Standards Based Reform: The Kentucky Experience
From: "Arthur Hu"
Date sent: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:29:02 +0000
Subject: George Cunningham - Standards Based Reform Based on Defective As
Send reply to: email@example.com
Kentucky reforms are a disaster after billions of dollars and 7 years.
Why is Washington willing to wait 7 years before asking the
question "Will This Work, and What is the Evidence?"
Why am I the only citizen out of 5 million that's willing to stand up
and say the emporer has no clothes?
Does anybody actually believe that a certificate of mastery will
mean that all will be at the highest international standards, all will
be ready for college, and that we can end tracking and remediation???
That's the game plan Washington is signed on to, it's the same as
Marc Tucker's original 1992 plan.
posted at: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/98/05/aera.htm
by Arthur Hu
Email George Cunningham at firstname.lastname@example.org
See Arthur Hu's Critical Guide to Education Deform / Reform
Standards-based education reform:
The Kentucky experience
George K. Cunningham
University of Louisville
Standards-based education reform: The Kentucky Experience
George K. Cunningham: Dept. of Ed. and Counseling
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem-neat, plausible,
wrong." H. L. Mencken
University of Louisville
George K. Cunningham Louisville, KY 40292
University of Louisville Psych.
The use of educational standards has become the favored form of educational
reform in the United States. This reform strategy is justified by the
assertion that the declining educational achievement of American students
is the result of the failure to set sufficiently high standards.
Types of standards
There are two kinds of standards: (1) content standards, and (2)
Content standards tell us what students are supposed to learn. This is
usually accomplished by creating a list of competencies, objectives, or
goals. It is not difficult to compile such lists, but it can be almost
impossible to reach consensus about what should be included. The
differences of opinion about what should be included can be as basic as
taste, as abstract as ideology, or may involve fundamental philosophical
differences about why certain subjects are taught in school. Those who
formulate content standards often find themselves entangled in endless
debates about what should be included. What usually emerges is a document
born in compromise that satisfies no one and angers most everybody.
Once they are written and implemented, it is not easy to determine whether
the prescribed content is actually being taught or whether the associated
accountability instruments assess the intended objectives. Part of the
problem stems from specificity. Most standards are stated so vaguely that
it is impossible to determine exactly what should be included. If the
authors of standards go to the opposite extreme and begin specifying in
detail exactly what students should know at each grade level they will find
themselves trapped. Suddenly they are expected to write down everything
that students are supposed to know and the standards become impossibly long
and detailed. Besides, the vagueness of standards is the best way to
appease warring interest groups that are demanding that the content reflect
their particular interests.
Performance standards tell us how well the content must be learned.
Establishing performance standards presents almost insurmountable technical
problems. There is a need to pay attention to the measurement issues of
reliability and validity in the assessments used to measure student
performance, but the biggest problems occur in the process of determining
the cut-points between acceptable and unacceptable performance.
Performance standards can be either norm-referenced or absolute.
Norm-referenced standards are based on relative student performance. A
standard requiring that all students perform at grade level in reading is
norm-referenced as are the cut-points used by states to specify the score
on the PRAXIS exam a teacher candidate must obtain in order to be
certified. Anytime student performance is defined in terms of the average,
it is norm-referenced standard setting that is being used. This form of
assessment is maligned by those who believe that it dooms some students to
fail (someone has to be at the bottom) and because it emphasizes
differences. At the other extreme, the use of norm referenced standards
also is criticized for relative standards that appear inimical to the
concept of excellence.
Absolute standards are intended to be independent of what is known about
the performance of typical students. Unfortunately, there is no way to
evaluate student performance in the absence of knowledge about a typical
student's performance. Although most state educational standards purport to
employ absolute standards, they really don't. It is simply not possible to
set a standard in the absence of knowledge about how the typical student
performs. When this is tried, the results are often disastrous.
A third grader's performance on a multiplication test, from a
norm-referenced perspective, would be considered satisfactory if it
exceeded a set percentile. Using an absolute standard, good performance
would be attributed to a student who exceeded a pre-established number of
correct responses to items. The difference between the two is more apparent
than real. Anytime an educator begins to set a standard of performance for
third graders in the area of multiplication, a knowledge of how typical
third graders perform in this area would be essential. There is no way that
someone who is unfamiliar with how third graders perform in math could se
appropriate standards. Deciding what level of performance should be
expected of high school students in subjects such as English literature,
chemistry, and history is almost impossible without reference to typical
Uses for standards
There are two possible reasons that standards are implemented. (1)
They can be used to ensure that all students reach a minimum level of
performance or (2) to actually increase student achievement.
If there is a concern that unqualified students are being promoted
from grade to grade or allowed to graduate from high school, the
imposition of standards is one way to prevent this from happening. Of
course raising the standards required for promotion or graduation
will inevitably increase the number of students who fail.
Paradoxically, many systems that impose higher standards do so while
simultaneously expressing the need to increase student graduation
rates and eliminate retention.
The only way to avoid this paradox is to assume that individual
differences do not exist and demand that all students reach these
goals. This is usually accomplished by holding teachers accountable
for bringing all students up to this level. This is why it is so
common for states and school districts to simultaneously demand that
all students function at a designated high level and that graduation
rates simultaneously increase. Such policies can have the opposite
of their intended effect. Despite higher official standards, real
standards can be lowered to ensure high grades and graduation rates
to create the impression of high student performance.
Merely raising standards will not ensure higher performance. You
can't enhance student performance by merely demanding more. The
standards set by the teacher and the strategies used by the students
to master instructional goals is much more likely to affect learning
than standards set by some distant, anonymous committee.
At present the use of standards as a primary tool for reforming
schools is based on a faulty set of assumptions. It is assumed that
all students are blessed with the same capacity to learn and that all
that is needed is for teachers to demand that they reach these
clearly stated goals. This philosophy is articulated in a quote from
an article supporting the use of certificates based on standards that
appeared in the April issue of Phi Delta Kappan (1998):
".the certificate would be based on standards of
achievement in core subjects that are benchmarked to what countries
with the highest performance on international comparisons expect of
their 16 year olds. This would mean an end to tracking and
remediation: it would mean that everyone would be qualified to go to
college, they argue. The use of the certificate would end the
practice of setting different expectations for different groups of
students. The common mantra "All Kids can learn" would finally
become policy, and what they would be expected to learn would for the
first time be explicit.
This is a wonderfully idealistic goal but it is divorced from
reality. The idea that there are goals so perfected that they can, in
effect, eliminate all educational problems represents a dangerous
break from reality.
The Kentucky experience
The educational reform program established in Kentucky in 1990 is
considered to be the most comprehensive state education reform plan
of any state (McDonnell, 1997). The law that mandated the reform is
called the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) and it was originally
implemented as a response to a decision rendered by Judge Ray Corns
of the Franklin Circuit Court in the Rose vs. Council for Better
Education (1989). Judge Corns ruled that the Kentucky General
Assembly had failed to provide an efficient system of common schools
as required by the above section of the state Constitution.
Although the judge's ruling required only changes in school finance,
the governor at the time, Wallace Wilkinson, along with other
legislative leaders used this opportunity to make radical changes in
the states educational structure. Kentucky had languished near the
bottom of all states in some categories of educational performance
and concern about the state's relative performance was used to
justifying the need for radical educational reform. It is important
to point out that after seven and a half years of KERA, Kentucky has
not improved its performance in any of the categories cited as the
justification for this educational reform.
KERA has many facets, which include a more equitable distribution of
funds for school districts, the ungraded primary, schools-based
decision-making, preschool programs, a reorganized department of
education, extended school services, and several others. The most
important impact KERA has had on instruction came through the
Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), the KERA
accountability system. KIRIS is a standards-based system predicated
on the belief that student achievement can be enhanced by raising the
expectations we have for the average performance of schools. It is
assumed that by rewarding the staff at high performing schools and
punishing those at low performing schools will result in a higher
level of student achievement.
The KIRIS assessment is administered to 4th and 5th grade students in
elementary school, 8th graders in middle school and 11th and 12th
graders in high school. It assesses reading, mathematics, science,
social studies, arts and humanities, practical living and vocational
skills with essay questions. Writing portfolio are used to assess
skill in written expression. A small proportion of a school's score
is based on graduation, rates and retention. Other assessment
techniques that were once part of KIRIS are performance tasks, math
portfolios, and multiple-choice items. The Kentucky Department of
Education (KDE) is now proposing that some of these methods be
retried. Each school is assigned an accountability score based on
average student performance within a school and this index can range
from zero to 133. All schools are to reach a score of 100 by the year
2012. Schools are assigned accountability score goals and teachers in
schools that reach their goal are awarded cash bonuses while those in
schools that perform poorly on KIRIS are placed on probation and risk
The usual sequence when a state adopts academic standards is to start
with content standards in order to specify what students are supposed
to be learning. Some states take it no further, but in some cases,
states specify at what level students are to master the content
specified. The next step is to use the content and performance
standards as the basis for an accountability system. In Kentucky, the
process was reversed. The tests were developed first and only later
was attention given to the content to be covered.
When the KERA legislation was implemented, the legislature specified
six learner goals and mandated the creation of standards, which would
specify what students should learn and the content included on the
test. At the same time, they were in a hurry to begin the
implementation of the testing program. Testing began before any of
the standards were written. Since its inception, there have been five
separate sets of standards published. These standards, in the order
of their release, are the Learner Outcomes, the Transformations, the
Academic Expectations, the Content Guidelines and the Core Content
for Assessment. Each of these was intended to be the final word on
what students were supposed to learn and the basis for the KIRIS
assessment. These standards differ among themselves in terms of
content and philosophy, but provide minimal guidance for teachers
endeavoring to prepare students for the KIRIS assessment. Throughout
the implementation of KERA, the high standards implicit in the
assessment have remained fixed in the test itself, and never
manifested in the published standards, which seem to be always
chasing the assessment.
At the present time, the system seems to be teetering on the verge of
collapse. The heart of the assessment system was supposed to be
performance tasks, but these were abandoned when it was discovered
that there was no way to equate the items administered from year to
year and their use yielded incomprehensible results. The Kentucky
Finance Cabinet initiated an audit in an attempt to recover millions
of dollars from Advanced Systems for Measurement in Education (ASME)
for the cost of developing and scoring the performance tasks that
could not be used. The results of the audit were inconclusive because
there are no written records documenting how the money had been
spent. Changes in the scope of the contract and the resulting
adjustments in costs and payments took place on the basis of verbal
agreements. It was also discovered that ASME had made a programming
error that resulted in inaccurate scores for elementary and middle
schools. Under pressure from the legislature, the Commissioner of
Education canceled the contract with ASME.
The Kentucky General Assembly met during February and March of 1998
and faced enormous public pressure to radically change or eliminate
KIRIS. In the Senate a bill, which would have made substantial
changes in KIRIS (SB 243) passed 35 to 1 in the Senate. The House
passes a bill (HB 627) that would have kept the system essentially
the same. This conflict required a compromise, which was worked out
in a conference committee with representatives from both houses. The
resulting compromise was SB 53. It is difficult to predict what
impact this bill will have on the KERA accountability system. The
bill states that the system is to be changed, but it does not specify
how this will be achieved. Its authors can claim to have accomplished
the one goal that was so strongly demanded by the electorate, the
elimination KIRIS. The name of the test was changed to the
Commonwealth Accountability Test System (CATS). I suppose this is
somehow in honor of the Kentucky Wildcats winning the NCAA men's
basketball tournament. Perhaps it is believed that critics would be
reluctant to criticize anything with that name.
The legislation does make a commitment to change the test, but it
doesn't specify exactly how. The Senate Bill would have thrown out
all previous results and there would have been no rewards or
sanctions until the year 2000. The compromise bill gives rewards to
all schools that are not in decline or about seventy-five percent of
them. The determination of which schools are eligible for rewards is
to be based on the scores obtained in 1967 and 1968. This year and in
the future, it is the schools that will be rewarded rather than
individual teachers. The sanctions have been suspended and it is not
clear whether they will be reinstated. Schools that perform poorly
will be subject to audits and assistance, but not sanctions.
During the legislative debates, the most contentious issue was
whether the tests themselves were reliable and valid. KIRIS
supporters argued that the test itself was of high quality while its
opponents asserted that it was almost worthless. There was general
agreement among both camps that the accountability system or the way
the scores were used to hold school accountable was deeply flawed.
The new legislation mandates a new test, utilizing both essay and
multiple-choice items, but since this is what has been used in the
past, it is not clear how this new test will be different. The
legislation also mandates a new accountability system, but does not
provide any specifics about what it will look like. All that is
implied is that the new system will continue to hold schools
accountable for having their students reach high standards. The
specious claim that essay tests were performance assessments has been
dropped. Although they have proved to be the least reliable of any of
the previously used measures, the new legislation permits the use of
writing and math portfolios.
The Department of Education will design the revised CATS
accountability system. Several oversight committees will monitor
their work. There will be a permanent legislative subcommittee, a
15-member curriculum advisory committee appointed by the governor,
and a national technical panel of testing experts.
Kentucky has had seven long years to make this system work and has
spent billions on it. What is troubling is the dearth of evidence for
its success. The critical question at this point is whether there was
something inherently wrong with the Kentucky accountability system or
whether it is the assumptions made about the use of standards to
raise student achievement that is flawed. The Kentucky system and the
similar systems being imposed across the country are based on the
belief that all students can reach the same high level of performance
and that this can be accomplished with the proper delineation of
standards. The only way this can happen is if the standards are set
very low. If not, educators must brace themselves for a high failure
rate. In Kentucky the standards and expectations were high for the
performance of students within schools, but not for the students
themselves. The system is set up to demand that the average
performance for every high school in the state be at the level of a
typical graduate school student. The seeming impossibility of the
task was dismissed by saying that schools had 20 years to accomplish
this. When it became increasing clear that the system was not working
and everyone was headed for failure, the legislature acceded and
agreed to change the system. It is not clear that they have abandoned
their flawed assumptions about the expected level of performance for
all students. What they are willing to manipulate is the process for
achieving the goal. Again there is the promise of a magical set of
standards that will solve all educational problems.
Dawkins, R. (1998) Science delusion and the appetite for wonder.
Skeptical Inquirer, 22(2), 28-33, 58.
Lewis, A. (1998) School-to-work certificates of mastery and
standards. Phi Delta Kappan 72(8), 563,564.
McDonnell, L. M. (1997) The politics of state testing:
Implementing new student assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 424). Los
Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, INC. (1989). 790 S.W. 2d
186 (Ky. 1989).
+- Views do not reflect any other organization or group--------------+
Arthur Hu Check out collecting toys page Hot Wheels, JL
email@example.com Matchbox McD BK toys Thomas Tank Engine
email to join my toy mailing list
Kirkland WA 98034 http://www.halcyon.com/arthurhu/collect.htm