Chapter I:
Performance Standards

What does the law require?  

Title I required states, in consultation with parents, educators and others, to have developed content standards by the 1996-97 school year and performance standards by the 1997-98 school year.  The law requires these standards in at least reading and math.

 

Content standards specify what all students should know and be able to do in math, reading and other subjects.[13]

 

Performance standards describe the different levels of proficiency students demonstrate with respect to the standards.  Title I calls for states to set at least three levels of proficiency: advanced, proficient, and partially proficient.

     

Why are performance standards an important civil rights provision? 

Standard-setting, when done right, involves an inclusive, deliberative process in which all stakeholders, including teachers and parents, participate to create a set of expectations around which whole communities can rally.  Performance standards spell out what all students – regardless of race, background or family circumstances – should know and be able to do at particular times during their educational careers and in each subject.  They are based on the Congressional finding that all children are capable of mastering challenging content.    Statewide performance standards ensure that high poverty school districts will not set lower standards than other school districts in the state, and guard against tracking and other practices that are based on lower expectations for poor and minority students.  

 

 

How have the states fallen short of the requirement?

In Title I in Midstream, the Commission found that only 17 states had met the requirement to have performance standards in place by the 1997-98 school year.  The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I, issued in December 1999, reported that by 1998 only 22 states had complied.  By January 2001, in an updated report, the Department’s National Assessment found that only 28 states had approved performance standards.  The January report observed that the “development of performance standards is so closely related to the development of final assessments that many states have not met the timeline set forth in the statute.”[14]

  In decision letters on final assessments, the Department cited several problems.  For example:

·        The Department wrote to North Dakota:

 “To meet the requirements for student performance standards, the State must provide evidence that the performance standards have been officially adopted, are challenging and aligned with State content standards, apply to all students, and have been developed with broad-based involvement.”

 

·        Mississippi was directed to provide evidence of approved performance standards in reading and math.

 

·        In granting a timeline waiver, the Department found Colorado needed to complete the setting and passage of performance standards for elementary mathematics and for the 10-12-grade span.

 

·        The Department wrote to Tennessee:

“Tennessee did not submit evidence to the Department to demonstrate that student performance standards aligned to content standards are in place. In our conversation with you, your staff indicated that the State has completed some performance standards but has not finalized the standards for all subject areas and grade levels.

“In order to complete our review of this portion of Tennessee's assessment system; please provide us with a complete description of the process and timeline for development of your performance standards, particularly in English/ language arts and mathematics. This should include information on when Tennessee will approve the standards; what the performance levels are; who was involved in their development; how the performance standards are aligned with State content standards; how challenging the performance standards are for all children; and what will be included in the performance standards, such as performance descriptors, cut scores, and exemplars of student work.”