Chapter: 1 Science & Engineering Indicators 93

Trends Toward State Frameworks and Higher Standards for Student Performance

Some educators and policymakers believe that the skills and knowledge students should attain must be clearly defined and must emphasize high-level thinking. As a result, there has been a good deal of recent work to establish frameworks for curriculum and set high standards in all curriculum areas. Although there is a good deal of confusion over what frameworks and standards are, many support the view of O'Day and Smith (1992):

"A common vision and set of curriculum frameworks establish the basis in systemic curriculum reform for aligning all parts of a state instructional system--core content, materials, teacher training, continuing professional development, and assessment--to support the goal of delivering a high-quality curriculum to all children" (p. 25).

In this view, performance standards describe what students should know and be able to do. Curriculum frameworks outline the content expected to be taught in core disciplines. Most importantly, all elements of the broadly defined education system are linked in a common effort to accomplish common goals.

Several groups have been involved in designing frameworks for science and mathematics (e.g., NCTM, the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project 2061), but establishing frameworks and setting standards is largely a state initiative.(Click here for footnote 23.)

According to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), most of the change at the state policy level has reflected the NCTM standards in math. This process is still in its initial stages of implementation, with most States only piloting sample groups of schools or students. A safe estimation of activity is that approximately half of the States have developed or are moving toward curriculum frameworks in mathematics or science. However, exact determination is difficult because of a difference in judgment as to what constitutes a new curriculum framework. Lack of cohesive definitions among officials, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers point to one problem. Even the words "frameworks" and "standards" are used "idiosyncratically" (Pechman and Laguarda 1993).

For instance, according to a 1992 CCSSO survey, 24 States currently have curriculum frameworks reflecting the NCTM standards, and 17 others are revising their frameworks to reflect the NCTM standards. Four States are developing frameworks to go with NCTM standards while six States have no such frameworks. The same study shows that 30 States have frameworks in science, while 15 are developing them. However, a 1992-93 study conducted informally by interviewing state officials by telephone determined a much lower level of state activity. This study found that only 15 States have established curriculum frameworks in math, and 9 have frameworks in science. An additional 15 States are developing curriculum frameworks in math, and 16 others are developing them in science (Pechman and Laguarda 1993). Such discrepancies point to the complex nature of the change itself. While changes at the policy level are evident, it is too early to determine how any national movement toward curriculum frameworks at the state and local level will affect teaching practices in the classroom and student learning.

If progress on the development of curriculum frameworks is slow, it is reasonable to assume that the more ambitious goals of systemic reform will be particularly challenging. Recent research suggests that policymakers are grappling with some of the complexities of reform. As Fuhrman and Massell (1992) report:

"Systemic reform ideas seem to require unprecedented efforts to integrate separate policies, new strategies of policy sequencing, novel processes to involve the public and professionals in setting standards, challenges to traditional politics, complex efforts to balance state leadership with flexibility at the school site, extraordinary investment in professional development, and creative approaches to serving the varied needs of students. To compound the challenge, states are facing these extremely demanding issues at a time of severe fiscal difficulty" (p. 24).

Despite these difficulties, there are a number of promising new strategies and evidence of a growing commitment to continue the expansion and inclusion of American popular education. Given the complexity of the task, the Nation's commitment to raising the science and mathematics skills and knowledge of all Americans will surely be tested.

Footnote 23:

NCTM has been in the forefront of developing curriculum standards in math, and is frequently used as a strong resource and guideline for states interested in developing their own. Developed by professionals and education experts from 1986-88, the NCTM project subdivided grades into three categories, K-4, 5-8, and 9-12, and developed 13 specific statements about what each group should be able to do for each subdivision. Common themes throughout the standards include hands-on activities, access to quality instruction and equipment, cooperative work, problem-solving tasks, justification of thought process, and application of concepts to other areas outside of mathematics (NCTM 1989). The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering expect to develop science education standards by fall 1994.

ContentsSearchContinue