In reframing my dissertation around the tension between the collection and use of data as a means towards standards- and interest-driven learning ends, it seemed necessary for me to understand the history behind standards-based school reforms and, subsequently, the origins of student-centered learning reforms. This post is the first part of this two-part series and merely serves as an attempt to get my own head around the rich and complex history of major education reforms in the United States.
What I found was a story nearly as old as schooling in the United States itself.
Standards-based school reforms in the United States can be traced back to the late 19th century when characteristics common of almost all schools took root – the age-graded school with standardized curriculum and an annual exam (Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001). And, ever since 1893 when the committee of ten called for and set forth the standardized curriculum and designed the age-graded schools, there have been reformers. The primary tension, as Larry Cuban describes, has been between standards and customization. This is the story of standards.
120 years in pursuit of excellence, 50 years in pursuit of equity and the Evolution of Standards-Based Policies for Education
By the 1890s there were about 3000 high schools in the United States with no common bond of curriculum, pedagogy, or exit requirements. So emerged a need, argued some – particularly those interested in college admissions – for a more efficient, uniform, and effective model of instruction for youth than which was provided by one-room schoolhouses and normal schools across the country. And so, when in 1893 a “Committee of Ten” was established by the National Education Association of the United States to primarily study the need for standard college entrance requirements, what emerged was a set of standards of pedagogy and curriculum recommended for implementation by all schools for all students. Learning targets organized by subject and recommendations for age-graded schools were to be uniform and for every student, as the committee wrote in their report: “every subject which is taught at all in a secondary school should be taught in the same way and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it” (National Education Association of the United States Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies, 1894, p. 17).
It was argued then, as it was argued 100 years later that a standardized education system with common learning standards was necessary for the welfare and the security of the nation, as illustrated by one of the committee members in a journal article published following the report:
Every thoughtful citizen should see grave defects in the most vital part of our educational systems, and be concerned for so much of our national welfare as is dependent upon a proper education of the people […] every civilized people must have a national system of education that aims at certain common results and uses certain common means, involving compromise and yielding of individual judgments for the common.
(Mackenzie, 1894, pp. 146–148)
The work of the committee was broad reaching in scope. It identified a curriculum and contents therein, as well as a common set of college entrance requirements and related examinations. By 1901 the report’s influence on schools had been “widespread and pervasive”, although there was still diversity in the organization of schools and curriculum (Brown, 1907, p. 384). Nonetheless, common college entrance exams and secondary school accrediting and visiting boards were both established in 1901 and with them colleges and universities assert a dominance over the curriculum and organization of schools (Brown, 1907).
The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) signed into law by President Eisenhower was a watershed moment that marked the first major entry by the US Federal Government into education (Gamson, David, McDermott, & Reed, 2015). The US Education system was set to blame in 1958 for falling behind international competitors. NDEA comes just one year after the launch of Sputnik and during the Cold War between the United States and USSR. NDEA was intended to improve US the US education program as a matter of national security, as its name implies. It offered money to states who agreed to make certain reforms. Although NDEA did not set any standards, it did allocate money for “strengthening science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction” at the state level (Congress, 1958, p. Title IV) and for “guidance, counseling, and testing ; identification and encouragement of able students” (Congress, 1958, p. Title V). Echoing calls from the Committee of Ten in 1893, NDEA was signed to raise the bar for excellence in US schools, to identify and guide students “with outstanding aptitudes” through college admittance, and ultimately compete on a global scale with other nations’ children who were seen to be out-smarting US students.
President Johnson would sign the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as a keystone of his administration’s war on poverty and marks a shift in national focus from a singular gaze upon educational excellence to including equity alongside excellence. The act focused on providing funds for schools and districts serving students of low income. This act has been renewed every five years to this day. Although ESEA of 1965 did not involve machinations to establish and enforce standards-based achievement outcomes through testing and accountability, reauthorizations of ESEA under the names of “Goals 2000”, “No Child Left Behind”, and “Every Student Succeeds Act” did.
President Ronald Regan would form a Commission on Excellence in Education which would publish another report – A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform – with familiar findings and themes. The commission found that the secondary school curriculum, for example, has become “diluted, and diffused to the point that they no longer have a central purpose” and restated the need for increased standards at the school and university levels (Gardner et al., 1983, p. 20). Further, the report called for a system of state-run standardized tests. As outlined in the report, these tests were to be:
[…] administered at major transition points from one level of schooling to another and particularly from high school to college or work. The purposes of these tests would be to: (a) certify the student’s credentials; (b) identify the need for re- medial intervention; and (c) identify the opportunity for advanced or accelerated work. The tests should be administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local standardized tests.
(Gardner et al., 1983, p. 30)
Although not at all as clear on how to achieve equity as it was on excellence on education, the report carried strong language in support of education equity
“We do not believe that a public commitment to excellence and educational reform must be made at the expense of a strong public commitment to the equitable treatment of our diverse population. The twin goals of equity and high-quality schooling have profound and practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit one to yield to the other either in principle or in practice. To do so would deny young people their chance to learn and live according to their aspirations and abilities” (Gardner et al., 1983, p. 13).
The belief is that, by holding all children to genuinely high standards we can achieve equity across all segments of society, as the authors wrote “all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself” (Gardner et al., 1983, p. 16). This statement is complex. It at once calls out the dual and often conflicting roles of education: to serve the needs of society and to serve the interests of students themselves. Further, “by virtue of their own efforts” reveals the authors bias in a belief that students fail in school through a lack of virtue and effort. This report set the stage for yet another commission that would result in a reauthorization of ESEA under the name of “Goals 2000”.
In response to “A Nation at Risk”, in 1989 President Bush held an Education Summit with state governors at University of Virginia to set a direction for national education policy and practice resulting in the following outcome-based goals:
- all students must arrive at school ready to learn;
- the nation’s high-school graduation rate must be at least ninety percent;
- students must be competent in English, history, geography, foreign languages, and the arts;
- American students must lead the world in math and science;
- all adults must be literate; and
- all schools must be drug-free.
(Heise, 1994, p. 355)
These goals were signed into law as a reauthorization of ESEA by then President Clinton under the name “Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994” (Heise, 1994). The act further established the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which attempted but never succeeded to establish a set of national learning standards (Wixon, Dutro, & Athan, 2003).
Goals 2000 gave way to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in signed into law in 2001. NCLB introduced methods to hold schools accountable to meeting state-defined learning standards. NCLB and standards based reforms before it was designed to improve education quality and equality and, ultimately, to reduce poverty. Now states were mandated to collect and report standards-based test data at the subgroup level. Reporting at subgroups, some argue, “shines a spotlight on social inequalities in school performance” and “perhaps increasing the political will to address this profound problem”. The legislation further mandated tutoring for students in “failing” schools, or closing said schools all together, and set minimum requirements for teachers, inter alia (Gamoran, 2007, p. 4).
Up to this point, every effort to establish national standards through policy had failed. However, in 2010 the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) released Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. The standards focus on what is taught, not how, and are intended to influence how schools assess and enact curricula (Porter, Mcmaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). While not developed by the federal government, the US Department of Education Race to the Top initiative allocated $330 million to states who, in part, agreed to establish or adopt common standards and assessments. As of August 2015, the standards were adopted by 42 states either in full or in part (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2009).
Back to ESEA, NCLB gave way in 2015 the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which loosened the accountability measures for schools while giving states more flexibility in conducting assessments. Schools and states, however, still must collect and report on student achievement data at subgroups.
ESSA established a five-point set of requirements that each state must use as part of their state-developed accountability
- Proficiency in reading and math;
- Graduation rates for high schools;
- English language proficiency;
- For elementary and middle schools, student growth or another indicator that is valid, reliable and statewide; and
- At least one other indicator of school quality or success, such as measures of safety, student engagement or educator engagement.
The last requirement was new to ESSA and opens the door for alternative measures to high-stakes testing for measuring school success.
And so here we are. A majority of states have adopted some form of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics with national legislation in place to provide school-based accountability. Although there is no legislation in place stating how (or even what), exactly, students are to be taught, enduring elements of schooling first established at the end of the 19th century – the age–graded school, a standardized, isolated, subject-based curricula and tests – endures (Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001). Subversive designs have emereged.
Subversive designs have emereged. As early as 1901 G. Stanley Hall was calling for the development of more stduent-centered models of learning.
Brown, E. E. (1907). The Making of Our Middle Schools : An Account of The Development of Secondary Education in the United States (Third). New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Congress, U. S. National Defense Education Act of 1958 (1958).
Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001). Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools and Students Who Don’t Fit Them. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 525–547.
Gamoran, A. (Ed.). (2007). Standards-Based Reform and the Poverty Gap : Lessons for No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institution Press.
Gamson, David, A., McDermott, K. A., & Reed, D. S. (2015). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at Fifty : Aspirations , Effects , and Limitations. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 1–29.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Yvonne, W., Baker, W. O., Campbell, A., Crosby, E., Foster, C. A. J., … Sommer, J. (1983). A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.
Heise, M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The Federalization and Legisation of Educational Policy. Fordham Law Review, 63, 345–382.
Mackenzie, J. C. (1894). The Report of the Committee of Ten. School Review, 2(3), 146–155.
National Education Association of the United States Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies. (1894). Report of the committee of ten on secondary school studies: With the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee. National Education Association. Chicago. Chicago.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2009). Development Process. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/
Porter, A., Mcmaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11405038
Wixon, K. K., Dutro, E., & Athan, R. (2003). Chapter 3: The Challenge of Developing Content Standards. Review of Educational Research in Education, 27(1), 69–107.