Thompson, Carla J. (2009). Preparation, practice, and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of Standards-based instruction on secondary students’ math and science achievement. Research in Education, 81, 53-62.

This study implements a three-stage model to analyze the effects of standards-based instruction (SBI) on student learning. Standards-based instruction strategies, as defined by Thompson, include “student self-assessment, inquiry-based activities, group-based projects, hands-on experiences, use of computer technologies, and the use of calculators.” The three-stage model – preparation, practice, and performance – is broken down as follows: preparation includes teacher professional development activities, practice is the classroom implementation of these trainings, and performance is the student outcomes which are Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores. Using data collected from the Oklahoma City public school district for the 2000-01 and 2001-02 school years, Thompson finds evidence that suggests SBI practices are significantly more effective on student learning than non-SBI practices. Using this model, Thompson found that standards-based practices such as inquiry, problem solving, co-operative learning, and use of hands on technology were all significant contributors. Non-SBI practices (lecture, independent seat work, quizzes, and text homework) were found to be ineffective in achieving student growth.

This article suggests that non-SBI practices (which currently dominate classrooms) need to be re-examined as they are ineffective in achieving significant academic gains. This is an alarming finding as a significant number of classrooms are non-SBI (47% of classrooms in the study, for instance, were found to be non-SBI classrooms). The data would suggest that nearly half of all classrooms are ineffective in achieving student growth. As the study states, however, there is a lack of empirical evidence on SBI practices and student growth and I would be interested in seeing the study across other states and regions to strengthen the evidence. In the mean time, I will be careful to consider SBI practices as I lesson plan.

Lemke, Robert J., Hoerandner, Claus M., & McMahon, Robert E. (2006). Student Assessments, Non-test Takers, and School Accountability. Education Economics, 14 (2), 235-250.

Lemke, et al. use statewide data from Illinois to examine the implications of using student test scores to evaluate public schools. Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, heavy rewards and consequences are placed on students meeting or exceeding state standards. As a result, teachers and administrators have incentive to do whatever is necessary to achieve qualifying test scores. Because the law only requires schools to test 95% of their student population, there is room for schools to possibly game the system to achieve higher test scores.

Using a sample of 573 high schools from the state of Illinois, Lemke, et al. find evidence that accurate comparisons cannot be made across schools if only 95% of the students are required to take the test. Depending on the abilities of the 5% of student who do not take the test, there is too much room for variance and schools can potentially be assessed as passing when they are actually below state standards. According to Lemke, et al., for instance, 22% of all schools in their study could be mistakenly labeled as passing state standards if they were to take full advantage of the NCLB law.

This issue can be compared to the steroid problem in Major League Baseball. When the end product (examinations in schools; money or victories in baseball) has such great weight, there is incentive to cut corners to achieve the end result. The means are sacrificed for the ends. As found in this study, NCLB unintentionally results in schools encouraging students to be disabled learners, ease dropout rules, hold students back to postpone testing, teach to the test and sacrifice depth of analysis, etc. Much is sacrificed when the examination is the only point of focus.