Standard 1 Curriculum affect on Standard 7 and standard 3



Abstract

Nationwide, state policy-makers have increasingly adopted curriculum standards as a means of improving education. However, relatively little empirical research has been done to investigate if a link actually exists between curriculum standards and student performance. Using data collected by the New York State Department of Education, the impact of standards on high school student achievement is examined through estimation of a one-way fixed-effects model of the education production function. Curriculum standards are operationalized as the award of a “50-64” variance, which is considered a means of increasing the number of students taking demanding courses. The findings suggest that curriculum standards can improve student performance, but they do little to improve equity. While larger portions of pupils pass curriculum-based assessment exams, continued associations between select student characteristics and student performance remain.

Table of Contents

Abstract2

CHAPTER I4

Introduction4

Background of the Study5

Research Question6

1.How does Standard 1 Curriculum affect Standard 7 (Leadership), and Standard 3 - Instruction, and the Academic Index?6

2.Standard 3 Life and career options and Standard 4 Learning Environment affect the Academic index?6

3.Demographic factors affect Standard 1 Curriculum and Standard Instruction affects the Academic Index?6

Statement of the Problem6

CHAPTER II8

Review of Related Literature8

The link between curriculum standards and student performance9

Research Question9

1.How does Standard 1 Curriculum affect Standard 7 (Leadership), and Standard 3 - Instruction, and the Academic Index?9

2.Standard 3 Life and career options and Standard 4 Learning Environment affect the Academic index?9

3.Demographic factors affect Standard 1 Curriculum and Standard Instruction affects the Academic Index?9

Curriculum standards in NYS10

Standard 1: Foundations13

Standard 3: Development and Characteristics of Learners16

Standard 4: Instructional Strategies18

Standard 3: Learning Environments and Social Interactions19

Standard 7: Instructional Planning22

Summary26

CHAPTER III28

Findings28

CHAPTER V32

Discussion and implications for public policy32

References35

CHAPTER I

Introduction

American public elementary and secondary schools were branded mediocre after the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The educational conditions highlighted by this report sparked a series of reform efforts across the nation, many of which called for additional aid to public schools ( Odden, 1990). Despite increased funding, criticism of schools persisted and even intensified. Many practitioners and academics questioned the notion that expending more money on the educational status quo would necessarily lead to improved outcomes ( Hanushek and Hanushek).

Decision-makers in some states targeted selected school inputs (e.g. faculty, organization, curriculum) as areas in need of a major overhaul. Policy-makers discussed the use of merit pay (Odden & Kelley, 1996), decentralization ( Weiler and Odden) and more rigorous coursework ( Altonji, 1994). Lately, however, input-oriented strategies are being replaced by an emphasis on results ( Monk, 1994). The imposition of curriculum standards1 reflects these dual approaches (input and output) to improving education. That is, in its early conceptualization, curriculum standards were associated with a prescriptive curriculum (NYS Department of Education, 1984) but later evolved into a more flexible, results-oriented strategy ( NYS Department of Education, 1991). An assumed benefit of either approach is that promotion of a rigorous curriculum for all pupils will also reduce the gaps in performance between different student ...