|
Record Details
|
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (3182K)
|
|
Related Items: Show Related Items
|
| Click on any of the links below to perform a new search |
| ERIC #: | ED416080 |
| Title: | Great Expectations? Defining and Assessing Rigor in State Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts. |
| Authors: | Joftus, Scott; Berman, Ilene |
| Descriptors: | Academic Standards; Educational Assessment; Educational Objectives; Elementary Secondary Education; Language Arts; Mathematics Education; Program Evaluation; State Standards |
| Source: | N/A |
More Info:
 Help
Peer-Reviewed:
|
N/A |
| Publisher: | Council for Basic Education, 1319 F Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004-1152; phone: 202-347-4171 ($8). |
| Publication Date: | 1998-01-00 |
| Pages: | 58 |
| Pub Types: | Reports - Research |
| Abstract: | Are states setting high expectations for student learning? To answer this question the Council for Basic Education (CBE) evaluated the rigor of mathematics and language arts standards in the United States. This report is divided into the following sections: (1) Context for the Study; (2) Rigor in State Standards; (3) Issues Affecting the Evaluation of Rigor in State Standards; (4) Application of the Evaluation Process; (5) Process Design; and (6) Future Directions. Evaluation of the standards documents from 43 states yields several important findings: (1) in language arts, seven states had very rigorous standards, 21 had rigorous standards, and 14 had standards with low levels of rigor; (2) in mathematics, 16 states had very rigorous standards, 24 had rigorous standards, and three had standards with low levels of rigor; (3) state mathematics standards tend to be more rigorous than language arts standards; (4) most states' language arts standards address basic skills but do not address literature study, research, or language study such as word origins and differences between standard usage and slang; (5) most states' mathematics standards contain few major gaps in the concepts or skills included, and states with low to moderate levels of rigor tend to address the most essential concepts and skills but at a lower level of sophistication; and (6) states are incorporating both concepts (e.g., algebra and geometry) and skills (e.g., problem solving and reasoning) into their standards. Appendices contain advisory panels, grades for rigor of state standards, frameworks for mathematics and language arts, and scoring rubrics. (PVD) |
| Abstractor: | N/A |
| Reference Count: | N/A |
|
| Note: | N/A |
| Identifiers: | Council for Basic Education; Rigor (Evaluation) |
| Record Type: | Non-Journal |
| Level: | 1 - Available on microfiche |
| Institutions: | Council for Basic Education, Washington, DC. |
| Sponsors: | N/A |
| ISBN: | N/A |
| ISSN: | N/A |
| Audiences: | N/A |
| Languages: | English |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
|
|
|
|
Help With This Page
Help