THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 2
Abstract
This paper explores The National Standards Reform movement and the implementation of
common learning standards and high-stakes standardized testing across U.S. public schools.
Proponents argue these measures establish clear benchmarks and assess teacher and school
effectiveness. While standards and assessments aim to monitor student learning, critics counter
that a reliance on standardized testing tends to negatively impact educational equity, reduces
opportunities for deep content learning, and stifles teachers’ ability to tailor instruction to attend
to all students’ learning needs.
Keywords: standardized testing, school effectiveness, public education, assessments
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 3
The National Standards Reform
The National Standards Reform movement calls for common learning goals across
schools measured by high-stakes standardized testing. This approach intends to evaluate teacher
and school performance. Those who oppose the implementation of the reform state that a narrow
focus on standardized testing outcomes fails to provide educational equity, limits opportunities
for in-depth content learning, and restricts teachers' capacity to customize instruction to meet the
diverse learning needs of all students. More student-centered processes could better inform
teaching practices to serve and support the needs of all learners.
Summary and Context
The purpose of public education in America has undergone a continual transformation to
adapt to the evolving societal demands. Initially, in the 18th century, American education was for
the sole purpose of preparing a society that would contribute to the nation's progress
(Wimberley, 2018). This focus shifted during the 19th and early 20th centuries and prompted the
widespread adoption of McGuffey Readers in classrooms nationwide (Smith, 2020). Curated by
William Holmes McGuffey, these readers played an integral part in shaping the nation's
development (Smith, 2020). With the ability to foster literacy across the country and by offering
accessible resources for students to learn reading and writing skills, the McGuffey readers were
instrumental in American education. (DiObilda & Petrillo, 2020). Additionally, the McGuffey
Readers conveyed moral and ethical teachings, highlighting virtues like honesty, diligence, and
integrity (DiObilda & Petrillo, 2020). This emphasis on character cultivation was deemed
essential for nurturing a prepared and morally just citizenry, which was crucial for the stability
and prosperity of a recently independent nation (Smith, 2020).
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 4
Following the launch of Sputnik in the 1950s, the goal of education broadened to include
the preparation of students for higher education and professional endeavors (Shapiro & Kraus,
2023). Sputnik ignited a sense of urgency and apprehension within the United States regarding
its standing in the Cold War space race and its capacity to rival the Soviet Union in scientific and
technological advancements. This event spurred a renewed emphasis on teaching subjects like
computer science, chemistry, mathematics, and physics to ensure the competitiveness of
American students on a global scale in an increasingly technology-driven world (Shapiro &
Kraus, 2023).
As educational methods in classrooms progressed, there emerged an interest to assess the
efficacy of the public education system. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration
enacted and enforced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), aimed at enhancing
educational access for marginalized students by allocating federal funding to each state
(Vinovskis, 2022). Although well intentioned, these endeavors fell short of ensuring equitable
educational outcomes for all. In 1983, A Nation at Risk was issued by the National Commission
on Excellence in Education, established by the U.S. Department of Education to address
mounting concerns regarding the quality of American education (Schneider & Saultz, 2020).
This report presented a stark portrayal of the state of education in the nation, sparking
widespread discourse and prompting initiatives at the federal, state, and local levels to reform the
education system (Schneider & Saultz, 2020). In response to these findings, federal legislation
such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and The Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) of 2015 were enacted, placing greater emphasis on accountability, standardized testing,
and school performance metrics (Schneider & Saultz, 2020).
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 5
Standardized testing has become deeply embedded in American education in the 21st
century. Like Erasmus' belief that educating young people is crucial for a society's success, the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) attempted to improve student achievement nationwide
through testing (Smith, 2020). NCLB mandated annual assessment of students' skills in reading,
math, and other core subjects. The goal was to give schools data to guide instructional
improvements. By setting common achievement standards and requiring testing, education
reformers aimed to provide clear expectations for teaching and learning, as well as a way to
measure progress (Buddy, 2009).
Critical Analysis
The National Standards Reform was established with good intentions - to increase
accountability and ensure all students receive the same quality education. By implementing
common curricular standards and including high-stakes standardized testing, the reform aimed to
monitor student learning and evaluate teacher and school effectiveness. However, the
movement’s emphasis on high-stakes testing and uniform benchmarks ignores the diversity of
students created in God's image. Scripture celebrates differences amongst individuals as a
reflection of the Creator's glory (New International Version, 2011d, Psalms 139:13). Though
well-intended, the implementation of the National Standards Reform’s one-size-fits-all standards
undermines accommodating students' unique aptitudes tied to their identities.
The intense focus on standardized testing has had significant negative consequences.
First, it has failed to account for persistent achievement gaps along socioeconomic, racial, and
disability lines. Factors such as socioeconomic backgrounds, language proficiency, access to
resources, and varying instructional approaches are often overlooked in standardized testing
protocols, resulting in an incomplete and potentially biased evaluation of student performance
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 6
and school effectiveness. Teaching to the test often takes priority over addressing systemic
inequities and the diverse needs of student populations. Sirotnik and Kimball (1999) argued that
accountability systems based predominantly on standardized tests are inappropriate, as they
uniformly evaluate student success and school effectiveness without considering contextual
factors like demographics, conditions, or circumstances. In their review, Sirotnik & Kimball
(1999) found that such accountability approaches disregarded variances in instructional pacing
and individual learning styles. As a result, Sirotnik and Kimball (1999) concluded that such one-
size-fits-all assessment failed to support the academic growth of underprivileged demographics.
Further marginalizing low-income, minority, and special needs students by widening the
achievement divides. In efforts to address students’ diversities of gifts, students God-given
talents and abilities cannot be properly assessed or compared using a single standardized tool
(New International Version, 2011a, 1 Corinthians 12:4). Using standardized assessments as the
primary metric widens equity gaps by neglecting the different gifts and learning approaches
students bring from their diversified backgrounds.
Secondly, the emphasis on testing has frequently come at the cost of minimizing
students’ creativity, critical thinking, and rich engagement with subject matter. Students may
excel on tests but lack deeper skills to apply knowledge to other concepts. According to a 2009
study by Claire Berube, students were able to pass standardized tests without demonstrating true
content mastery. Berube discovered a significant discrepancy - 70% of students who had passed
the state standardized test subsequently failed a more comprehensive course evaluation given a
week later. According to Berube's 2009 conclusions, relying solely on a single standardized
multiple-choice test to gauge student mastery of academic standards severely limits critical
thinking and diminishes the efficacy of teachers in providing meaningful, engaging learning.
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 7
Aligned with Luke 20:20-26's model of education as illuminating deeper truths rather than rote
fact recall, Berube (2009) contends that overreliance on standardized testing severely hinders
meaningful learning (New International Version, 2011c, Luke 20:20-26). Such restrictive
assessment denies students opportunities to exhibit more complex mastery and undermines
teacher capacity to cultivate engaging, enriched educational experiences aimed at transformation
rather than just concept retention.
Additionally, tying school funding and teacher evaluation to a singular test performance
creates perverse incentives rather than supporting the process of providing student-centered,
meaningful learning. At the heart of an educator's efforts should be the personalized development
and outcomes of each student. As exemplified in Luke 2:52 where Jesus grew in wisdom and
stature according to his unique path under God's care, teachers have the ability to nurture
students along their independent learning journeys (New International Version, 2011b, Luke
2:52). Standardized assessments fail to capture student growth from a holistic lens. Overreliance
on such metrics can hinder catering to students' individual strengths and areas for improvement.
This type of restrictive assessment system encourages educators to provide instruction that is
contrary to a constructivist approach that states students’ motivation and depth of understanding
improves through personalized, passion-based projects that give autonomy over learning (Smith,
2020). Standardized testing demotivates educators from taking creative risks that could greatly
benefit students. Instead, teachers are more compelled to utilize formulaic teaching strictly
aligned to test preparation. Pairing standardized testing with determining school effectiveness,
reduces teachers' efforts to provide autonomous, organic learning experiences and increases the
likelihood of teaching to the test (Smith, 2020, p. 207). Berube (2009) states that standardized
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 8
testing seemingly stifles teachers’ creativity and threatens job security when used to determine
teacher efficacy.
Conclusion
Researchers believe that standardized testing, while a method of assessment, fails to
consider the diverse factors of the educational institution (Berube, 2009, Sirotnik & Kimball,
1999, Buddy, 2009). This lack of consideration undermines efforts to promote fairness, equity,
and meaningful educational outcomes for all students, regardless of their individual
circumstances. Although standardized testing offers a broad overview of instructional progress,
its rigid framework often limits the depth of instruction necessary to meet the diverse needs of
students. By adhering to a standardized approach, the focus of classroom instruction becomes
narrowed, potentially neglecting the comprehensive and personalized instruction required by
individual students. When assessment becomes primarily focused on standardized tests,
educators may feel compelled to adhere strictly to test preparation and drill-style instruction,
leaving little room for innovative teaching methods that could better engage students and foster
deeper learning.
In summary, while well-intended, an emphasis on standardized testing to monitor schools
may negatively impact educational equity, depth of learning, and tailoring instruction to the
needs of diverse student bodies. More holistic assessment systems could better inform
administrators and teachers to support high-quality, supportive learning environments for all
students. There is a need for clear parameters in determining school effectiveness that account
for the diverse circumstances of each school, the current learning levels of students and the
instructional abilities and experience of the teaching staff. Such practices would reinforce the
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 9
importance of considering the unique context in which schools operate and acknowledge the
impact of factors on each school’s educational process and performance.
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 10
References
Berube, C. T. (2004). Are standards preventing good teaching? The Clearing House, 77(6), 264-
267. https://www.proquest.com/docview/196862471/653CD2E911D04E1APQ/1?
accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
Buddy, J. (2009). Standardized testing review 101. School Library Monthly, 26(4), 18-21.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/237135715/F83C4268C17E45CEPQ/1?
accountid=12085&sourcetype=Trade%20Journals
DiObilda, N. A., & Petrillo, R. L. (2020). Beginning reading instruction in the nineteenth
century: The path towards eclecticism. American Educational History Journal, 47(1),
117-141.
https://www.proquest.com/education/docview/2445578494/D59839FD61914E38PQ/1?
accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
New International Version. (2011a). BibleGateway.com.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A4&version=NIV
New International Version. (2011b). BibleGateway.com.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A52&version=NIV
New International Version. (2011c). BibleGateway.com.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+20%3A20-26&version=NIV
New International Version. (2011d). BibleGateway.com.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms+139%3A13&version=NIV
Schneider, J., & Saultz, A. (2020). Authority and control: The tension at the heart of standards-
based accountability. Harvard Educational Review, 90(3), 419-445, 519.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS REFORM 11
journals/authority-control-tension-at-heart-standards/docview/2506625932/se-2?
accountid=12085
Shapiro, L. J., & Kraus, R. V. (2023). The NGSS and the historical direction of science
education reform. Science Educator, 29(2), 63-74.
https://www.proquest.com/education/docview/2863499092/C67E55479054C9CPQ/1?
accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1999). Standards for standards-based accountability systems. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(3), 209-214.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/218528657/6ED814569E7A48E4PQ/1?
accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
Smith, S. J. (2020). Windows into the history and philosophy of education. Kendall Hunt.
Wimberley, A. (2018, February 9). Disruptive innovation theory [Video]. Liberty University.
https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/592889/pages/watch-disruptive-innovation-theory?
module_item_id=61641721
Vinovskis, M. A. (2022). Federal compensatory education policies from Lyndon B. Johnson to
Barack H. Obama. History of Education Quarterly, 62(3), 243-267.
https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2022.21
