The Authentic Standards Movement and Its Evil Twin
Scott Thompson
One thing the standards movement will never be accused of is a lack of critical opposition. But for all
the fiery rhetoric that critics direct against this
powerful, nationwide movement, there is perhaps no
greater threat to standards-based reform than much of
what is being perpetrated in the name of standards-based
reform. The so-called movement—so-called, because it is
not truly a single movement but twin movements bearing
the same name—has become its own worst enemy.
If giving twins the same name is a recipe for confusion,
consider the havoc that gets unleashed when one of them
proves to be an “evil twin.”
1
In the case of the standards
movement, the evil twin is the more visible and powerful of
the siblings, and so its authentic namesake is in an increasingly perilous situation. In fact, the problem is even worse:
the two are essentially joined at the hip.
So what are these twin movements? First, let’s distinguish
them by name. I would rename the evil twin “test-based reform” or more specifically “high-stakes, standardized, testbased reform.” The sibling, then, is “authentic, standards-based
reform.” The defining distinction between them is their respective influence on the instructional core of schooling and on equity issues.
When academic progress is judged by a single indicator
and when high stakes—such as whether a student is promoted from one grade to the next or is eligible for a