AFT Finding: States Making Progress Defining What Students Should Learn
Union Recommends Two Options for States To Improve Their Standards

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Some states are making discernible progress in writing clear, specific, content-focused standards that define what students are expected to learn in every grade or course in English, math, science and social studies, according to a report released today by the American Federation of Teachers, which also offers advice for states whose standards need improvement.

In its latest review of state standards, “Sizing Up State Standards 2008,” the AFT used new, more rigorous criteria because it is so important that states clearly define what students are expected to learn. For the 2008 report, states met the AFT criteria if their standards were clear, specific and content-focused. Standards were analyzed for all grades in each of the four core subjects.

“While some states are demonstrating dramatic improvement in the quality of their standards, far too many states are lagging behind,” said Antonia Cortese, AFT executive vice president. “Well-written grade-by-grade or course-by-course standards are critical because they drive curriculum, professional development, instruction and assessments, and provide guidance to textbook publishers.”

Sixteen states have the highest scores for their standards, with Virginia leading the group with a score of 100 percent. The report also found that Arkansas, Indiana and Louisiana made dramatic improvements over the years, even with the AFT’s more challenging criteria. Others with at least 75 percent of their standards meeting AFT criteria are Alabama, California, Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

However, the AFT found that 35 states have inferior standards overall, including seven that lack clear standards for any grade or subject—Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Faring almost as poorly is a second group of states that meet the AFT’s criteria in fewer than 25 percent of grades and subjects—Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont and Wyoming.

“We know states can do it, so we have to keep the pressure on the ones that are lagging,” Cortese said. Referring to the No Child Left Behind Act, she said, “Unfortunately, NCLB has derailed the standards movement by overemphasizing testing. But tests and test results are meaningless if states don’t clearly define what students are expected to learn.”

The AFT recommended two options to remedy this persistent, but fixable, situation. “Either a state could use top-rated standards as a model, or states within a region could get together as a consortium to jointly develop standards, curricula and assessments. Either way, it’s time for states to get this right,” Cortese said.

Included in the report are examples of high-quality content standards and weak ones. The AFT evaluation of standards was based on whether they are detailed, explicit, grade-specific and focused on content.

Key findings from the report’s analysis of content standards include:

• English and social studies standards generally are weaker than math and science standards. Twenty-four states have strong math standards, and 22 have strong science standards. However, only eight states have strong English standards, and only two have strong social studies standards (see Table 3).

• High school standards are the weakest (see Table 4), with just 25 percent of states having strong English standards and 47 percent having strong math standards. Too often, high school standards are clustered (e.g., one set of standards for grades 9-12) instead of being grade-specific or, better still, course-specific.

• States with weak standards have three main problems: Standards are repeated from grade to grade, are clustered for a range of grades (e.g., 9-12), or are incomplete or vague.

The report not only includes specific recommendations for improving content standards, but also recommends that states provide instructional guidance and teacher resources to help teachers bring the standards into the classroom.

“Sizing Up State Standards 2008” is available at www.aft.org/standards2008.

Related articles on the report can be found in the American Educator’s Spring 2008 issue at http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/index.htm.

The AFT’s 2006 “SmartTesting” report, which showed that few states align their standards with their assessments, is available at http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/Testingbrief.pdf.

# # # #