2006 the State of State STANDARDS
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
2006 The State of State STANDARDS by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Liam Julian, and Michael J. Petrilli INCLUDING It Takes a Vision: How Three States Created Great Academic Standards By Joanne Jacobs 1701 K Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C., 20006 202-223-5452 AUGUST 2006 202-223-9226 Fax www.edexcellence.net The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is a nonprofit organization that conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects in elementary/secondary education reform at the national level and in Ohio, with special emphasis on our hometown of Dayton. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Further information can be found at www.edexcellence.net/institute or by writing to the Institute at: 1701 K Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006 This report is available in full on the Institute’s web site; additional copies can be ordered at www.edexcellence.net/ institute/publication/order.cfm or by calling 410-634-2400. The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments . 5 Executive Summary . 6 Introduction: The State of State Standards 2006. 8 It Takes a Vision: How Three States Created Great Academic Standards By Joanne Jacobs . 19 Reviews of State Standards Alabama. 46 Montana . 84 Alaska. 47 Nebraska . 85 Arizona . 49 Nevada . 87 Arkansas. 50 New Hampshire . 88 California. 52 New Jersey . 90 Colorado . 53 New Mexico. 91 Connecticut. 55 New York . 93 Delaware . 56 North Carolina . 94 District of Columbia . 58 North Dakota . 96 Florida . 59 Ohio . 97 Georgia . 61 Oklahoma . 99 Hawaii . 62 Oregon. 100 Idaho . 64 Pennsylvania . 102 Illinois . 65 Rhode Island . 103 Indiana. 67 South Carolina . 104 Kansas . 68 South Dakota . 106 Kentucky . 70 Tennessee. 107 Louisiana . 71 Texas. 109 Maine . 73 Utah . 110 Maryland . 74 Vermont. 112 Massachusetts . 76 Virginia . 113 Michigan . 77 Washington . 115 Minnesota . 79 West Virginia. 116 Mississippi . 80 Wisconsin . 118 Missouri. 82 Wyoming . 119 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation must be expressed first to those who And in World History: Walter Russell Mead, Charles assumed the mantle for writing the state of state Edel, Scott Erwin, and Bryan Gunderson headed the standards reviews published by the Fordham evaluation. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation between 2003 and 2006, their staffs, and Foundation offered its generous support. At those who funded their work. Fordham, Justin Torres, Kathleen Porter-Magee, Michael J. Petrilli, Liam Julian, Martin Davis Jr., and In English: Sandra Stotsky and Carol Jago evaluated the Sarah Kim saw the report through. standards. At the Fordham Institute, Carolyn Conner, Brandy Bones, and Kathleen Porter-Magee brought it to At the Fordham Foundation, Associate Writer and completion with the assistance of designer Emilia Ryan. Editor Liam Julian undertook the monumental task of summarizing the findings from each of these five In Math: David Klein, Bastiaan J. Braams, Thomas reports. His considerable talents as a writer ensured Parker, William Quirk, Wilfried Schmid, W. Stephen that the summations were both lively in presenta- Wilson, Ralph Raimi, and Lawrence Braden served tion and accurate in their portrayal. as evaluators. At Fordham, Carolyn Conner, Jess Castle, Justin Torres, and designer Emilia Ryan Staff Assistant Sarah Kim had the difficult task of brought it to completion. checking and re-checking all the facts, figures, and grades in this report. Furthermore, she coordinated In Science: Paul Gross and his colleagues (Ursula with our designer, Holli Rathman, to produce the Goodenough, Susan Haack, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha report you now hold in your hands. Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz) evaluated the stan- dards. The Carnegie Corporation of New York and Research Intern Tal Kerem worked to generate all Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation provided finan- the GPAs. His talent with Excel smoothed the way cial assistance. At the Fordham Institute, Michael for the analysis in this report. Connolly, Justin Torres, Martin Davis Jr., Liam Julian, and Michael O’Keefe saw the project to conclusion, with Senior Writer and Editor Martin A. Davis, Jr., had the designer Holli Rathman and copyeditor Anne Elliott. enviable task of working with Joanne Jacobs on her essay chronicling how California, Massachusetts, and In U.S. History: Sheldon Stern, Michael Chesson, Indiana produced first-rate standards when other Mary Beth Klee, and Luther Spoehr led the study. states failed. He also coordinated the production of The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation provided the project, a job made easier by the considerable tal- funding. At the Fordham Institute, Kathleen Porter- ents of those mentioned above. Magee and Fordham trustee Diane Ravitch deserve special thanks. Acknowledgements: The State of State Standards 2006 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation’s first com- progress, especially Indiana, New York, Georgia, and New prehensive look at the quality of state academic stan- Mexico. Unfortunately, others made their standards worse, dards since 2000, before Congress enacted No Child including Utah, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. Left Behind (NCLB). While 37 states have updated or revised their state standards in at least one subject dur- Three states stand out with perfect scores: California, ing that period, on the whole they are just as mediocre Indiana, and Massachusetts. They are the focus of a sep- as ever. The average grade for state standards across all arate essay by journalist and author Joanne Jacobs, “It subjects was a disappointing “C-minus” in 2000 and Takes a Vision: How Three States Created Great remains so today. Two-thirds of the nation’s K-12 stu- Academic Standards.” She tells the fascinating story of dents attend schools in states with C-, D-, or F-rated standards. how these three jurisdictions managed to develop clear and rigorous standards while most others fell short. Some common themes appear in each: if you want great Standards matter: Several analyses link strong standards, you can’t leave the process to committees. It takes strong visionary leadership and a willingness to state standards and gains on NAEP. fight (and win) the curricular battles. At the same time, bipartisanship is essential. Over the past three years, expert reviewers for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Thomas B. Fordham Do Good Standards Raise Institute examined state standards in five subjects: U.S. Student Achievement? history (2003), English/language arts (2005), mathematics (2005), science (2005), and world history (2006). The Several new analyses suggest a link between strong state reviewers gave high marks to standards that are clear, rigor- standards and gains on the National Assessment of ous, and right-headed about content. For example, excel- Educational Progress (NAEP): lent English standards expect students to read and under- I stand important literary genres, worthy science standards Ten states made statistically significant progress in the place the teaching of evolution at the center of biology percentage of their students (or the percentage of their instruction, and strong U.S. and world history standards are poor and minority students) reaching proficiency in organized around a chronology of key events with an fourth-grade reading on NAEP from 1998 to 2005. ample supply of fascinating and important individuals. Nine of these 10 states received at least a C from Fordham for their English/language arts standards. I Solid standards matter because they are the foundation of Five states made statistically significant gains on the standards-based reform, the dominant education policy science NAEP between 2000 and 2005 at both the strategy in America today. They have become even more fourth- and eighth-grade levels, and three of these important in the NCLB era, when weighty consequences have among the best sets of science standards in the befall schools that do not rise to meet the standards (at nation, according to Fordham’s reviewers. I least in reading and math). While the pros and cons of The relationship is less clear in mathematics, though testing and accountability get most of the ink in newspa- four of the six states that received “honors” grades per debates, the standards themselves exert enormous from Fordham also posted statistically significant influence over what actually happens inside classrooms. gains on the eighth-grade NAEP from 2000 to 2005, either for the state as a whole or for their poor or While the states as a whole have not improved their academ- minority students. (Many other states made ic standards, several jurisdictions have shown marked progress, too, however.) 6 Thomas B. Fordham Foundation State Grades in 2006 vs. 2000 STATE CUM GPA CUM GPA 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 GRADE GRADE RANK RANK California* 4.00 3.6 A A- 1 1 Indiana* 4.00 2.4 A C+ 1 10 Massachusetts* 4.00 3.2 A B- 1 8 New York 3.40 1.6 B+ C- 4 21 Georgia* 3.20 1.8 B+ C- 5 21 Virginia 3.20 2.4 B+ C+ 5 10 Arizona* 3.00 3.4 B B+ 7 2 South Carolina* 2.80 3 B- B 8 3 Alabama* 2.60 2.8 B- B- 9 5 Minnesota* 2.20 1.6 C+ D- 10 39 Louisiana 2.00 2.6 C+ C+ 11 14 Maryland* 2.00 2.2 C+ C+ 11 10 Oklahoma 2.00 1.2 C+ C- 11 21 Illinois 1.80 1.6 C- C- 14 26 Nevada* 1.80 2.2 C- C+ 14 14 New Jersey* 1.80 1.8 C- D+ 14 29 New Mexico 1.80 0.2 C- F 14 47 Texas* 1.80 3 C- B 14 3 West Virginia* 1.80 2.2 C- C+ 14 14 Colorado* 1.60 1.4 C- D+ 20 29 District of Columbia* 1.60 2.2 C- B- 20 7 Kansas* 1.60 1.4 C- - 20 N/A North Carolina* 1.60 2.8 C- B- 20 5 South Dakota* 1.60