classroom assessment practices as much as it has helped.
In this chapter, we discuss the problem with standards and practices that render them inconsequential. We describe the limited assessment focus of standards and the need to create supplemental measurement topics.
The Problem With Standards
There are at least three reasons why standards do not provide classroom teachers with adequate guidance in using classroom assessments: (1) too much content, (2) redundancy, and (3) equivocal descriptions of content.
Too Much Content
To illustrate the problem of too much content, consider the following mathematics standard: “Understands the properties of operations with rational numbers (for example, distributive property, commutative and associative properties of addition and multiplication, inverse properties, identity properties)” (standard 3, grades 6–8; Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning [McREL], 2014a).
If we unpack the content in this standard, it becomes clear that it contains at least five elements. The student:
1. Understands the distributive property with rational numbers
2. Understands the commutative property of addition with rational numbers
3. Understands the commutative property of multiplication with rational numbers
4. Understands the inverse property of rational numbers
5. Understands the identity properties of rational numbers
While this standard is for mathematics, the same problem holds true for other subject areas. This is the crux of the problem that standards documents have created for classroom teachers who wish to design highly focused classroom assessments. For example, consider the following middle school science standard.
MS-LS1–4. Use argument based on empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to support an explanation for how characteristic animal behaviors and specialized plant structures affect the probability of successful reproduction of animals and plants respectively. (NGSS Lead States, 2013)
This standard appears relatively straightforward and fairly focused until we consider the clarification statement that accompanies it:
Examples of behaviors that affect the probability of animal reproduction could include nest building to protect young from cold, herding of animals to protect young from predators, and vocalization of animals and colorful plumage to attract mates for breeding. Examples of animal behaviors that affect the probability of plant reproduction could include transferring pollen or seeds, and creating conditions for seed germination and growth. Examples of plant structures could include bright flowers attracting butterflies that transfer pollen, flower nectar and odors that attract insects that transfer pollen, and hard shells on nuts that squirrels bury. (NGSS Lead States, 2013)
If we unpack the content in this standard and its clarification statement, a number of topics rise to the surface. The student:
• Understands how to identify empirical evidence and how to use it in an argument
• Understands scientific reasoning and how to use it in an argument
• Understands examples of animal behaviors
• Understands how specific animal behaviors affect successful reproduction
• Uses empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to explain how and why specific animal behaviors affect successful reproduction
• Understands examples of plant behaviors
• Understands how specific plant behaviors affect successful reproduction
• Uses empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to explain how and why specific plant behaviors affect successful reproduction
In effect, standards documents typically embed so much content in a single statement that it would be impossible to assess (or teach) all those topics in the amount of time available to teachers. To illustrate, Robert J. Marzano, David C. Yanoski, Jan K. Hoegh, and Julia A. Simms (2013) identify seventy-three standards statements (which they refer to as elements) for eighth-grade English language arts (ELA) within the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; NGA & CCSSO, n.d.a, n.d.b, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). If we assume an average of five topics embedded in each element, which seems reasonable given the previous example, then we can conclude that eighth-grade ELA teachers must assess and teach 365 topics in a single school year.
This problem is prevalent in every subject area. Figure 1.1 provides a few more examples of standards with embedded topics.
Source for standards: McREL, 2014a.
Figure 1.1: Multiple topics in content standards.
Redundancy
The second problem with standards is that they include a great amount of redundant content. This was one of the findings of Julia A. Simms (2016) in her analysis of the CCSS. To illustrate, consider the topic of “examining claims and evidence.” When examining the eighth-grade CCSS for ELA standards and benchmarks, Simms (2016) finds overlapping aspects of this in seven different standards or benchmark statements. See figure 1.2, which depicts six unpacked ELA standards at the eighth-grade level: RI.8.8, W.8.1b, W.8.1a, W.8.1, SL.8.3, and SL.8.1d.
Source for standards: NGA & CCSSO, 2010a.
Figure 1.2: Overlapping components in ELA standards at the eighth-grade level.
When unpacked, the Common Core standard RI.8.8 has five statements, standard W.8.1b has two statements, and so on. In all, there are twenty-two statements embedded in six standards. Even though these statements employ different phrasing, they pretty much all deal with claims, evidence, and reasoning. While the problem of redundancy might seem to mitigate the problem of too much content, it still adds to the teacher’s workload by requiring him or her to analyze standards in the manner that Simms (2016) exemplifies.
Equivocal Descriptions of Content
The final problem with current standards statements is that many of them are highly equivocal—they are open to a number of possible interpretations. To illustrate, consider the following standard from grade 4 mathematics:
Solve multistep word problems with whole numbers and have whole number answers using the four operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) including division word problems in which remainders must be interpreted. (4.0A.A.3, NGA & CCSSO, 2010b)
While it is clear that the standard’s overall focus is multistep problems with whole numbers and whole-number answers, such problems are very different across the operations for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Consider the following four problems that would appear to fulfill this standard.
1.
