An Integrated Curriculum Using State Standards in a High-Stakes Testing Environment

Kenneth E. Vogler

As a social studies teacher and member of an eighth grade interdisciplinary team, I could not believe what I was hearing. Yet, as the principal proceeded to explain to our team why we needed to add more time to English and mathematics at the expense of social studies and science, I could begrudgingly understand her logic: A high percentage of our students had failed previous administrations of our state's high-stakes test, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Starting with the class of 2003, all students must pass the English and mathematics sections of the MCAS as a requirement for high school graduation. Therefore, more instructional time should be devoted to English and mathematics, and less instructional time should be spent on subjects such as social studies and science that are tested but do not have a MCAS passing score requirement for high school graduation.

Madaus (1988) used seven principles to describe the influence of high-stakes tests on education. His seventh principle states "a high-stakes test transfers control of the curriculum to the agency that sets or controls the exam" (Madaus, 1988, p. 97). State-mandated test scores attached to high-stakes outcomes such as high school graduation have forced administrators, especially in those schools where students have not tested well, into making drastic changes in curriculum. These curricular changes have not been well-thought-out, permanent changes designed to improve overall quality of the educational program as hoped for by advocates of high-stakes testing. Rather, they are quick fix measures intended to limit, if not prevent, high-stakes consequences from being inflicted on a school's administration, teachers, or students. A request such as increasing instructional time on subjects that have a mandated passing score requirement and decreasing instructional time on subjects that are either not tested or do not require a passing score for high school graduation is not intended to improve the overall quality or cohesiveness of an educational program. Instead, it seems like a desperate measure designed to defend students against failing the high-stakes test and not graduating high school.

This article will focus on the impact of both test-based and standards-based reforms on middle level curriculum and instruction. Next, it will explain why one team felt it was necessary to move from a mostly discipline-based curriculum to a completely integrated curriculum using state standards. Finally, it will describe that team's experience of working with students to develop this curriculum and the pleasure of teaching this curriculum.

Test-based and Standards-based Reform
The desire to hold educators and public school systems accountable for the academic achievement of their students has resulted in the creation of not one, but two different educational reform movements. Both reform movements fall under the guise of educational accountability, but their focus, methods, and intentions are vastly different. The first movement is called test-based reform. Described as the evil twin of standards-based reform (Thompson, 2001), test-based reform uses a single indicator such as a high-stakes test to judge a student's academic progress. When high-stakes such as grade-to-grade promotion, possible takeover of schools with consistently low levels of student performance, and high school graduation are attached to this single indicator, the result has been the implementation of policies and practices that have the potential to be detrimental to students and teachers by threatening to destroy the wonder, excitement, and pure joy of learning (Kohn, 2001; McNeil, 2000; Sacks, 1999).

There are at least three types of problems caused by test-based reform. The first problem has to do with the single indicator used to judge students' academic progress—the test score. A number of states are using tests that are either not aligned with standards they are supposed to measure, or that are norm-referenced rather than criterion-referenced tests (Falk, 2002). It is very difficult, if not impossible to accurately assess student knowledge of content specified in the state standards by using tests that do not cover the same material. Also, researchers have found students' performance on high-stakes tests has "almost everything to do with parental socioeconomic backgrounds, and less to do with teachers, curricula, or what the children learned in the classroom" (Clancy, 2000, p. A19; also see Zwick, 2002). These tests merely perpetuate and reinforce the inequalities in public education that Kozol (1991) described over a decade ago.

Second, test-based reform is directly responsible for changes in curriculum and instruction that are not designed to improve students' academic skills and knowledge, but rather to improve test scores. These changes have included squandering valuable classroom time teaching test taking skills and other test prepping activities (Falk, 2002; Thompson, 2001), narrowing the curriculum to only information and subjects that will be on the test (Bauer & others, 1990; Corbett & Wilson, 1991; Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Falk, 2002; Hargrove, Jones, Jones, & Harding, 2000; Shepard, Dougherty, & Cutts, 1991; Smith, 1991; Thompson, 2001), and, as discussed earlier, forcing some administrators into discussing policies that further narrow the curriculum to only those subjects tested that have the most severe consequences—for example, a passing score requirement for high school graduation.

A third problem with test-based reform is the use of a single test to make high-stakes decisions. "Expecting all students to reach the same adult-determined level of performance at the same time … is a blatant violation of everything that is known about individual differences" (Vars, 2001, p.8). The use of one test to make high-stakes decisions is not only grossly unfair, but its focus on constriction and conformity rather than originality, creativity, and individuality is exactly opposite of those traits we value as a society and need as a democracy.

The other movement created by educational accountability is called standards-based reform (Thompson, 2001). Standards-based reform is also designed to hold educators and public school systems accountable for student achievement, but its purpose is to enable all students to achieve as much of their creative, intellectual, and social potential as possible rather than to raise test scores (Thompson, 2001). Unlike test-based reform that only uses results of a single test to decide if standards have been met, standards-based reform allows for and welcomes varied and multiple methods to meet standards such as portfolios and student performances and productions. Standards-based reform uses content area learning standards not as possible test questions, but as a broad framework of learning expectations. These learning expectations are a starting point for teachers, students, parents, and others to devise challenging curricula that describe what all students are learning and provide numerous opportunities and possibilities for students to demonstrate how they can meet the standards. Standards-based reform allows educators to use content area learning standards as the framework for creative and exciting curricula without using a single, fallible indicator such as a high-stakes test as the only means of determining whether standards have been met.

Besides promoting creative and exciting curricula, standards-based reform encourages the use of high quality support for teachers, administrators, and students. For teachers and administrators, this support may take the form of professional development in learning how to teach to standards rather than teaching to the test. For students, standards-based reform allows for individualized support by allowing numerous and varied opportunities to meet the standards rather than only using a test score to decide if standards have been met.

The Answer
So what do you tell your principal when she asks you to shorten the social studies and science classes and add more time to the English and mathematics classes in an effort to better prepare students for the high-stakes test? For our team, the principal's request was a wake up call. We had bitterly complained about the test, what it did and did not measure, and why decisions such as high school graduation should not be made on the basis of one test. But we never discussed what we, as a team, should and can do about it.

Our answer was to change the way we were using our state's curriculum frameworks—the state standards. What we had been doing, and obviously was not working, was to only use the standards to defend the curriculum and activities we already had in place. We needed to take a proactive approach and use the standards to devise our own curriculum. We decided to use the state standards as the end point, in other words, what our students needed to learn and be able to do, and work toward the type of lessons we would use—the "backward design" process advocated by Wiggins and McTighe (1998), and Jackson and Davis (2000). But, unlike some educational theorists (Clark & Clark, 2001), we believed that it was very important not only to make certain the curriculum addressed the standards, but that it integrated content areas. This was important for two reasons. First, besides the numerous theorists advocating an integrated curriculum for adolescents (e.g., Beane, 1993; Caskey, 2001/02; Jacobs, 1989; Vars, 2001), research has shown that adolescents are more actively engaged in an integrated curriculum based on their problems and interests rather than a traditional disciplinary curriculum (Drake, 1998; Vars & Beane, 2000). Second, by using an integrated curriculum it would be easier for students to make connections among the various content area state standards.

The Plan
Our plan to create an integrated curriculum using state standards included involving our students in the planning process. We hoped to create a curriculum that used students' interests as a way to integrate the various content area standards. This idea was in accordance with the democratic principle of curriculum development outlined by Beane (1993).

I began by leading a discussion in my social studies classes about the MCAS: what the test was, the type of questions on the test, and what would be on the test. Next, all four of our team members used at least two of their class periods to present the state standards for their content area. This presentation included what each state standard meant, or in some cases what they thought the standard meant, and the activities they had planned to meet each standard. In order to present this material in an efficient manner, and not to overload students, only one teacher presented his or her content standards and activities each day. After all of our team members had given their presentations, I then led another discussion in all my classes about what the students learned from the presentations and what an integrated curriculum was. Finally, students were given the assignment to create integrated curriculum units using the content standards they had just learned about.

Students formed curriculum groups. Each group had one or two members responsible for a particular content area: English, mathematics, social studies, or science. Groups were then given a classroom copy of the state standards for grades 5-8 in each of the four content areas. During their planning, students were allowed and encouraged to look at all curriculum materials available in our classrooms as well as seek advice from teachers and students from other groups. The other content area teachers would also be available if students had specific questions that could not be answered by anyone else. The student groups were given only two directions; first, use social studies as the curriculum integration focal point (see Diem, 1996). This decision was made because the skills and content noted in the social studies framework overlapped or provided a context with which to integrate the English, mathematics, and science standards. Second, try to incorporate as many of the state standards as you can within a unit.

After the integrated curriculum units were completed, we would present them to the public. Because we were already required by our school system to include the state standard(s) met in each lesson plan, and because we already had a newsletter for parents and guardians describing by discipline the content that would be covered during each month, we would use the newsletter to showcase our integrated units. We would give the name, background information, as well as a list of the state standards in each discipline that would be covered by the unit. The newsletter would be used to promote curriculum integration. We hoped a complete description of each unit, as well as the intended outcomes, would prevent us from having to constantly defend the use of curriculum integration. This attack could come from parents, guardians, or some administrators who were either used to a traditional disciplinary format, or strongly believed that a strictly disciplinary curriculum helped students achieve higher test scores (see Weilbacher, 2001).

The Outcome
The process of collaborating with our students to create integrated curriculum units was an exciting and unique learning experience. Most students realized the importance of the assignment, and this was evident by the seriousness with which they undertook the task. For many, this assignment was also an empowering experience. As one student remarked, "If we have to know this stuff to graduate, at least we now have a chance to make it somewhat interesting." It was also surprising how quickly students understood the significance of the content area standards. Our students, as well as most of the other public school students in the state, have been bombarded by MCAS rhetoric since the time they started school. They all knew about the consequences associated with MCAS, especially that they need to pass certain content area tests to graduate high school. But for many, this was the first time they actually saw the state standards and found out what it is they are supposed to learn.

I would be lying if I said we devised a wonderfully exciting and intensely interesting integrated curriculum consisting of a series of units that met all the grade level standards in every content area and also captured the attention and imagination of all our students. However, our collaboration did improve the experiences of students. We made substantial improvements in the curriculum. First, we changed a number of former disciplinary units into integrated curriculum units. We did this sometimes by simply adding activities created by the students, other times by changing the sequence in which the units were to be taught during the school year. Second, we devised an entire integrated curriculum unit encompassing several state standards for each discipline.

The integrated curriculum unit that we created together is called "New England and the Industrial Revolution." It progresses from an overview of the English roots of the Industrial Revolution to a focus on the textile mills that operated in Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts. The unit requires students to read a novel about the life of a Lowell mill girl by Katherine Paterson entitled Lyddie. In science and technology, students learn about how rivers and canals were used for power to run the textile mills and to compare the design of machines used in a mid-19th century textile mill to machines used in a textile mill today. Playing the role of a textile mill owner, students use geometry and measurement to draw their own scale model of a mid-19th century New England textile mill. They also use computation skills to calculate their daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly mill output and profit estimations. Finally, students use charts and graphs to communicate their findings.

Students also devised several creative activities to enhance former disciplinary units. For example, in a unit on the American Revolution, John Hancock and Thomas Paine are put on trial for crimes against King George III. Also, using a reoccurring theme about perspective, students created a letter writing activity. This activity involves writing letters about different events or movements in American History—a Tory writing about the American Revolution, a farmer describing the changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution, an immigrant discussing life in the New World. They even prepared rubrics to evaluate the letters. Finally, students designed a mapping activity utilizing the Lewis and Clark expedition as a way to present the physical and cultural geography of the United States.

Students were very proud of the work they had done on the curriculum units. Teaching these units was an affirmation that their opinions and ideas mattered. Students now had ownership of the material, which may have fostered a renewed interest in learning. We had insightful classroom discussions, few discipline issues, and wonderful demonstrations of knowledge and achievement. These accomplishments were not due to the threat of a high-stakes test, but because students were learning on their terms. They were using state standards in a way that piqued their interest and made connections with other content areas.

Also, by reading, understanding, and using the content area standards to help devise an integrated curriculum, students felt more at ease about taking the MCAS examination the following May. They understood what was going to be on the examination and were confident that we had covered the material during the year. This confidence and understanding showed in higher test scores (MCAS Results, 2001).

Conclusion
The need to make educators and public school systems accountable for the academic achievement of their students has created two intertwined, but vastly different reform movements. The first, test-based reform, provides assurance to the public about what students will learn and be able to do, but uses fear, threats, and intimidation to back up a one-size-fits-all, single indicator, otherwise known as a high-stakes test. According to test-based reform, passing a high-stakes test is the only way to determine whether standards have been met. This reform is forcing schools into making drastic curricula changes intended only to help students achieve satisfactory test scores. These changes are destroying the very same educational programs accountability systems were supposed to improve. And because passing a test is the only way to prove standards have been met, one out of every four members of the class of 2003, or 15,300 Massachusetts public school students, as of now, will not be able to graduate high school (Vaishnaw, 2002).

The other reform movement created by educational accountability is called standards-based reform. Standards-based reform also provides assurance to the public about what students will learn and be able to do, but uses creativity, originality, and imagination by giving students and teachers the flexibility to decide how standards will be met. According to standards-based reform, multiple methods are allowed for students to meet content standards.

Our team's decision to work with students to create an integrated curriculum using state standards was more than just a response to a request. It was a course of action designed to bridge the gap between the need for student-centered curricula and the demands and expectations of a high-stakes testing environment.

References

Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Bauer, S., & Others. (1990, April). Controlling curricular change through state-mandated testing: Teacher's views and perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 740)

Caskey, M. (2001/2002). A lingering question for middle school: What is the fate of integrated curriculum? Childhood Education, 78(2), 97-99.

Clancy, K. J. (2000, April 24). Making more sense of MCAS scores. The Boston Globe, p. A19.

Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (2001). The challenge of curriculum and instructional improvement in an era of high stakes testing. Middle School Journal, 33(2), 52-56.

Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise A. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. The Elementary School Journal , 85(3), 315-336.

Diem, R. (1996). Using social studies as the catalyst for curriculum integration. Social Education, 60(2), 95-98.

Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Falk, B. (2002). Standards-based reforms: Problems and possibilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 612-620.

Hargrove, T. Y., Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Harding, B. (2000). Unintended consequences of high-stakes testing in North Carolina: Teacher perceptions. ERS Spectrum , 18(4), 21-25.

Jackson, A., & Davis G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York & Westerville, OH: Teachers College Press & National Middle School Association.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989). The interdisciplinary concept model: A step-by-step approach for developing integrated units of study. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 53-65). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 349-357.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Harper Collins.

Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influences of testing on the curriculum. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 83-121). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MCAS results town by town. (2001, November 2). The Boston Globe, p. A36.

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.

Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to change it . Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Shepard, L. A., Dougherty, K. C., & Cutts, K. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 468)

Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.

Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358-362.

Vaishnaw A. (2002, April 26). One in four juniors still failing MCAS. The Boston Globe, p. A1.

Vars, G. F. (2001). Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high-stakes testing? Middle School Journal, 33(2), 7-17.

Vars, G. F., & Beane, J. A. (2000). Integrative curriculum in a standards-based world. ERIC Digest . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441 618)

Weilbacher, G. (2001). Is curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle School Journal, 33(2), 18-27.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zwick, R. (2002). Is the SAT a "wealth test"? Phi Delta Kappan 84(4), 307-311.

Kenneth E. Vogler, a former eighth grade social studies teacher in Lawrence, Massachusetts, is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The University of Tennessee, Martin. E-mail: kvogler@utm.edu.