What Educational Resources Do Students Need to Meet California's Educational Content Standards? A Textual Analysis of California's Educational Content Standards and Their Implications for Basic Educational Conditions and Resources

Abstract

This article examines the statutory and policy framework for California's standards-based reform and accountability scheme and argues that this scheme, not unlike others throughout the country, fails to ensure that all children are provided with the necessary resources and conditions to achieve at the high levels prescribed by the state's content standards. Although California has developed a comprehensive standards-based reform scheme that includes challenging educational content standards, curriculum frameworks tied to those standards, and accountability mechanisms that are based on performance on standards-based assessments, the state has never attempted to ascertain the basic educational resources and conditions to which all children should have access in order to achieve at the level of the state's content standards. In an effort to begin to fill that missing policy link, the article then summarizes a systematic analysis of the text of California's educational content standards and supporting materials, which analysis demonstrates that the state itself expects that children will have access to certain educational resources and conditions in four areas—facilities, technology, instructional materials, and teachers. Striking among the conclusions of the analysis is the extent to which California requires that children have access to modern technology, including computers, software, and the Internet. Less surprising, but no less important, is the extent to which the state's content standards assume that all children have access to quality facilities and instructional materials, ranging from laboratory equipment and sophisticated measuring instruments to well-stocked libraries and media centers. The article concludes by calling on the state to analyze its own content standards and curriculum frameworks to develop a complete basket of educational resources and conditions that all children should receive to have an opportunity to achieve the state's standards.

References

Adopted Programs, 2000 Science Adoption of Instructional Materials. (2000). (Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science/2000SBE.pdf).

American Federation of Teachers. (2000). Making Standards Matter 1999. New York: American Federation of Teachers.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST), About the CBEST. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/profserv/examinfo/cbest.htm).

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Sacramento, CA: Author. RICA: Why, What, When and Who? (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/profserv/examinfo/ricaexam.html).

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1992). Science Teacher Preparation in California: Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Subject Matter Programs. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Single Subject Teaching Credential Requirements and Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Requirements. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentialinfo.)

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Social Science Teacher Preparation and Assessment Advisory Panel. Social Science Teacher Preparation in California. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/profserv/programstandards//.html.)

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, English Teacher Preparation and Assessment Advisory Panel. Specifications for the Subject Matter Knowledge and Competence of Prospective Teachers of English, found in English Teacher Preparation in California: Standards of Quality and Effectiveness in Subject Matter Programs. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/profserv/programstandards/english/english.html).

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Mathematics Teacher Preparation and Assessment Advisory Panel. Specifications for the Subject Matter Knowledge and Competence of Prospective Teachers of Mathematics, found in Mathematics Teacher Preparation in California: Standards of Quality and Effectiveness in Subject Matter Programs. Sacramento, CA: Author. (Available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/profserv/programstandards/math.pdf).

10.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (1996). Subject Matter Preparation Programs for Elementary School Teachers: Standards of Program Quality and Effectiveness. Sacramento, CA: Author.

11.

California Department of Education. (1998). English-Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, December 1997). Sacramento, CA: Author.

12.

California Department of Education. (1999a). Mathematics Content Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, December, 1997). Sacramento, CA: Author.

13.

California Department of Education. (1999b). Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, October, 1998). Sacramento, CA: Author.

14.

California Department of Education. (1999c). Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education). Sacramento, CA: Author.

15.

California Department of Education. (2000a). History-Social Science Content Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, October 1998). Sacramento, CA: Author.

16.

California Department of Education. (2000b). Science Content Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. (Adopted by the California State Board of Education, October 1998). Sacramento, CA: Author.

17.

California Single Subject Assessments for Teaching: 2000–2001 Registration Bulletin. New York: National Evaluation Systems, Inc.

18.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1992-93). Creating Standards of Practice and Delivery for Learner-Centered Schools. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 4: 37–48.

19.

Education Week and Pew Charitable Trusts. (Jan. 13, 2000). Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach? Washington, D.C.: Education Week.

20.

Educational Testing Service, Multiple Subjects Assessment for Teachers (MSAT), Test at a Glance, The PRAXIS Series (Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers). (Available at http://www.teachingandlearning.org/licensure/praxis/prxstate.html).

21.

Educational Testing Service. The Single Subject Assessment for Teachers (SSAT), Test at a Glance, The PRAXIS Series (Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers). (Available at http://www.teachingandlearning.org/licensure/praxis/prxstate.html.)

22.

Finn

Chester E.

, and Petrilli

Michael T.

, eds. (2000). The State of State Standards 2000. New York: Fordham Foundation.

23.

O'Day

Jennifer A.

, and Smith

Marshall S.

(1993). Systemic Reform and Educational Opportunity, in Fuhrman

Susan H.

, ed., Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System, 263–283. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

24.

United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2000). The Use of Tests as Part of High-Stakes Decision-Making for Students: A Resource Guide for Educators and Policy-Makers (available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/testing/). Washington, D.C.: Author.