Visit to a blind student's school🧑🦯🧑🦯(community medicine)
Thinking About Curriculum (ASCD)
1. webserver3.ascd.org http://webserver3.ascd.org/handbook/demo/curricrenew/pocr/sectioni.html
Thinking About Curriculum
I. Thinking About Curriculum
Everywhere today, curriculum planners are being asked to determine how to implement state
standards and other issues when addressing their curricula. But how to go about that? The intent of
this revised introductory chapter is to provide an overview of curriculum, so that the subject-specific
chapters that follow can be viewed from a broader perspective. The chapter begins by providing a
knowledge base for the process of developing curricula. The chapter also analyzes curriculum work
at the state, school district, school, and classroom levels. An additional section, Putting Standards
to Work in Schools, has been included in this revised chapter to outline the ways in which standards
can be incorporated into curricula (see pages 39-57).
Curriculum Concepts
While curriculum planners have tried for decades to define curriculum—often with very little
guidance—two approaches can resolve the debate. The first is to use a simple definition that
reflects how most educational leaders use the term: Curriculum is the skills and knowledge that
students are to learn. A more complex approach is to analyze the several sources of curriculum;
from this perspective there are eight different kinds:
The recommended curriculum derives from experts in the field. Almost every discipline-
based professional group has promulgated curriculum standards for its field. Kendall and
Marzano's comprehensive report Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and
Benchmarks for K-12 Education, 2nd Edition (1997) is an excellent compilation of these
standards.
The written curriculum is found in the documents produced by the state, the school system,
the school, and the classroom teacher, specifying what is to be taught. At the district level, the
documents usually include a curriculum guide and a scope-and-sequence chart; many school
systems make their curriculum documents available though their databases and the Internet.
The written curriculum also includes materials developed by classroom teachers. The written
curriculum is the one usually meant by leaders who say, "We're going to develop a
mathematics curriculum."
The supported curriculum is the one for which there are complimentary instructional materials
available, such as textbooks, software, and multimedia resources.
The tested curriculum is the one embodied in tests developed by the state, school system,
and teachers. The term "test" is used broadly here to include standardized tests, competency
tests, and performance assessments.
The taught curriculum is the one that teachers actually deliver. Researchers have pointed out
that there is enormous variation in the nature of what is actually taught, despite the superficial
appearance of uniformity (Gehrke, Knapp, & Sirotnik, 1992).
The learned curriculum is the bottom-line curriculum—what students learn. Clearly it is the
most important of all.
Two other types of curriculum—although not explicit and visible in school curriculum documents,
materials, and tests—are also worth noting:
2. The hidden curriculum (a term coined by Jackson, 1968) is the unintended curriculum-what
students learn from the school's culture and climate. It includes such elements as the use of
time, allocation of space, funding for programs and activities, and disciplinary policies and
practices. For example, if an elementary school allocates 450 minutes each week to reading
and 45 minutes to art, the unintended message to students is that "art doesn't matter."
The excluded curriculum is what has been left out, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Eisner (1979) terms this the "null curriculum," since it is not readily apparent. For example,
U.S. history curricula often have omitted or covered only briefly such topics as the labor
movement, the importance of religion in American life, or the internment of Japanese
Americans during World War II. Gehrke, Knapp, and Sirotnik (1992) point out that the
excluded curriculum is "powerful by virtue of its absence" (p. 53).
Interactions of Curriculum Types
How do these curriculum types interact? The research literature and experience working with
education leaders and school systems on curriculum development suggest the following:
The recommended curriculum in general has little impact on the written curriculum and
perhaps less of an effect on the classroom teacher. The recommendations of subject matter
experts and policymakers regarding curriculum content usually have had little influence on
schools. A notable recent exception are the recommendations offered by the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (1989), which seem to have influenced the mathematics
curriculum of many school systems and have been positively received by most math teachers.
The written curriculum has only a moderate influence on the taught curriculum. Most
experienced teachers review the curriculum guide at the start of the year and then put it aside
as they weigh other factors in deciding what to teach. They tend to give greater attention to
such factors as students' interests, their own assessment of what has worked in the past, and
what will be on the state and district tests.
The tested curriculum seems to have the strongest influence on the curriculum actually taught.
In an era of accountability, teachers are understandably concerned about how their students
perform on tests. Much classroom time is spent on developing test-wiseness and on
practicing questions similar to those that will appear on district, state, and national tests. And
in almost every class, students ask the perennial question: "Will this be on the test?" There is
a positive side to this emphasis on tests, when they take the form of performance
assessments. Gooding (1994) determined that teachers using performance assessments
incorporated the use of research-based teaching behaviors more frequently than those relying
on traditional forms of evaluation. Note, however, that a recent study concluded that students
in states with mandatory high school graduation tests achieved less on a test of academic
performance than students in states with lower-stakes test programs (Neill, 1998).
The supported curriculum continues to have a strong influence on the taught curriculum,
especially for elementary teachers, who teach four or five subjects. The textbook is often their
major source of content knowledge.
There is a significant gap between the taught curriculum and the learned curriculum; students
do not always learn what they are taught. Several factors account for the gap: the teacher's
failure to make the curriculum meaningful and challenging or to monitor student learning; and
the students' low level of motivation, cognitive abilities, and short attention spans.
As mentioned previously, the hidden and excluded curricula have a powerful influence on
students' perceptions. Every day students are exposed to the hidden and excluded curriculum
and internalize their messages. Thus, if the school system's leaders speak about the
importance of physical education but allocate only 45 minutes per week to that subject in the
3. elementary grades, the message that delivers is that physical education does not matter,
relatively speaking.
Although all these types of curricula are important, curriculum leaders should focus on the learned
curriculum, emphasizing the importance of implementing the written curriculum and helping teachers
close the gap between the taught and the learned curricula.
Curriculum Quality
What constitutes a high-quality curriculum? In one sense the question cannot be answered
empirically, since the question is value-laden. If curriculum leaders believe a narrowly focused
curriculum that deals only with the "basics" is most desirable, then they will argue for the merits of
such a curriculum. On the other hand, if they believe in a comprehensive curriculum that deals
broadly with life-related issues, then they will advocate such an approach. This division cannot
always be reconciled by turning to the research. There are, however, some tentative findings
suggesting that students learn more in schools that emphasize a curriculum focused more sharply
on academic courses (Lee, Croninger, & Smith, 1997).
Putting the value issue aside, here are several research-based guidelines for developing a high-
quality curriculum.
1. Structure the curriculum so that it allows students and teachers to study in greater depth some
of the most important topics and skills. In other words, don't emphasize coverage of too many
curriculum objectives and topics at the expense of depth. Several studies conclude that
focusing in depth on a smaller number of skills and concepts will lead to greater
understanding and retention and will better support efforts to teach problem solving and
critical thinking. (See, for example, Knapp and Associates, 1991; McDonnell, 1989; Brophy,
1990.)
2. Structure the curriculum so that it calls on students to use various learning strategies to solve
problems. Note that this does not mean having students learn generic thinking skills. Although
the initial interest in critical thinking led many innovators to teach isolated "thinking skills,"
research in cognitive psychology now indicates clearly that such skills are better learned and
retained when they are embedded in units that deal with complex meaningful problems in a
particular context. (For more detailed discussion of this issue, see the volume edited by
Resnick & Klopfer, 1989; and Brooks & Brooks, 1993.)
3. Structure and deliver the curriculum so that all students acquire both the essential skills and
knowledge of the subjects. For many years educators foolishly argued about the primacy of
content versus process. Recent advances in cognitive psychology indicate clearly that such a
dichotomy is dysfunctional. Students can solve complex problems in science, for example,
only when they are given access to the knowledge required to solve them. Cognitive
psychologists distinguish between inert knowledge— knowledge that is not used—and
generative knowledge, which is used in solving meaningful problems. For example, if students
learn where the capital of Pennsylvania is and keep that in memory, it is inert knowledge. If
they learn where the capital is and use that knowledge to write to the governor, then it
becomes generative. Generative knowledge is called to mind when it is used in solving
problems.
4. Structure the curriculum so that it responds to students' individual differences. Three types of
responsiveness are recommended. First, the curriculum should use varied modes of
representation—the ways people display or transfer knowledge. Most educators emphasize
verbal modes. Some innovative educators add visual means such as flow charts and web
diagrams.
The curriculum also should be organized so that the teacher can provide a high degree of
4. structure at the beginning of the year by giving cues, suggestions, and explanations. Then, as
the year progresses, the teacher can let students solve problems on their own.
Finally, the curriculum should recognize the multiple intelligences students have, rather than
stressing only the verbal and mathematical. Such adjustments are designed to accommodate
significant learner differences (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1990; Gardner, 1997).
5. Organize the curriculum so that it provides for multiyear, sequential study, not "stand-alone"
courses. While there may be some value in offering such courses for enrichment purposes at
all levels, McDonnell's research (1989) stresses that multiyear sequential curricula will have
greater payoffs than single courses that are not part of an overall program of studies.
6. Emphasize both the academic and the practical. Johnson (1989) makes this point about the
science curriculum: "Generating concepts in the mind . . . should be related where possible to
familiar experiences. Experience is the application of understanding" (p. 9). This linking of
academic and applied knowledge should occur throughout the curriculum, not just in "tech
prep" courses.
7. Selectively develop integrated curricula. Numerous studies have concluded that the use of
integrated curricula has resulted in better achievement and improved attitudes toward
schooling. Leaders should proceed with caution, however, since experts have expressed
concern about teachers' pursuit of integration at the expense of other goals. The principal and
the teachers together can decide the type and extent of curriculum integration for their school,
using guidelines provided by the district. (For further analysis of integration, see Putting
Standards to Work in Schools on page 39.)
8. Focus on the achievement of a limited number of essential curriculum objectives, rather than
trying to cover too many (Cotton, 1999). Keep in mind the importance of depth.
9. Maintain an emphasis on the learned curriculum. As Schmoker (1996) notes, school leaders
should be primarily concerned with results—improved learning for all students. The written
curriculum—whether integrated or subject-focused—is only a means to an end: high-quality
learning for all students.
Current Trends Influencing Curriculum Development
Before discussing the structures and processes for renewing the curriculum, it's important to note
some significant features of the context for curriculum development. Many developments and trends
in K–12 education are altering the landscape for curriculum work. Although history shows that it is
often hard to predict which changes will have a substantial impact on schools and which will turn out
to be nothing more than fads, it is worthwhile to assess current trends as part of curriculum renewal.
Following are some of the major trends that can influence curriculum, based on history and current
literature. (As part of your curriculum work, you may want to create your own list of current trends,
paying particular attention to trends in your area.)
Increasing Importance of National and State Standards
At the time of this writing, there is considerable debate about national standards. Although almost
all national organizations representing the various subject areas have issued voluntary content
standards, policy battles over the proper federal role have stalled some of the most ambitious plans
for implementing them.
Continuing dissatisfaction with student achievement, especially as reflected in the news media, is
likely to result in more discussion of the proper role of national standards. In a well-balanced
analysis, Smith, Fuhrman, and O'Day (1994) summarize the pros and cons of national standards.
Advocates, they say, assert that standards will
5. Ensure that all citizens will have the shared knowledge and values needed to make
democracy work.
Result in greater efficiency, since all 50 states can draw upon the national standards.
Encourage state and local boards to raise their standards.
Improve the quality of schooling.
Ensure a large measure of educational equity.
Also, international comparisons indicate that teachers in nations with strong central control of the
curriculum reported greater consistency in what should be taught and what they did teach when
compared with teachers in nations with greater local control, such as the United States (Cohen &
Spillane, 1992). That variation in consistency is probably one of the factors accounting for
international differences in achievement.
Still, Smith and colleagues note several disadvantages emphasized by the critics of national
standards:
1. Common standards tend to reflect minimum skills and knowledge, which results in lowering
the entire system.
2. The development of standards at the national level will draw resources from state and local
efforts.
3. National standards can become a de facto curriculum that will inhibit local creativity in
curriculum development.
4. Standards alone will have no effect on student achievement unless significant resources are
provided to local school systems (an unlikely development given attempts to downsize the
federal government).
Kendall and Marzano (1997) raise some practical cautions regarding national standards. Their
report, a systematic compilation of the national standards that have been developed by various
professional organizations, suggests that implementing all of the emerging recommendations would
be an impossible task for curriculum leaders. According to their analysis, a student would have to
master three "benchmarks" every week to achieve all the standards set by the professional groups.
(A benchmark is a school-level or grade-level objective derived from the standards.) Clearly, then,
developing curricula informed by national standards will prove much more difficult than simply
incorporating the recommendations of subject matter experts.
While the debate rages regarding the desirability of national standards, there appears to be
growing consensus on the desirability of state standards. A survey by Pechman and Laguarda
(1993) indicated that 45 states had developed or were developing curriculum frameworks; as of this
writing, only Iowa lacks curriculum standards in mathematics and English language arts. And those
frameworks, unlike the general guidelines that marked past efforts, seem to be detailed (some
would say prescriptive) and backed by state-developed tests. Smith and colleagues (1994) report
that preliminary results from California suggest that "ambitious content standards reinforced by
assessment and other policies have the potential to improve schooling" (p. 21). The evidence on
teacher attitudes is somewhat inconclusive. Two studies suggest that most teachers have negative
attitudes about externally imposed curriculum standards (Rosenholtz, 1987; McNeil, 1986). On the
other hand, another study of teachers in six states discovered little evidence that teachers were
unhappy with state and district standard setting (Porter, Smithson, & Osthoff, 1994).
Several experts have noted problems with states setting standards in curriculum. (See especially
Fuhrman, 1994.) The standards are set by state officials who are far removed from local schools
6. and free from the burden of accountability. Curriculum standards are often not supported with other
systemic changes, such as new approaches to teacher education. Thus state initiatives may be
seen as fragmented and often contradictory. And at a time of limited resources and the
accompanying downsizing of staffs, most state departments of education do not have the
wherewithal to help local districts implement state standards.
This trend has several implications for curriculum workers. First, developers at the state level should
recognize the need for comprehensive support of the educators they serve. At the district level,
developers should create curricula that address such state standards, while still providing for
curriculum development at the school and classroom levels. Finally, school administrators and
teachers should find ways to make the district curriculum relevant to the students. (For additional
details, see the Putting Standards to Work in Schools section on page 39.)
Increasing Interest in Constructivist Curriculum
Constructivism is a theory of learning based on the principle that learners construct meaning from
what they experience; thus, learning is an active, meaning-making process. Although constructivism
seems to have made its strongest impact on science and mathematics curricula, leaders in other
fields are attempting to embody in curriculum units the following principles:
Units should be problem-focused, requiring the student to solve open-ended contextualized
problems.
Units should enable the students to have access to research and other knowledge in solving
problems (generative knowledge).
Learning strategies (such as the use of matrices and web diagrams) should be taught in the
context of solving problems.
The teacher should provide the necessary scaffolding or structure throughout units.
Because learning is a social process, teachers should ensure that students spend at least
part of their time in group formats, such as cooperative learning.
Units should conclude by requiring the student to demonstrate learning in some authentic
manner.
In developing a constructivist unit, curriculum leaders should find two sources useful if greater depth
is needed: Glatthorn (1994a) and Brooks and Brooks (1993).
Developing New Approaches in Vocational Education
Figure 1. Generic Skills For a Changing Workplace
Basic Skills
1. Reading with comprehension and critical judgment.
2. Writing clearly and effectively.
3. Mastering mathematical computations
4. Performing practical life skills (e.g., reading a schedule or filling out
an application).
7. 5. Learning how to learn.
Complex Reasoning and Information Processing Skills
(Presented as a problem-solving process.)
1. Recognizing a problem.
2. Analyzing the problem.
3. Generating solution paths.
4. Evaluating the paths and monitoring implementation.
5. Repairing, using alternative actions.
6. Reflecting about the process and the solution.
Attitudes and Dispositions
1. Ability to make decisions.
2. Willingness to take responsibility for one's decisions.
3. Willingness to be bold in decision making.
4. Learning the parameters of the workplace.
5. Cooperating with others.
(Adapted and paraphrased from stasz et al., 1990.)
In the face of drastic changes in the economy, the workplace, and the workforce, forward-looking
career educators are moving toward new approaches to curriculum. Three developments seem
significant:
Emphasizing generic skills. While almost all career educators see a continuing need to
train students in career-specific skills so they can find employment upon graduation, there is
increased interest in generic skills that are broadly transferable to almost any career. Perhaps
one of the best formulations of these generic skills is that produced by Stasz, McArthur, Lewis,
and Ramsey (1990), whose formulation is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen from this list, the
intent is to equip all students with skills that will enable them to function in a changing economy
and a changing workplace.
Integrating academic and career education. In an attempt to reduce or eliminate the
dysfunctional barriers between academic and career curricula, some experts are attempting
to bring about a greater integration. Several models have been identified by Grubb, Davis,
and Lum (1991).
1. Incorporating more academic content in career courses. Career instructors incorporate
academic content such as reading, writing, science, and mathematics into their
courses. This has always been done informally by career teachers, but there is now
interest in developing more systematic models.
2. Combining vocational and academic teachers in a team. In some schools with a career
focus, one math teacher and one English teacher join a team of vocational teachers,
presenting special lessons, working with individual students in a pull-out remedial
program, teaching an applied class, and developing materials for the career teachers
8. that reinforce related academic skills.
3. Making the academic curriculum more career-relevant. Academic teachers incorporate
career applications wherever desirable: reading literature about work, using job-related
writing exercises, and using job-related examples from occupational areas. In some
cases this approach is more formal in the development and implementation of "applied
academics" courses. Three of the most widely applied academic courses are
Principles of Technology (an applied physics course), Applied Mathematics, and
Applied Communication, all published by the Agency for Instructional Technology
(1988).
4. Aligning career and the academic curricula. This approach coordinates or aligns closely
the content of the career courses and the academic courses; links between the two
fields are thereby strengthened and clearly delineated. Some use "bridge" assignments
that require the student to complete a project integrating career and academic
knowledge.
5. Using the senior project as a form of integration. In one school, for example, the
student's project consists of a written report, a physical representation of some sort
(usually completed in the vocational shop), and an oral presentation.
6. Developing an "academy" model. Academies usually operate as schools within
schools. Usually, four teachers collaborate in an academy—one in math, one in English,
one in science, and one in the career specialty that is the core of the academy, such as
electronics. Other subjects are taken in the regular high school as electives. The
academy teachers work with each other and a single group of students over a multiyear
period, and the academies establish close ties with local businesses and industries.
7. Developing occupational high schools and magnet schools. These magnet schools are
similar to academies, except that they make up the entire school. Examples are
Aviation High School in New York and the High School for Health Professions in
Houston, Tex.
This trend in vocational education also has two implications for curriculum developers. First,
they should ensure that the vocational curriculum is based on a model that recognizes the
growing importance of the community college. Thus, the vocational curriculum should extend
from grades 9 to 14. Also, the vocational curriculum should be a means for integrating the
vocational and the academic.
Developing integrated curricula. Educators seem especially interested in the development
and use of curriculum integration as a means of increasing student interest and student
knowledge (Beane, 1995). Although the term "curriculum integration" encompasses a variety
of approaches, it is used here to denote the development of curriculum units that combine
content from two or more disciplines. The growing number of conferences and publications on
curriculum development suggests that the movement toward integration is having its chief
impact at the middle school level. School systems need to develop subject-focused guides
that teachers can use for integrating the classroom curriculum if they wish to.
Although research generally supports the use of integrated curricula, some problems are
associated with their use. Gardner and Boix-Mansilla (1994) note that excessive integration
can result in the slighting of content knowledge, which is essential for problem-solving. Roth's
(1994) study raised the same concern. And Brophy and Alleman (1991) observed that
integrated units were often poorly designed collections of activities. Because of these
concerns, each school should decide to what extent and in what ways it will integrate its
curriculum.
Institutionalization of Technology
9. Except for some critics of technology (for example, Apple, 1988), there is general agreement
among educators that schools will continue to increase their use of sophisticated technologies.
Schools have become so comfortable with using the computer to manage the curriculum and to
facilitate student learning that discussions of whether they should adopt these technologies have
given way to questions of how they will use them. In any case, technology should be seen as a way
of supporting curriculum objectives rather than as an add-on.
Whose Responsibility is Curriculum?
A cold war is being fought over the control of curriculum. State departments of education are
becoming much more active in this area, developing detailed standards and related high-stakes
tests. At the same time, schools using site-based management are exercising their authority to
develop their own curricula. Districts continue to assert their authority over the curriculum, and
classroom teachers close the door and teach what they wish to teach.
Because each of these parties has a part to play in the process, curriculum developers should
foster cooperation among them. As Fuhrman and Elmore (1990) point out, curriculum work is
performed most effectively when each level of authority exercises its legitimate role in a
collaborative manner.
Figure 2 summarizes the recommended functions for each level. Obviously the allocation of these
functions should be reviewed closely and critically. Although this breakdown is based on knowledge
of the literature and experience in consulting with personnel at all four levels, the specific functions
undertaken at each level should be determined by state officials, district leaders, principals, and
teachers through consultation. Several factors will affect how these functions are best allocated in a
particular school district: the extent of state control; the school district's size; staffing in the central
office; the principals' competence as curriculum leaders; and the ability of teachers to function as
curriculum leaders. Thus district and school leaders should view the analysis shown in Figure 2 only
as a starting point.
Figure 2. Recommended Allocations of Curriculum Functions
State Functions
1. Develop state frameworks, including broad goals, general
standards, and graduation requirements.
2. Develop state tests and other performance measures in required
academic subjects.
3. Provide needed resources to local districts.
4. Evaluate state frameworks.
District Functions
1. Develop and implement curriculum-related policies.
2. Provide fiscal support for curriculum.
3. Develop a vision of a high-quality curriculum.
4. Develop educational goals aligned with state goals.
5. Identify the core program of studies for each level of schooling.
10. 6. Develop the documents for a mastery curriculum for each subject,
including scope-and-sequence charts and curriculum guides. A
mastery curriculum is one that specifies only those essential
outcomes that are likely to be tested and require explicit instruction.
7. Select instructional materials.
8. Develop district curriculum-based tests and other performance
measures to supplement state tests.
9. Provide fiscal and other resources needed at the school level,
including technical assistance.
10. Evaluate the curriculum.
11. Develop the structures to facilitate community and teacher input into
the curriculum.
12. Provide staff development programs for school administrators.
School Functions
1. Develop the school's vision of a high-quality curriculum, building on
the district's vision.
2. Supplement the district's educational goals.
3. Develop its own program of studies within district guidelines.
4. Develop a learning-centered schedule.
5. Determine nature and extent of curriculum integration.
6. Provide staff development for all teachers who will use the curriculum
guide.
7. Align the written, tested, supported, taught, and learned curricula.
8. Monitor the implementation of the curriculum.
9. Evaluate the curriculum.
Classroom Functions
1. Enrich the curriculum.
2. Develop long-term planning calendars to implement the curriculum.
3. Develop units of study.
4. Individualize the curriculum.
5. Evaluate the curriculum.
6. Implement the curriculum, helping all students achieve mastery.
11. One way to analyze the curriculum responsibilities of each group is to determine whether they are
being productive at every level. School leaders should be especially concerned with the dynamic
balance of school district, school, and classroom functions, because they can have relatively little
influence on state policies and standards. Even in a state with an active department of education,
curriculum leaders should work with teachers and principals to ensure that meaningful work is being
accomplished at the other three levels.
State Curriculum Functions
As noted earlier, states have been providing more and more curricular guidance to local districts
and schools. As these shifts occur, it is important to be familiar with the roles and functions of state-
level work on curriculum.
Four functions seem to be essential at the state level:
1. States are responsible for developing curriculum frameworks. The term is used here to mean
a set of statements guiding the standards for and development of curricula, along with a
general description of the state's assessment program.
Disagreement exists, of course, with respect to the nature and components of state
frameworks. Curry and Temple (1992) give the following reasons for criticizing "traditional"
frameworks: They are too traditional in content and perspective, they are too prescriptive, their
elements are not related to each other, they do not address systemic reform, they are too
linear, and they are presented in a "top-down" mode. In the place of such traditional
frameworks, they propose "progressive" approaches characterized by emphasizing a new
view of how students learn and by supporting integration of all components of the curriculum.
Curry and Temple argue for comprehensive frameworks that may include all of the following
components: philosophy, rationale, and goals; learner and school outcomes; content
standards; assessment and student performance standards; themes and concepts of the
disciplines; strategies for professional development and instruction; instructional technology
strategies; sample programs and curriculum units; instructional materials criteria; and
interdisciplinary strategies.
Less comprehensive frameworks usually include only three elements: the broad educational
goals that schools are expected to achieve through all programs in 13 years of schooling;
graduation requirements in terms of credits and competencies; and general standards for
each required subject. Several arguments are offered in support of a minimalist approach—
specifically that it gives districts greater autonomy in responding to local needs and strengths
while providing sufficient guidance from the state perspective. It also seems to facilitate
district curriculum development. Also, comprehensive state frameworks are often confusing
and counterproductive. Finally, the minimalist approach is more efficient in relation to the
optimal use of state resources at a time of downsizing in public agencies.
2. States are responsible for developing and implementing tests and other performance
measures. A limited approach is best: States should focus their assessment efforts on the
subject areas of English language arts, including reading and writing; social studies; science;
and mathematics. Assessment should be limited to the three transition points: grades 5, 8,
and 12. Such a limited approach would give state officials, district leaders, and the public
sufficient information to make major decisions, without devoting too much time and energy to
testing. One major study of the effects of statewide competency assessments concluded that
such tests foster harmful instructional practices—such as retention and misuse of special
education placement—while not encouraging school improvement (Allington & McGill-
Franzen, 1992). Finally, a recent study concluded that high-stakes testing, such as tests that
students must pass to graduate, does not improve student achievement (Neill, 1998).
