Journell (2009) reported that as an offshoot of a national effort to raise the bar of student achievement in every public learning institution across the United States, each state has come up with a mechanism of enforcing academic standards anchored on or aligned with the standard curriculum framework implemented in the majority of states. And as reflected in the report of Quality Count (2000), much of enforcing mechanisms developed by the states entail national programs of testing. In other words, each state believed that by implementing national programs of assessment, academic standards are also enforced strictly and forcefully. In fact, in the past few years, 48 states were reported to have conducted national programs of testing all of which were found to have ameliorated or in the process of ameliorating student achievement that is aligned with the academic standards enforced by the majority of the states (Quality Count, 2000). The succeeding discussion will deal about the negative effects of national enforcement of academic standards on teacher performance and student achievement.

National enforcement of academic standards has a significant negative effect on teachers’ performance of their work (Alexander & Alexander, 2011; Bandeira de Mello, Blankenship, & McLaughlin, 2009; Carlson, Sallis, Chriqui, Schneider, McDermid, & Agron, 2013; Dee, Jacob, & Schwartz, 2012; Oriard, 2012; Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009). Based on these studies, the drawbacks of state enforcement of academic standards as reflected in the implementation of state-wide assessment programs include narrowing of the instruction and curriculum, fostering of fear, anxiety, and confusion, developing in teachers the perception of powerlessness, the lack of evidence to support the claim that state enforcement of academic standards improve student achievement, loss of instructional time because of the large amount of time demanded by meeting the state academic standards usually assessed through state-wide testing programs (Zhao, 2009).

Furthermore, Barton (2009) found that some of the teachers were modifying the sequence and scope of the curriculum to the extent of omitting concepts that are not included in the national testing programs reflective of the states strict enforcement of academic standards. He further noted that “participants reported a reluctance to use innovative instructional strategies (e.g., whole language approach, cooperative learning, and high order thinking activities) and mentioned the use of more traditional instructional methods (e.g., lecture, recitation) due to the belief that these strategies would better prepare students for state tests” (Barton, 2009: p. 14). In other words, the national testing program implemented by the states as part of their strict enforcement of academic standards negatively affects teachers’ instructional practice to the extent of harboring the belief that whatever they do inside the classroom is a preparation for students in taking the national assessment programs. More specifically, Barton (2009) believed that the end goal of their teaching should be to perform high in the national assessment programs, a belief that negatively affects the teaching and learning process. In another study, Martone and Sireci (2009) found that:

teachers reported feeling confused about the purposes of state-mandated testing, perceived themselves as powerless in the face of state-mandated testing policy, mistrusted state education departments and state legislators, questioned the effectiveness of the tests in evaluating student achievement, expressed concern that the test results were overemphasized by those mainly outside the profession (e.g., parents, the media), and did not consider state tests to be an accurate measure of student learning or school accountability. (p. 1347)

Implied in this finding is the fact that state enforcement of academic standards poses confusion to teachers regarding its goals making them clueless and powerless before its major means-national assessment programs. Furthermore, it created doubt among parents and the society at large as to the validity of the national test whether they really represent an accurate assessment of student achievement.

Based on these findings, it could also be concluded that state enforcement of academic achievement negatively influences teachers’ pedagogical practices and beliefs. As it was also noted earlier, teachers were forced to sacrifice innovative teaching strategies and utilize traditional teaching practices in order to prepare for national assessment programs as the major means of states to enforce academic standards.

Zhao (2009) also contended that national enforcement of academic standards positively affects student achievement. For instance, Brown and Conley (2007) noted that a belief that state enforcement of academic standards improves student achievement from public schools at a local level is widespread among educational scholars. However, they recognized the fact that there is yet a need to establish evidence supporting this claim. As they specifically pointed out, the strengthening of state enforcement of academic standards as a means of improving student achievement of public schools across the United States is yet to be validated. As a justification, they mentioned the fact that in the fast decades, international studies have been conducted in order to determine the effects of state enforcement of academic standards on student achievement but were never validated.

            In a similar observation, Coates (2010) indicated the fact that the widespread belief regarding the positive contribution of state enforcement of academic standards to improving student achievement is yet to be paralleled by a relatively significant growth in literature about the extent to which it affects the teaching and learning process. Based on this observation, he therefore concluded that the belief that state enforcement of academic standards will somehow contribute to improved student achievement poses less reality than hope. Coates (2010) further noted that “this shortage of empirical investigations means that the hopes of policy-makers and the public that more tests will somehow lead to better teaching or more learning rest on largely unvalidated assumptions” (p. 15).

            In their study, Martone and Sireci (2009) found that while state enforcement of academic standards may influence student achievement at the local level, it could not be considered as an educational reform. This, according to them is due to the fact that while the state enforcement of academic achievement in the two states caused apparent changes at the local level, they found that “those changes were merely differences rather than changes for the better or improvements” (p. 1352).

            In conclusion, while many studies found that national enforcement of academic standards negatively influences teacher performance, information regarding the positive effects of state enforcement of academic standards on student achievement is lacking and that this claim is yet to be supported by more empirical studies.

References

Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2011).American public school law. Cengage Learning.

Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., & McLaughlin, D. (2009). Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007. Research and Development Report. NCES 2010-456.National Center for Education Statistics.

Barton, P. E. (2009). National Education Standards: Getting beneath the Surface. Policy Information Perspective.Educational Testing Service.

Brown, R. S., & Conley, D. T. (2007). Comparing state high school assessments to standards for success in entry-level university courses.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 12(2), 137-160.

Carlson, J. A., Sallis, J. F., Chriqui, J. F., Schneider, L., McDermid, L. C., & Agron, P. (2013). State policies about physical activity minutes in physical education or during school.Journal of School Health,83(3), 150-156.

Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education.Higher Education Management and Policy,22(1), 1-17.

Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2012). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 0162373712467080.

Journell, W. (2009). Setting out the (Un) Welcome mat: A portrayal of immigration in state standards for American history.The Social Studies,100(4), 160-168.

Martone, A., &Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction.Review of Educational Research,79(4), 1332-1361.

Oriard, M. (2012). NCAA academic reform: History, context and challenges.Journal of Intercollegiate Sport,5(1), 4-18.

Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., & Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,31(3), 238-268.

Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach? (2000). Education Week, XIX (18).[On-line]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc00.htm

Silverman, S. (2010).Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement.JTPE,5(1).

Zhao, Y. (2009). Comments on the common core standards initiative.AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice,6(3), 46-54.

By: Mary Jane V. Acuña