Archived: The Educational System in the United States: Case Study Findings

Parents’ Attitudes Towards National Standards
Generally, parents were supportive of national standards for education, although
some also voiced some wariness. One parent, in particular, said that national

---

25
standards may ‘‘reduce it all to the lowest common denominator.’’ However, other
parents suggested that standards could be used as a mechanism for accountability.
Several parents spoke of the potential equalizing effect of national standards. One
said, ‘‘they would bring the lower schools up and make sure that everyone is at
the same place.’’ She mentioned the child of a friend who had moved. Her fourth-
grade son was bored at his new school because he had already covered the cur-
riculum at his previous school. Another parent spoke of national standards in this
way:
They have to be there, especially for the inner city. Lakeside’s schools would
be fine, we would push them anyway. Not everyone is highly motivated to
perhaps take that difficult child and bring him to a certain level. Those situa-
tions need national standards. They have to be sure that they’re met. We need
standards so that children are not cheated because of their environment. (Par-
ent, Rockefeller Elementary)
As evidenced by the above statements, positive support for national standards
among parents was fairly uniform from the lowest to the highest-achieving
schools. Parents of the school council at the lowest achieving elementary school
were the driving force behind the integration of NCTM standards into the school’s
math curriculum. Parents of students enrolled in high-achieving schools were also
actively involved at the elementary level and were well aware that their school’s
curriculum and instruction were in line with the highest standards.
State-Level Initiatives
States have developed various different initiatives to help their schools meet the
National Education Goals. Most states have formulated curriculum frameworks or
guidelines that assist schools and school districts in providing students with com-
mon academic standards. Although the format and content of these guidelines
vary, most states have developed separate guidelines by grade level for what are
considered the four core academic subjects: English, math, science, and social
studies (American Federation of Teachers [AFT] 1996). Other state-level reform ini-
tiatives have focused on teachers. Some state governments have passed legislation
to change requirements for teacher education, believing that the improvement and
advancement of teachers will be accomplished through changes in licensing and
promotion requirements. Yet other proposals have led to the creation in some
states of inservice staff development programs and accountability systems.
We found that the three states in which our research sites were located had each
developed an extensive set of academic goals and frameworks to guide the dis-
tricts and schools within their state.

---

26
The state education department for the state in which our primary research site
(Metro City) was located established a set of goals for the schools in their state
in the mid-1970. However a new set of goals was adopted in the early 1990’s in
an effort to ‘‘reflect changes in the larger society and shape the education of our
children for life in the 21st century.’’ Eight basic goals were identified. In addition,
these goals were explicitly linked to the national goals. The state goals reflect
both ‘‘a vision for the state’s education system and the nature of support which
will be necessary for that responsibility to be successfully met.’’ They include gen-
eral policy statements such as: ‘‘All people of this state will be literate, lifelong
learners who are knowledgeable about the rights and responsibilities of citizen-
ship and able to contribute to the social and economic well-being of our diverse,
global society’’ and ‘‘Each child in our state will attend a school that is supported
by an adequate, equitable, stable and predictable system of finance.’’
In a separate initiative, the state has also laid out Goals for Learning in specific
subject areas. These goals outline expectations for ‘‘what students should at least
know and be able to do upon completing secondary schooling.’’ The subject areas
include: language arts, mathematics, biological and physical sciences, social
sciences, fine arts, and physical development and health. However, the Goals for
Learning are not broken down by grade level. Instead, the state has developed
‘‘learning objectives’’ to show how the goals could apply to various grade levels.
They are in the process of revising the state goals and developing academic stand-
ards in the four core subjects to clarify the expectations under each goal. The
state assessment is linked to the ‘‘broad’’ goals but not to the learning objectives.
Reading, writing, and math assessments are given to all students in grades 3, 6,
8, and 10, and science and social studies are assessed in grades 4, 7, and 11. The
state assessment is not currently used to determine a student’s eligibility to grad-
uate, nor is a differentiated diploma system tied to the assessment (AFT 1996).
The western state included as the location for one of our secondary research sites
has actively pursued additional funding from the federal government to support
reform efforts which would update their schools along the efforts outlined in the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. In addition, this state began developing a set
of curriculum frameworks in 1995. They currently exist as interim drafts and are
still undergoing revision, but have been distributed to school superintendents and
are available to the public. The implementation of the standards represented in
these curriculum frameworks is voluntary. Literature from the state’s department
of education describes the curriculum frameworks in the following way: ‘‘The
frameworks are visionary documents that describe the knowledge and skills that
students must obtain as they prepare for participation in a democracy and the
work force as well as for lifelong learning.’’ These curriculum frameworks were
developed by committees of national, state, and local curriculum experts and prac-
titioners under the direction of a division of a state commission.

---

27
The goals of the framework state: ‘‘They provide the basis for the development
of criteria for evaluating and selecting instructional materials, serve as guidelines
for staff development, and provide the impetus for the development and revision
of state and local student assessment programs.’’ The curriculum frameworks have
been constructed for each of the core subject areas with content descriptions spe-
cific to each grade or course. In addition to the curriculum frameworks, a set of
standards have been drafted for each of the core subjects. These standards are de-
signed to complement the curriculum frameworks and are available to districts to
use on a voluntary basis. The state currently has no statewide assessment system,
although a new assessment system is under development. High school students
may take an optional exam that tests students on algebra, geometry, economics,
biology, chemistry, and coordinated sciences. The exams content is linked to
expectations listed in the curriculum frameworks. Those who take the exam and
achieve high scores receive special recognition on their diplomas and transcripts
(AFT 1996).
State initiatives have also guided reform at our secondary site, known here as East
City. The state board of education of this state has developed a plan to ‘‘restore
confidence in our public schools.’’ The three principles of this plan are: (a) local
schools, rather than the school system, will be held accountable for the success
of their students, (b) attention will be focused on teaching reading, writing, and
mathematics, and (c) individual schools and surrounding communities will be
given more authority to choose how their schools are operated, as long as their
students are successful. In addition, the state has developed standard courses of
study in several core subjects, which are meant to guarantee that all students have
access to equal education.
Documents describing the courses of study state: although it does not prescribe
how schools should organize themselves or how teachers should instruct, it sets
standards against which the schools and teachers may judge their success. Some
of the courses of study are written to provide content standards for specific
grades, others provide lists of concepts and skills but no indication of the grade
level at which they should be taught. The state’s department of education says
that local control over curricular units is best left to local school districts, schools
and classroom teachers. They see it as their ‘‘responsibility to set quality curricu-
lum and performance standards and to develop models of integration which link
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.’’ The state assessments are linked to the
standards, and the state requires districts to take individual student scores on the
state assessment into account when making grade promotion decisions. Reading
and math assessments are given to all students in grades three through eight, and
writing is assessed in grades four and seven. It is up to local districts to assess
students in other core areas. High school students are given end-of-course exams
in English I and II, biology, algebra, U.S. history, and civics. In addition, beginning

---

28
in eighth grade, students are given a competency test for reading and math, which
they must pass to graduate from high school. Those who do not pass the test in
8th grade take it again in 10th grade and are given multiple chances to pass it
through the 12th grade (AFT 1996).
The goals and the curriculum guidelines, or courses of study, developed by these
three states share some commonalities, despite their independent origins. Two
explicitly cite Goals 2000 as a driving force behind their own initiative or as the
model to which their initiative is compared. Also, the inclusion of technology, the
development of thinking and reasoning skills, cooperative learning, curriculum
integration, and the alignment of curriculum and assessment are concepts that are
cited in most of the states’ initiatives. It is also clear in these initiatives that there
is a commitment to school-based management within all three states. The states
see themselves as capable of providing guidance and encouraging districts to re-
turn decisionmaking to schools and to classrooms for the implementation of stand-
ards based on local needs. In West City, for instance, districts were given grants
from the state level to do school-level restructuring. A teacher from West City
stated the philosophy behind these grants: ‘‘A community school, that is the ideal
school.’’