Title I. To help
    disseminate this information, ED will continue to conduct regional
    training sessions for states. These sessions have included national
    experts and leading state practitioners and focus on issues such as
    how to develop standards, how to align assessments with those
    standards, how to report and disaggregate data, and how to ensure
    that all students are included. Goals 2000 has sponsored peer
    consultant visits by leading practitioners in standards and
    assessments to states that requested assistance with their standards
    and assessment development process. Integrated review teams will
    continue to focus on the implementation of aligned assessment
    systems during their visits to states.

-   **Help students with special needs meet high standards.** ED is
    helping states make assessments inclusive of students with limited
    English proficiency (LEP) and students with disabilities. This
    ensures that states include these students in their accountability
    systems through appropriate accommodations on assessments, and ED
    develops model alternative assessments for states to use when
    students cannot be accommodated in the regular assessment program.
    ED efforts include the development of an LEP toolkit and training on
    inclusion and issues related to assessment for students with special
    needs.

-   **Reauthorization of ESEA.** The Department has developed a
    reauthorization proposal that will help build the capacity of
    schools and teachers to deliver challenging curriculum and engaging
    instruction aligned to high standards. These proposals include
    promoting staff development to ensure that teachers have the
    knowledge and skills necessary to help all students meet high
    standards and using technology to support student learning.

### How We Coordinate with Other Federal Agencies

-   **Research and Development.** ED is building on the math and science
    activities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and is
    working with NSF to learn from and build on the systemic
    initiatives.

-   **Implementing Standards.** ED is working with the National
    Education Goals Panel, as well as various organizations and
    associations to promote strategies to implement standards in the
    classroom. ED is also helping agencies that operate schools, such as
    the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior (Bureau
    of Indian Affairs), to develop and implement high standards for all
    students.

-   **Assessments Issues.** ED is working with the National Academy of
    Sciences (NAS) to disseminate information on state-of-the-art
    assessment techniques. There is also significant coordination on
    standards and assessment issues within the U.S. Department of
    Education. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
    heads up a Standards Team in the Department that includes
    representatives from offices within ED. OESE has worked closely with
    the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
    and the Office of Bilingual Educational Minority Languages Affairs
    (OBEMLA) on inclusion guidelines.

    Challenges to Achieving Our Objectives

The Department's emphasis on standards and aligned assessments for all
students has contributed to progress in the development of content and
performance standards in mathematics and reading/language arts in the
states.

First, the *1999 National Assessment of Title I*, *Promising Results,
Continuing Challenges,* identified several challenges related to
standards. The pace of progress in the development of performance
standards is lagging because states are concurrently developing and
implementing their assessments. Gauging the rigor and quality of
standards is also a challenge. The development of state content and
performance standards is an ongoing process requiring constant revision,
improvement, and raising of expectations and standards. To be
meaningful, standards at the state level must be accompanied by ongoing
efforts to bring standards to the classroom level, to equip teachers to
help students meet standards, and to set in place measures of
accountability for meeting expectations. The Title I evaluation report
recommends that strategies be developed to ensure that the progress of
*all* studentsparticularly disabled children and those with limited
English proficiency is considered as systems for setting goals and
measuring and reporting progress for various groups are established.