In response to the establishment of standards by states and professional organizations, many local school districts have adopted a standards-based curriculum. The expressed purpose of standards is to improve student academic performance by providing teachers with a common sequence of targets at which to aim instruction. In this study, we examine unintended consequences of a school district's standards-based reform effort. Though the district intended to enhance student achievement and equalize educational opportunities for students, it instead caused the evolution of what can be called standards gaps, which resulted in differentiated curriculum and instruction along lines of students’ academic ability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BergerJ. (2000). Does top-down, standards-based reform work? A review of the status of statewide standards-based reform. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 57–65.
CohenD. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99–127). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
4.
Darling-HammondL. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 6–11.
6.
FuhrmanS., & MassellD. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7.
GamoranA. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185–198.
8.
GamoranA. (1992). Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping equitable?Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11–17.
9.
GandalM., & VranekJ. (2001). Standards: Here today, here tomorrow. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 7–13.
10.
HallinanM. T. (1987). Ability grouping and student learning. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), The social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the learning process (pp. 41–69). New York: Plenum.
11.
MarzanoR. J., & KendallJ. S. (1997). National and state standards: the problems and the promise. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 26–41.
12.
MassellD. (1994). Achieving consensus: Setting the agenda for state curriculum reform. In ElmoreR., & FuhrmanS. (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: 1994 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 12–29). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing.New York: Routledge.
14.
National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching and learning: A guide for states and school districts.Washington DC: National Academy Press.
15.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
OakesJ., GamoranA., & PageR. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation, opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
18.
O'DayM. S., & SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
OgawaR., SandholtzJ. H., Martinez-FloresM., & ScribnerS. (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district's standards-based curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 147–176.
20.
PageR. N. (1991). Lower track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective.New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
PattonM. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation.Newbury Park: Sage.
22.
RavitchD. (1995). Introduction. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 1–8). Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
RavitchD. (1996). The case for national standards and assessment. The Clearing House, 69, 134–136.
24.
RavitchD. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms.New York: Simon & Schuster.
25.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking.New York: Wiley.
26.
RowanB. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In FuhrmanS. H., & O'DayJ. A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195–225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
SirotnikK. A., & KimballK. (1999). Standards for standards-based accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 209–214.
28.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.
29.
SlavinR. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.
30.
SuttonJ. T., & KruegerA. (1997). Do we need NEW national standards in mathematics and science?NASSP Bulletin, 81, 48–55.
31.
ThompsonS. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358–365.
32.
TrochimW. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355–366.
33.
TuckerM. S., & CoddingJ. B. (2001). Setting high standards for everyone. In The Jossey-Bass reader on school reform (pp. 470–482). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods ((2nd ed).) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
