----

##  A Review of State Reading and Language Arts Standards. ERIC Digest.          

Public demand for improvements in education has motivated a search              for guidelines as to what constitutes satisfactory public                       instruction and learning.  One of the latest and most significant               manifestations of this has been efforts within the individual states            to define and adopt adequate reading and English language arts                  standards. As the states began to adopt standards, researchers                  analyzed the ways in which the various states have approached the               issue. WHY SET STATE STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION?Why should a                 school system, a particular school, or even an individual teacher               not define satisfactory instruction methods or student achievement              in a manner that recognizes local conditions? What is the benefit of            a state setting forth certain milestones that teachers and students             must accomplish? Where did the push for standards originate? 
As               the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's 1998 report on the subject notes,            the impetus for standards for reading and other subjects resulted               from a perception among some segments of the public that the level              of scholastic achievement among public-school students left much                room for improvement (Stotsky, 1997).  In response to this, in the              1980s there was an effort on the federal level to bring about a set             of voluntary national standards for the various academic subjects.              During this same period, a joint project of the National Council of             Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading                        Association (IRA) was also undertaken, leading eventually to the                issuance of a set of voluntary national guidelines.  Within some of             the states, there was a feeling that both the federal and                       association guidelines lacked a necessary level of either measurable            specificity or academic rigor (Stotsky, 1997).  Consequently,                   although state-level policymakers had traditionally left decisions              about instructional content and standards to local schools, many now            embarked on projects to define measurable standards by which to                 assess student achievement in their respective states (Wixson &                 Dutro, 1998). WHAT HAVE RESEARCHERS CONCLUDED ABOUT EXISTING STATE            STANDARDS?There have been significant efforts to appraise the               usefulness and comparative worth of the state reading standards.                Among leading research in the area have been studies by the American            Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Fordham Foundation, and the                   Council for Basic Education (CBE). Each of those organizations                  explored the state guidelines in terms of such qualities as                     soundness, rigor, clarity, and specificity (Stoicheva, 1999). 
A               1996 investigation of 28 sets of state reading and language arts                standards by the AFT found all of them to be unsatisfactory. The AFT            report, entitled "Making Standards Matter 1996," found 22 of the                sets of guidelines to meet its "common core" criterion, but found               only one to have sufficient standards for each grade and none to                reflect adequately clustered standards (Gandal, 1996). 
In 1997 the            Fordham Foundation itself examined state reading standards, using               some of the same sets of state guidelines as did the AFT report, as             well as some updated ones. Fordham's research reached similarly                 negative conclusions, finding that only 10 states' standards were               above the statistical mean of the study. Of the standards examined,             however, none was found to identify required readings or specific               titles to clarify difficulty level or the body of knowledge to be               assessed at each level. Eighteen of the documents placed below the              mean, five of which also were identified in the AFT research as                 failing to achieve the common core criterion. The Fordham                       researchers found two basic problems with the state standards: the              seemingly misplaced faith in the ability of young children to                   understand their own culture and other cultures; and an undue                   emphasis on the impermanence and variability of the English                     language (Stotsky, 1997). 
In research for the CBE, Joftus and                 Berman evaluated state standards for both mathematics and English               language arts. The Council's report considered language arts                    standards for 42 states. Of those, 28 states were found to have                 rigorous or very rigorous standards. Many of the states' guidelines,            however, were found inadequate in that they failed to address the               following areas: specific reading requirements (how much and what               types of reading are expected of students); literature                          study (reading from particular periods or genres); student                      research (gathering information from various sources and crediting              others' ideas); and language study (examining word origins, slang,              etc.). The CBE team concluded that for standards to succeed, they               must be high, but not unreachable, specific, but not directive, and             they must be clear. Teachers must demand that students meet the                 standards, and they must provide the guidance students need to                  achieve that goal. In working toward that end, the researchers                  concluded, teachers and students would need the support of parents,             school administrators, districts, and states (Joftus & Berman,                  1998). HOW SHOULD, AND HOW DO, STANDARDS AFFECT WAYS IN WHICH                 TEACHERS TEACH?As states work to develop standards for reading              and language arts instruction and learning, what needs for                      improvement emerge? Wixson and Dutro examined this issue for the                Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). The                researchers based their findings on an examination of 14 states'                reading standards for grades kindergarten through three. Applying               content analysis methods to the standards, Wixson and Dutro                     identified a set of conclusions paired with recommendations,                    including: (1) the need for more specific standards and objectives              for achievement in the early grades; (2) the necessity of                       conceptualizing reading in a way that makes curriculum, instruction,            assessment and reporting manageable, without oversimplifying; (3)               the desirability of striking a balance between sufficient state                 guidance and local flexibility; (4) the need to provide a viable                curricular path over grade levels; and (5) the value of assuring                that content is appropriate for particular grade levels (Wixon &                Dutro, 1998). 
In subsequent CIERA research employing a combination            of policy analyses, psychometric measures, and literacy policy                  studies, Valencia and Wixson investigated ways in which state                   standards and assessment affected instruction and learning. They                concluded that the relationship "between language arts policy and               practice are complex and at least partly dependent on the knowledge,            beliefs, goals and experience of the administrators and teachers who            work with these types of policy tools." The researchers suggested               further that there is a need to understand policy implementation                both on the system level and in the daily lives of teachers and                 students, and that without some form of professional development,               the effects of policy could be highly variable (Valencia & Wixson,              1999). WHAT CONSTITUTES EFFECTIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS                       STANDARDS?In a 1997 article for Reading Horizons, Heidi Anne                Mesmer examined four states' language arts standards, using the                 NCTE/IRA guidelines as a point of comparison. Mesmer looked at the              structure and content of the standards for Colorado, Florida,                   Michigan, and New Hampshire. Mesmer contended that the                          prescriptive "list" style of the some of the state standards,                   particularly those of Florida and Colorado, may have the effect of              restricting teacher creativity, whereas the less specific standards             such as Michigan's appeared to lend themselves to greater                       flexibility. In terms of content, Mesmer found a remarkable                     similarity in the four states' emphasis on such concepts and skills             as the use of varied strategies in decoding and comprehension,                  construction of meaning from text, and conventions of language.                 Equally striking was the common omission of the entire subject of               English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). Specific aspects of             the content of the various guidelines did suggest divergent                     approaches and emphases. Ultimately, Mesmer concluded that no matter            how they are written or organized, the state standards would have               only a limited impact on students (Mesmer, 1997). STATE STANDARDS:            WHERE ARE WE HEADING?The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's 1998                report on state standards was not the organization's final word on              the topic. Two years later, following further revisions in state                standards, the foundation took another look at the topic. In                    adjusting the standards' overall grade from a "D+" for 1998 to                  a "C-" for the year 2000, the foundation identified some areas of               improvement:    (1) state standards were becoming more specific and             measurable; (2) content was "making a comeback" in that states were             less reluctant to dictate particular subject matter for schools;                and (3) states were less "enamored of national standards promoted by            professional organizations." In the view of the foundation report's             authors, most states still could not legitimately claim to embrace              standards-based reforms, and the states needed to improve both                  academic standards and accountability. 
In the view of the 2000                Fordham report, there remained considerable room for improvement.               Only five of the 42 states in its study, namely Alabama, California,            Texas, and North and South Carolina, were judged as combining solid             standards with sufficient degrees of accountability. Thirty states              were seen to have inadequate (or no) accountability, while 12 had               sufficient accountability, but inferior standards. 
As Mesmer                  suggested, the organization of the state standards reflects both                their uses and their audiences. Their style reflects certain                    attitudes about teaching and learning, while content reveals balance            between innovation and consensus. Standards underscore what those               who care about education view as important and valuable, and serve              as a starting point for further discussion of good practice (Mesmer,            1997). REFERENCESFinn, C. E., & Petrilli, M.                              J. (Eds.). (2000). "The state of school standards 2000". Washington,            DC: Thomas J. Fordham Foundation. 
Gandal, M. (1996). "Making                  Standards Matter, 1996: An Annual Fifty-State Report on Efforts to              Raise Academic Standards". Washington, DC: American Federation of               Teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 410                       660) 
Joftus, S., & Berman, I. (1998). "Great expectations?                    Defining and assessing rigor in state standards for mathematics and             English language arts". Washington, DC: Council for Basic                       Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 416                      080) 
Mesmer, H. A. (1997). "What is the standard for state                    standards? An investigation of the English language arts standards              of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and New Hampshire". "Reading                    Horizons", 37 (4), 281-298. 
Stoicheva, M. (1999). "Balanced                   reading instruction". Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on                    Reading, English and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction                 Services No. ED 435 986) 
Stotsky, S. (1997, July). "State English             standards". (Fordham Report, Vol.1, No.1). Washington, DC: Thomas B.            Fordham Foundation. 
Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (April 1,                1999). "Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and                      assessment". Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early                 Reading Achievement. (CIERA Report No. 3-004) 
Wixson, K. K. &                 Dutro, E. (October 1, 1998). "Standards for primary-grade reading:              An analysis of state frameworks". Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the                 Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. (CIERA                                Report #3-001) 
----- 
Digest #161 is EDO-CS-01-02 and was                    published in August 2001 by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,                  English and Communication, 2805 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN                    47408-2698, Telephone (812) 855-5847 or (800) 759-4723. ERIC Digests            are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. Additional               copies may be ordered by contacting the ERIC Document Reproduction              Service at (800) 443-3742. 
This project is funded at least in part            with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under                  contract number ED-99-CO-0028. The content of this publication does             not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department            of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,              or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.                   **Title:** A Review of State Reading and Language Arts Standards. ERIC Digest.          **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Indiana              University, 2805 E. 10th Street, Suite 140, Bloomington, IN                     47408-2698. Tel: 800-443-3742 (Toll Free); Web site:                            http://eric.indiana.edu.                                                     **Descriptors:**  Academic Standards, Educational Improvement, Elementary Secondary              Education,  Language Arts, Literature Reviews,  Reading Achievement,            State Regulation,  State Standards                                           **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]