- Are high standards appropriate for struggling students?
- If they are not appropriate, are they even relevant?
The Appropriateness of Standards
Appropriateness can be restated in terms of feasibility. In other words, “Can struggling students achieve the grade-level outcomes specified in the standards?”
To a large extent, this has to do more with educational policies and assessment practices than the standards themselves. For example, many state math standards in the 1990s varied considerably in their depth and rigor. In addition, states often made accommodations for special education students on their annual assessments. The reality behind grade-level standards was that they were “modal recommendations.” That is, they were intended for average-performing students in schools, particularly given the fact that the highest-performing students generally had little difficulty meeting them. Thus, standards helped students “in the middle” move toward higher outcomes.
This question of feasibility becomes clearest when standards are translated into specific performance expectations on assessments. It is through these assessments that we confront what portion of the school population is supposed to be at grade level or deemed proficient in their knowledge of the subject.
The clearest example of this can be found in the No Child Left Behind legislation. While NCLB did not lay out specific math standards and instead left them to the states, the legislation called for “all students” to be proficient in math and literacy by 2014. The phrase “most students” simply would not work.
A realistic answer to the expectation that all students should be proficient on high math standards assessments can be found in the international arena. Much ado has been made over the past decade regarding U.S. students and their mediocre performance on TIMSS and PISA assessments. Understandably, every country wants to be at or near the top of any assessment list. What is rarely addressed in the discussions over assessment rankings is that, while students in countries like Korea or Taiwan have higher mean scores than those in the United States, they still have a considerable level of variability. Assessment expert Robert Linn put this into perspective years ago, noting that if we use the NAEP proficiency standard and apply it to international tests like TIMSS, no country is even close to having all of its students score at this level (Linn, 2003).
There are at least two implications from these observations. First, there is a considerable level of politics rather than precision in the way we set performance expectations for all students. Second, the issue of appropriateness is best directed toward assessment outcomes rather than standards per se. As is the case in countries like Singapore and Finland, it is possible to have high standards and provide high levels of support, and yet not expect all students to pass the same grade-level standards.
The Relevance of Standards
Whether or not standards are relevant to struggling students means looking at the standards as a whole. It is not an either/or proposition. Some standards may not be relevant to struggling students. In the day of 50 different state standards, there were many instances of standards that were unique, if not exotic, such as discrete math for primary grade students. In a more contemporary context, greater depth in core aspects of algebra may be the best recommendation for struggling students, even though Common Core State Standards for high school, for example, may prescribe trigonometric functions. Standards need to be examined carefully to see which ones most directly address core features of K–12 mathematics. In that regard, the CCSS and the residual state standards that are closely aligned with them are a step in the right direction. They reflect fewer standards and greater depth than their NCTM predecessor.
One of the strongest arguments for the relevance of standards is curricular. Unencumbered with 50 different state standards, curriculum developers can hone in on standards that best serve the needs of struggling students. This allows for greater depth, elaboration, and the use of learning principles that are the most effective with this audience. Furthermore, the nature of today’s standards helps ensure that struggling students are taught more than basic skills and procedures. Conceptual understanding and problem solving need to be part of the everyday learning experience. In these ways, and many more, today’s high math standards are certainly most relevant to struggling students.
In the next blog, we will explore another question that is often used to attack the application of standards to struggling students: “Where is the research base for all of this?” In other words, in a world of scientifically based instruction, where is the research support for standards?
Linn, R. (2003). Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
Do you have questions about teaching math or want to share your own tips with the EdView360 community? Please post your thoughts in the Comment field below.
