Redefining Government Roles In an Era of Standards-Based Reform

States and districts have embraced the goals of standards-based reform, but they have interpreted the rather broad objectives in their own unique ways. Merely setting the mark may not be enough to ensure adequate progress in our nation's schools, Ms. Goertz warns. IN 1990 President Bush and the country's governors adopted six ambitious national education goals to provide a common direction for educational improvement in all states. This action marked a turning point in the focus of federal and state education policy. Emphasis shifted from educational inputs to educational outcomes and from procedural accountability to educational accountability. Equity was reconceptualized as ensuring all students access to a high-quality educational program rather than providing supplemental and often compensatory services. The roles of federal, state, and local governments in designing and implementing education reforms were expected to change as well. States would establish challenging content and performance standards for all students and provide support to schools, which would have more flexibility to design appropriate curriculum and instructional programs. The federal government and the states would align their education policies both vertically (federal to state) and horizontally (across programs within the U.S. Department of Education and across policies within states) to provide coherent policy guidance and instructional support. This article uses data from a multistate, multidistrict study of education reform conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) to examine the roles of federal, state, and local governments in standards-based reform and how intergovernmental relationships have influenced education reform policies and practice.1 Strong Signals, Weak Guidance Since the mid-1990s, education policy at both the federal and state levels has sent strong and consistent signals about the goals of standards-based reform: 1) high academic standards, 2) accountability for student outcomes, 3) the inclusion of all students in reform initiatives, and 4) flexibility to foster instructional change. The provisions of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, for example, require states to establish challenging content and performance standards at least in reading and mathematics, to implement assessments that measure students' performance against these standards, to hold schools and school systems accountable for the achievement of all students, and to align their Title I programs with these state policies. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to include students with disabilities in state and district assessment and accountability systems. Unlike earlier federal programs that circumvented state education policies because they did not encompass an equity agenda, these federal education policies were designed to support and be integrated with state and local reform initiatives. States have generally embraced the broad objectives and architecture of standards-based reform, some in response to Title I and IDEA, many on their own. Forty-nine states have developed content standards in at least reading and mathematics, and 48 states have statewide assessments in these subjects. Thirty-three states have performance-based accountability systems that extend beyond public reporting of student test scores. A growing number of states are including all students in their assessment, reporting, and accountability systems.2 In the CPRE study sites, state- and district-developed standards set expectations for student achievement and guided curriculum development, school improvement planning, assessments, and professional development at the local level. State and local accountability systems created incentives to improve schools and school systems by focusing attention on student outcomes and progress, by providing data for decision making, and by creating a press for more and better measures of student performance. …