01-Dell’Olio-45141.

qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 3

chapter
Working With Standards
and Benchmarks

P erhaps the biggest question facing novice and veteran teachers alike is, What
will I teach? After securing a new teaching position or shifting to a new grade
level, all teachers must consider what content their students need to know, which
skills they must develop, and at what level of proficiency they must be able to
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 4

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

demonstrate those skills. For the high school biology teacher, the answer may seem
obvious. However, on further examination, it becomes clear that the discipline of
biology is deep and broad. The tenth-grade biology teacher must consider what
students already know and at what level they can demonstrate their understandings
and skills. Likewise, a kindergarten teacher needs to know what students bring to
each teaching and learning situation across a broad spectrum of subjects and skills,
as well as the levels and competencies that need to be targeted. These concerns have
always loomed large in the daily work of teachers, and they continue to do so today
as teachers, administrators, and others in the field of education look for guidance in
implementing standards-based education.
To illustrate the issues and questions raised above, I (T. D.) will share an experi-
ence in my own early history as an educator. I was teaching fourth grade in my first
elementary school setting. I did what many of my colleagues did: I used the textbooks
adopted by the district to guide my instruction. I also reviewed the district report
card so that I would know what categories and levels of performance needed to be
reported to parents and students. After several days of poring over these documents,
I was relatively satisfied that I understood the goals and aims for fourth-grade
students in my school district. I then set my sights on what seemed to be the next
logical step: deciding how to create learning experiences that would match my
understanding of this curriculum. All seemed to be going relatively well until the day
my fourth-grade teaching partner poked her head through the classroom door and
asked me how our “bird projects” were coming since a local 4-H judge was sched-
uled to come in and rate them in a couple of weeks! After determining that her com-
ments weren’t the product of a cruel sense of humor, I began asking several
questions: “What project?” “What judge?” “Is this required?” “Is it in the textbook
for science?” After some time (and moments of panic) I discovered that students
were to study local bird populations and build birdhouses as an annual project to be
evaluated by a local 4-H official. The project was not listed in the textbook or even
on the report card, but it was a requirement for all fourth-grade students. It seems
that no one had remembered to tell me about it. My class did ultimately study the
local bird population, and we managed to put together several birdhouses in assem-
bly-line fashion, but I spent much of the rest of the year wondering what other con-
tent I was expected to cover that hadn’t been fully explained to me.
As my story illustrates, new teachers and those new to a subject or grade level
need guidance in determining what students need to know and be able to do, as well
as expectations for proficiency levels. While teachers must also have models for how
to develop appropriate teaching and learning opportunities, knowing what to teach
and when are the essential first steps in the process. Teachers just entering the field,
as well as those moving within a system, stand to benefit from the last several years
of work in standards-based reform in education. In short, this major reform effort
has sought to articulate what students need to know and be able to do in several dis-
ciplines and at all grade levels. In this chapter, we begin with a historical look at the
roots of this movement and its current status and implications for classroom teach-
ers. We will also discuss the types of standards and the terminology that have
evolved from the movement and the ways they can serve as guideposts for classroom
4
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 5

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

teachers considering both what to teach and how to promote levels of proficiency
among their students. Along the way, we will also explore some of the issues raised
about the development and use of various types of standards to guide instruction
and assessment. Our goal in this chapter is not to teach you how to develop stan-
dards. Rather, our intention is to help you better understand where they come from
and how you can and may be expected to use them in your work with students. Once
you understand how to use standards and benchmarks to determine what to teach,
the remainder of this book will help you determine models that best meet those
teaching and learning goals.

The Standards-Based Reform Movement

While the call for higher standards and measures for accountability has a long
history in American schooling, the current standards-based reform movement is
a relatively young tradition. The release of the report A Nation at Risk in 1983 is often
cited as the beginning of the movement (Kendall & Marzano, 2000, p. 1). This report
denounced the state of education in the United States and called for major reforms.
A variety of sources—governmental agencies, business groups, professional organi-
zations focused on education, and schools—responded. In short, although some-
times wary of the substance and form of change, nearly all players seemed to agree
that reforms designed to raise standards and accountability in the K–12 system of
schools were necessary.
In their short outline of the history of the standards-based reform movement,
Kendall and Marzano (2000) note several important events that led to the current
standards and accountability system that governs schooling in the United States.
Shortly after the report was issued, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) began writing Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(Kendall & Marzano, 2000, p. 2). This document represented an early attempt by a
subject-centered professional organization to outline how the discipline of mathe-
matics should be divided, as well as standards for those who teach mathematics at
all levels of the K–12 system. The NCTM was among the first organizations to
provide such a framework, and many other national professional organizations have
followed suit in the past several years.
Another set of milestones noted by Kendall and Marzano (2000) included the
meeting of President George H. W. Bush and the governors of all 50 states in
Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1989. The result of that meeting was a call for new stan-
dards in five subjects covered in all schools: mathematics, history, geography, science,
and English. In addition, the first President Bush used his 1990 State of the Union
address to outline “National Goals for the Year 2000.” This set of goals was further
promoted when Congress established the National Education Goals Panel. At nearly
the same time, the secretary of labor established the Secretary’s Commission on
Achieving Necessary Skills to consider the kinds of skills students would need to
5
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 6

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

The standards-based reform movement has promoted high levels of accountability that include
state-mandated assessments for K–12 students.

develop to ultimately and successfully enter the workforce. These efforts were
advanced again when President Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America
First Act. This law called for standards at the national and state levels, as well as state
assessment tools. It also added economics, civics, government, the arts, and foreign
language to the list of subjects to be covered by standards (Kendall & Marzano,
pp. 2–3).
In addition to the work being done at the national level, some states began to
develop curriculum frameworks that outlined standards for school subjects taught
within a state. Most notably, the state of California began in 1983 to develop a frame-
work and set of content standards to be used in its public schools. President Clinton
used his State of the Union address in 1997 to urge all states to not only develop
high standards for all students but also establish a set of assessments for measuring
reading proficiency in the fourth grade and mathematics proficiency in the eighth
grade (Kendall & Marzano, 2000, pp. 2–5). By 1990, most states had adopted assess-
ments to measure student achievement in a variety of subjects (Montgomery,
Ranney, & Growe, 2003).
The convergence of efforts by national professional organizations, state educa-
tional agencies, business, and national governmental bodies is most recently reflected
in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, com-
monly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act calls on each
state to set standards for what all students “should know and learn” and to measure
their achievement on an annual basis (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [Glossary]).
6
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 7

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

The No Child Left Behind Act places heavy emphasis on assessment of student
achievement. Under assessment, the glossary for the No Child Left Behind Act states
that

Under No Child Left Behind, tests are aligned with academic standards.
Beginning in the 2002–03 school year, schools must administer tests in each
of three grade spans: grades 3–5, grades 6–9, and grades 10–12 in all schools.
Beginning in the 2005–06 school year, tests must be administered every year
in grades 3 through 8 in math and reading. Beginning in the 2007–08 school
year, science achievement must also be tested.

The act also calls for publication of the results on an annual basis and adequate
yearly progress (AYP), which is defined as “An individual state’s measure of yearly
progress toward achieving state academic standards. ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ is the
minimum level of improvement that states, school districts and schools must achieve
each year” (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). Schools that do not make AYP can
be sanctioned in a variety of ways.
In a relatively short span of time, standards-based reform has essentially become
law (Resnick, Rothman, Slattery, & Vranek, 2004), and it has drawn both supporters
and critics. While some oppose the mandates of No Child Left Behind, others embrace
this act as a much needed reform of U.S. schools to both establish standards and
ensure accountability at all levels. Our goal here is not to take a political stand on the
legislation itself but rather to briefly examine some of the potential merits and limi-
tations of the standards-based reform movement in general.
Proponents of the standards-based movement often argue that the development
of standards makes the material to be learned and the level of proficiency to be
attained transparent for all. Teachers are told what to teach but are free to select
models of teaching that best allow them to meet the standards. In addition, clearly
articulated standards allow parents and students to see the goals of schooling and
measure progress toward those goals in various content areas. Proponents further
argue that the increased accountability of testing based on the standards provides a
feedback loop for teachers so that improvements can be made to curriculum and
instruction. Others contend that clearly articulated standards will provide an oppor-
tunity to close the gap in educational achievement for traditionally marginalized
students: poor and minority students (Cavazos, 2002; Riley, 2002; Paige, 2002; Cohen,
1996; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Ogawa, et al., 2003; all cited in Kirschner, 2004).
Critics of the standards-based movement have often worried about the tension
between federal, state, and local control of schools. Some worry that state or national
standards will, for all intents and purposes, eliminate the local control over school
curriculums that has historically been the rule in this country. Others have worried
that the high-stakes and mandated tests might not be well aligned with standards
and curriculum, putting students at a disadvantage. Still others have concerns that
weighty emphasis on a system of accountability that relies heavily on such testing
may put poor and minority students at a disadvantage, given that these groups often
do not fair well with such tools (Resnick et al., 2004).
7
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 8

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

While proponents and critics of the standards-based reform movement may

each have valid points, only further research on the results of the movement and its
elements can either support or eliminate their concerns. In the meantime, we believe
that standards can and do allow all players in the educational system an opportunity
to articulate and understand what it is that students need to know and be able to do.
Standards, in and of themselves, need not prescribe what teachers must do to help
students learn—although some believe that they should. All the models outlined in
this text can be used by classroom teachers to reach the standards and benchmarks
set for student learning. We believe that teachers should make professional choices
about which models will help them, and more specifically their students, reach the
standards that are set out for them.
One major issue with the use of standards must be addressed if standards are to
be useful for the classroom teacher. Standards are developed at the state level, often-
times on the basis of a variety of professional organizations’ documents, and because
no uniform system exists for articulating standards and benchmarks, their terminology
may become a source of confusion.
In the section that follows, we will address standards and benchmarks, clarifying
terms and demonstrating the use of each. We will also address a variety of issues that
arise when standards are used to guide teaching and learning. Most teachers will be
consumers, rather than developers, of standards and benchmarks as they determine
which models of teaching and pedagogy to use to meet appropriate standards. Our
goal is to help you become a well-informed consumer who can navigate the some-
times tricky waters of understanding content standards and benchmarks, as well as
using them in the classroom.

State and Local Standards

Due in part to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, each state has
developed or reorganized a state-based curriculum framework. This document is
designed to assist local districts and schools in aligning their own curriculums and
assessments with state requirements (Kendall, Ryan, & Richardson, 2005). State-
mandated proficiency tests are based on the contents of these documents, which typ-
ically consist of content standards and benchmarks for each subject taught in
schools. In most districts, a curriculum director is designated to understand these
documents and monitor them for periodic revisions. The curriculum director or a
designated group within a local district often has the responsibility for ensuring that
the local curriculum and assessment tools are aligned with the framework. Often
teachers are part of this group and assist the curriculum director in selecting text-
books and other instructional materials for use in the local schools. This process may
vary from one location to another as some states make textbook selections at the
state level. It will be helpful to ask about the particulars of this process in your local
school district.
8
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 9

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

As mentioned above, because states are charged with developing their own
curriculum framework, there are variations in both the structures and terminology
used (Neuman & Roskos, 2005). For example, some states list content standards and
then provide benchmarks for a range of grades, such as kindergarten through second
grade, while other states list benchmarks for each grade level. However, because of the
requirement to do state-mandated annual assessments of all third- through eighth-
grade students, states have begun to move toward a grade-level structure for most
benchmarks as these provide a better guide for what will be assessed at each grade.
The terminology used in state curriculum frameworks continues to be a source
of confusion. It is not uncommon to see the same level of standards described dif-
ferently from state to state. For example, while some states use the term content stan-
dard, others use the term goal. In this chapter we will use the terms content standard,
benchmark, strand, performance standard, and lifelong-learning standard to describe the
contents of a curriculum framework developed at the state level, but we will also pro-
vide alternative terminology so that you can see how the level and type of standard
being described matches that in your own location.

Content Standards
Over the last several years, as content standards have been developed, their
form and substance have evolved, but their primary function has remained to divide
a discipline into manageable parts. Kendall, Ryan, and Richardson (2005) provide a
useful and current definition:

A content standard is a description of what students should know and/or be

able to do within a particular discipline. Content standards primarily serve to
organize an academic subject domain through a manageable number (from
5–12) of generally stated goals for student learning. These statements help to
clarify the broad goals within the discipline and provide a means for readers to
navigate the standards documents when searching for specific content. (p. 1)

In some state curriculum frameworks, this same (or a very similar) level of orga-
nization may be referred to as a goal, expectation, or learning result (Kendall, Ryan, &
Richardson, 2005, p. 2). To determine the label used in your location, refer to your
own location’s documents, which can usually be accessed through the Web site for
your state’s department of education.
For purposes of illustration, we have selected content standards listed in Content
Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K–12 Education (Kendall &
Marzano, 2000) to show the structure of content standards that may be found in a
typical state curriculum framework. For language arts, content standards might look
like the following examples:

Uses the general skills and strategies of the writing process. (p. 321)
Gathers and uses information for research purposes. (p. 334)
9
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 10

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

Here are some examples of content standards for mathematics:

Uses a variety of strategies in the problem-solving process. (p. 47)

Understands and applies basic and advanced properties of the concept of

geometry. (p. 56)

Each of the examples addresses a major segment of its subject and describes
what students should know and be able to do. As is typical, these examples were
developed on the basis of the divisions and standards articulated by organizations
that represent current research and understanding of the subject. For example, the
mathematics standards were based on work done by the NCTM, which illustrates
another important aspect of content standards developed for state curriculum
frameworks: They must incorporate current research and understanding in each
subject area. Often, this research and understanding can be found in the standards
developed by professional organizations that monitor, promote, guide, and conduct
research on best practice in classroom settings.
Content standards are not designed to provide specific guidance at the class-
room level. Rather, they are general statements with a broad level of specificity about
the kinds of knowledge that can and should be promoted within each subject area.
Kendall and Marzano (1995) classify knowledge into three types: procedural, declar-
ative, and contextual. A brief examination of these types sheds light on how stan-
dards in general are developed, as well as how they are used specifically in the
construction of content standards.
When content involves procedural knowledge, it often begins with “verbs,
such as ‘uses,’ ‘solves,’ and ‘predicts’” (Kendall & Marzano, 2000, p. 24). Procedural
knowledge describes “skills and processes important to a given content area”
(Kendall & Marzano, 1995, p. 11). Many school subjects include specific skills and
processes that students must master in order to fully understand and use the con-
tent of the subject. For example, in mathematics it is important to be able to use a
protractor to measure angles. In the language arts, a thesaurus may be needed to
develop a written text. Such key words as uses, solves, and predicts can often help you
determine when a standard is targeting procedural knowledge.
Oftentimes content is described as declarative knowledge. These types of
standards frequently contain such phrases as “‘understands that . . . ’ or ‘knows
that . . .’” (Kendall & Marzano, 2000, p. 24). Declarative knowledge can be thought
of as knowledge “composed of the information important to a given content area”
(Kendall & Marzano, 1995, p. 12). If you are teaching a high school anatomy course,
it may be important for your students to know the names of the bones in the human
body. If you are teaching a middle school English class, you may want your students
to know the names for the various parts of speech, such as nouns, verbs, and adjec-
tives. These examples illustrate information judged to be important to a full under-
standing of a subject.

10
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 11

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Finally, content can also be described as contextual knowledge. This type of

understanding includes “information and/or skills that have particular meaning
because of the conditions that form part of their description” (Kendall & Marzano,
1995, p. 12). As its name implies, this type of knowledge is dependent on context. For
example, knowing how to cut and paste paper involves procedural knowledge in the
use of a pair of scissors and application of glue, but doing so in the context of creat-
ing a mosaic requires contextual knowledge. As a result, standards written to reflect
the use of contextual knowledge also have language and phrasing that distinguish
them. As explained by Kendall and Marzano, “Content that is contextual in nature
also begins with verbs or verb phrases, but tends to look more like activities in that
a particular skill is described in terms of the information or knowledge about or
upon which the skill is applied” (2000, p. 24).
Although procedural, declarative, and contextual knowledge are reflected in con-
tent standards, this level of specificity is more commonly relegated to benchmarks (to
be discussed in the next section). However, the development and articulation of con-
tent standards do reflect these three types of knowledge on a broad level, and an
understanding of them is necessary for understanding the important functions and
nature of content standards.
While content standards help educators see the various domains of a subject they
are teaching, as well as the types of knowledge required to fully comprehend that
subject, these standards can also be misused. The Council for Basic Education (1998)
has listed and discussed a number of ways that standards can be misunderstood. We
will address three of them here, using and expanding on the ideas the Council has
articulated.

1. “Content standards determine the curriculum” (p. 4).

Local schools use content standards to determine their own curriculum. In most
school districts, the curriculum director and teachers interpret the standards and
then make decisions about pedagogy, assessment, and support materials, such as
textbooks and other needed supplies. Content standards help local districts see the
kind of coverage that is needed for each subject and what will likely be included on
state-mandated assessments, but they do not dictate the nature or form of instruc-
tion. It is the responsibility of educators at the local level to make these determina-
tions. Content standards are part of the curriculum framework. They are not
intended to control how teachers reach learning goals and objectives.

2. “Content standards automatically exclude local content” (p. 6).

As part of a state curriculum framework, content standards outline the essentials
of the content to be covered at local levels throughout the state. This does not
preclude additions of local interest. For example, local historical events can easily be
added to a curriculum even when they are not specifically attached to a content stan-
dard. Sometimes this can occur by using a specific event as an example and in this

11
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 12

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

way connecting it to a content standard. At other times, the event may simply be
viewed as an enrichment that is not specifically covered in the standards but is wor-
thy of recognition due to its local significance. In any case, the content standards are
meant to guide, not to constrain curriculum choices.

3. “Content standards by themselves will improve the system” (p. 6).

Content standards have true value only if they are used. When content standards
reflect current research, theory, and best practice models, they can serve as impor-
tant instruments. However, if they are neither understood nor used to guide cur-
riculum choices, they are of little worth. As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act,
few districts can afford to ignore their state’s content standards because these stan-
dards are aligned with the mandated assessments of their students. Given the high-
stakes nature of these assessment tools, attention to the standards is nearly assured.
However, valuing the standards remains a decision to be made at the local level.
When viewed correctly, content standards provide general statements of what
students should know and be able to do within specific school subjects. While they
provide guidance at the local level, they do not contain the kind of specificity most
teachers require for shaping classroom-based instructional decisions. Curriculum
frameworks typically include a second level of standards to serve this function. These
are often called benchmarks.

Benchmarks
Benchmarks help provide a more detailed understanding of content standards in
state curriculum frameworks. They can be most easily thought of as components of
a standard. As described by Yates (2004), a benchmark is “a specific statement of
what all students should know and be able to do at a specified time in their school-
ing. Benchmarks are used to measure a student’s progress toward meeting the stan-
dard” (p. 13). A set of benchmarks will typically help teachers structure learning goals
and objectives for classroom-based instruction and will show teachers when students
will be assessed on detailed components of a content standard.
Again, because curriculum frameworks are structured and worded at the state
level, some of the terminology used to describe what we are calling benchmarks
varies. Some documents refer to them as indicators, learning expectations, or performance
standards—a term we will use differently in the next section of this chapter (Kendall,
Ryan, & Richardson, 2005). Another potential source of confusion is the grade level
indicators often attached to benchmarks in state documents, as well as in docu-
ments produced by some national organizations. As noted earlier in this chapter, in
some of these documents, benchmarks are listed by grade ranges, such as elemen-
tary, later elementary, middle school, and high school. In other documents, bench-
marks are listed by specific grade ranges: K–3, 4–6, 7–9, and 10–12. These ranges
have been interpreted as a kind of time frame within which specific benchmarks
need to be covered and mastered. However, with the mandated assessment compo-
nent of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires annual testing of students in

12
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 13

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Grades 3–8, some states have moved to setting benchmarks for each grade rather
than for a range of grades, which makes the targeting of instruction toward specific
benchmarks more focused for each grade level.
For individual grades or a range of grades, benchmarks are designed to provide
a breakdown of content standards into the more specific components of a subject.
A few examples from Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for
K–12 Education (Kendall & Marzano, 2000) illustrate the typical form and function of
benchmarks. Content standards are followed by a sampling of appropriate bench-
marks to illustrate how they represent a breakdown of the standard:

Content Standard: Uses the general skills and strategies of the writing
process

Benchmarks:

1. Prewriting: Uses prewriting strategies to plan written work (e.g., discusses

ideas with peers, draws pictures to generate ideas, writes key thoughts and
questions, rehearses ideas, records reactions and observations) [Grades K–2]

2. Drafting and Revising: Uses strategies to draft and revise written work
(e.g., rereads; rearranges words, sentences, and paragraphs to improve
sequence to clarify meaning; varies sentence type; adds descriptive words
and details; deletes extraneous information; incorporates suggestions from
peers and teachers; sharpens the focus) [Grades K–2] (Kendall & Marzano,
2000, p. 321)

Content Standard: Uses a variety of strategies in the problem-solving process

1. Understands how to break a complex problem into simpler parts or use a

similar problem type to solve a problem [Grades 6–8]

2. Understands that there is no one right way to solve mathematical prob-

lems but that different methods (e.g., working backward from a solution,
using a similar problem type, identifying a pattern) have different advantages
and disadvantages [Grades 6–8] (Kendall & Marzano, 2000, pp. 47–48)

It is important to note in these example benchmarks that, while they provide a

more detailed and grade-range-specific breakdown of the components of the con-
tent standard, they are neither too narrow nor too broad. Indeed, this is a character-
istic of a well-written benchmark. When benchmarks are written very narrowly, they
risk being so specific that they can be accomplished with very little effort, perhaps
even in a single lesson. When they are too broad, they may not provide enough
specificity for educators who must translate them into a series of classroom-
based learning experiences (Kendall, 2001). As described best by Kendall, Ryan, and
Richardson (2005), “A benchmark should be specific enough that readers are clear

13
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 14

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

about the instruction and learning it should entail, but not so narrow as to prescribe
the day-to-day curriculum” (p. 2). Striking a balance between the narrow and the
expansive is an important task for those who construct benchmarks and want them
to be both understandable and usable.
A careful examination of the example benchmarks above also reveals the types
of knowledge each promotes. For example, “Uses prewriting strategies to plan
written work” is a procedural benchmark. Note that it begins with the key verb uses
and lists skills and processes that are deemed important to the subject of
writing: “draw pictures,” “rehearse ideas,” and so on. The mathematics benchmark
“Understands how to break a complex problem into simpler parts or use a similar
problem type to solve a problem” calls for contextual knowledge. Students must
use their declarative and procedural knowledge to solve a problem that is set in a
particular context. Finally, the benchmark “Understands that there is no one right
way to solve mathematical problems but that different methods (e.g., working
backward from a solution, using a similar problem type, identifying a pattern) have
different advantages and disadvantages” calls for declarative knowledge. Note
the key phrase understands that and how the benchmark describes information
particular to the subject of mathematics. As you are beginning to understand
the structure of benchmarks, we urge you to consult Content Knowledge: A
Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K–12 Education (Kendall & Marzano,
2000) because it shows how each listed benchmark promotes one of the three
types of knowledge. This resource can serve as a rich well of information for novice
and experienced educators alike.
Although benchmarks can and do serve as valuable guides for classroom teach-
ers, some caution is needed. When constructed well, a benchmark should be “a
grade-appropriate or developmentally appropriate expression of knowledge or skill”
(Kendall, 2001, p. 2). However, you must use your professional understanding of
your students and their learning needs as a barometer to help you decide when, and
even whether, your students are adequately prepared for the content or skills listed
in a particular benchmark. Conversely, some students in your classroom will be
beyond the benchmarks for your grade level. Consequently, we caution you to avoid
using a list of benchmarks to develop sets of teaching and learning experiences with-
out also considering the needs and skill levels of your learners. If students are not yet
ready for some designated content or skills, even the best lessons will be in vain. On
the other hand, if students have already mastered the content or skills designated for
your grade or subject area, you risk boredom—at the very least. As you use bench-
marks, bear in mind the words of Kendall (2001), who says that “because there is no
definitive work available on what knowledge and skills should be addressed at each
and every level, the work of grade placement of content is at best an ‘educated guess,’
at worst, an arbitrary assignment” (p. 17). Because standards and benchmarks are
frequently designed by people with great expertise (and they may even represent a
consensus of opinion within the field), they should be given very careful attention as
you plan for your students’ learning needs, but your own professional skill in deter-
mining what your students are and are not ready for is of equal importance.

14
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 15

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Although content standards and benchmarks provide a helpful guide for educa-
tors at all levels, the sheer volume of some of these documents can make locating
needed information laborious. As a result, many state curriculum frameworks
include another level of descriptors, often referred to as topics or strands.

Topics or Strands
State curriculum framework documents are typically comprehensive and lengthy.
Finding benchmarks or other needed information can become quite a feat—
especially when they are listed on Web sites that require the viewer to scroll through
several pages of documents. Recently, this became evident to me. In a lesson plan
development assignment, I asked my own teacher education students to match their
stated lesson objectives with the content standards and benchmarks listed in our
state’s framework. This task proved to be more difficult than I had imagined, and
several students sought me out for assistance. Their frustration revolved around
taking a subject, such as the language arts, and wading through several screens of
content standards and benchmarks. It became clear to me that I had not done an
adequate job of showing them another level of organization used in these docu-
ments: topic listings, also called strands.
A topic or strand can best be described as “a level of content organization that
mediates between a standard and a benchmark. Under the geometry standard, for
example, topics or strands might include Shapes and Figure, Lines & Angles, or
Transformations/Motion Geometry” (Kendall, 2001, p. 3). In short, it may be easiest
to think of topics or strands as subtopics used to organize a subject, with groups of
benchmarks listed under each subtopic.
I helped my own students see how the subject of the language arts had been
divided within the curriculum framework into its major categories: reading, writing,
listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing. Then, for a heading such as
reading, several strands or topics were listed, with benchmarks after each one. For
example, under a content standard listed in reading were several strands or topics,
such as phonemic awareness, word study, narrative text, and informational text.
Given this understanding of the organization of the standards document, my
students were able to locate relevant benchmarks within specific subtopics rather
than wading through all the benchmarks related to all the areas of the language arts.
This level of organization is used in most subject listings in curriculum frameworks
and can help make those documents far more user friendly.
Topics or strands will help you navigate your state’s curriculum framework.
Content standards and benchmarks will help you understand the domains of each
subject, as well as providing a more detailed breakdown of what your students
should know and be able to do at various levels. The question that educators must
still address is one of proficiency levels. In short, how good is good enough? To
address this issue, we turn next to developing an understanding of performance
standards.

15
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 16

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

As teachers plan for instruction, they must carefully consider the performance standards
articulated for each content area.

Performance Standards
Let’s pretend for a moment that you are a middle school social studies teacher.
You have consulted your district’s document on the content to be taught in your
course and have carefully designed a curriculum on the history of World War II. In
addition, you have strategically aligned your curriculum with the content standards
and benchmarks listed in your state’s curriculum framework for your grade level. As
you prepare to develop teaching and learning opportunities for your students, as well
as appropriate assessments, several questions remain unanswered: How proficient
will your students need to be with this material, and how will their proficiency be
measured on the high-stakes, state-mandated assessment of the material? Will it be
enough to plan so that your students will simply know the important dates and
events in this period? Or will they need to compare and contrast these events with
those surrounding present world events and political tensions? Addressing these
questions is part of the role of performance standards.
As described by Yates (2004), “Performance standards state the level of
mastery or competency at which students should know the standard” (p. 12).

16
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 17

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Similarly, Kendall (2001) states that “a performance standard describes the levels
of student performance in respect to the knowledge or skill described in a single
benchmark or a set of closely related benchmarks. A performance standard
might be described by means of a rubric or cut-score, or could even be expressed
as a percentage correct of the test items designed to assess students on a partic-
ular benchmark” (p. 3). Performance standards articulate both how proficient
students must be in relation to content standards and benchmarks and how their
proficiency is to be reported.
Performance standards are typically developed using a taxonomy. Most familiar
to many educators is the original Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). It lists six levels
of understanding concepts, beginning with knowledge (the lowest level), then com-
prehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and, at the highest level, evaluation. In
many standards documents, performance standards are listed using verbs that match
each level, such as list, summarize, apply, analyze, integrate, and assess (Kendall,
Ryan, & Richardson, 2005). If your state documents use Bloom’s taxonomy, know-
ing the required levels (and types of proficiency expected) for specific content stan-
dards and benchmarks will help you plan instruction. For example, if students need
to “apply” information, you will need to move beyond a simple listing of dates and
events (returning to our World War II example) and consider how students will need
to use that information in other contexts.
Kendall, Ryan, and Richardson (2005) have argued that the hierarchal structure
of Bloom’s taxonomy does not reflect what is currently known about student learn-
ing, and they argue for an alternative taxonomy developed by Marzano.

Of most interest for the purpose of developing performance standards

for classroom use . . . is a taxonomy of educational objectives designed by
Marzano (2001). This taxonomy is consistent with recent research in cogni-
tive science about the relative difficulty of mental tasks. Marzano notes that,
with the complexity of a mental process or skill—such as performing long
division—the more familiar one is with a process, the more quickly one exe-
cutes it and the easier it becomes. Thus, mental processes and skills should
not be ordered hierarchically in terms of their complexity. They can, how-
ever, be ordered in terms of levels of control—that is, some mental processes
exercise control over other processes. (p. 5)

Marzano’s taxonomy includes six levels—although Kendall, Ryan, and

Richardson (2005) note that only the first four are used with any regularity in stan-
dards documents. They further suggest that each of the levels is ranked hierarchically
based on levels of control and “the conscious awareness that is required to execute
them” (p. 5), rather than a perceived complexity of the tasks themselves. The first four
levels of Marzano’s taxonomy are presented in Table 1.1.
Given that either Bloom’s or Marzano’s taxonomy or both may be used in
your state’s standards documents, we urge you to develop an understanding of the

17
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 18

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

Table 1.1 Marzano’s Taxonomy: Levels 1–4

Level 1: Retrieval Level 2: Comprehension Level 3: Analysis Level 4: Utilization

Recall Synthesis Matching Decision making
Execution Representation Classifying Problem solving
Error analysis Experimental inquiry
Generalizing Investigation
Specifying

SOURCE: Adapted from: Marzano (2001), in Kendall, Ryan, & Richardson (2005, pp. 6–7).

implications of each and an awareness of which one is used because it may have
direct implications for the way you structure teaching and learning opportunities for
your students. A more detailed explanation of the Marzano taxonomy can be found
in Kendall, Ryan, and Richardson (2005).
As noted earlier, performance standards are often used to report the level of pro-
ficiency students have attained for stated standards and benchmarks. This informa-
tion may also be presented to students’ parents and guardians. It may be found on
district report cards and the reports of student proficiency on state-mandated assess-
ments. Table 1.2 lists the statements that accompanied the Parent Report on the
State of Michigan’s annual assessment of fourth graders in English Language Arts
and Mathematics.
At several levels, then, performance standards can be helpful to classroom
teachers and parents or guardians, as well as others involved in education. For
the classroom teacher, performance standards provide assistance in determin-
ing the proficiency level at which students must demonstrate their mastery of
content described in content standards and benchmarks. Performance stan-
dards also aid teachers in understanding how the information must be mas-
tered, whether at the level of comprehension or analysis or some other level of
a taxonomy of skills, thus helping teachers prepare appropriate classroom
learning activities. Furthermore, the use of proficiency standards in reports on
students’ progress can supply parents and guardians with helpful information
for planning supportive activities.
One more type of standard involves skills and processes that may not be subject
specific but are nonetheless important for students to develop. They are often
referred to as lifelong-learning standards.

Lifelong-Learning Standards
Some skills and processes are used in a variety of subject areas and even beyond
the traditional subjects addressed in schools. For example, being a critical thinker

18
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 19

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Table 1.2 Performance Level Descriptors

Level 1: Exceeded standards

The student’s performance exceeds proficiency standards and indicates substantial
understanding and application of key curriculum concepts defined for Michigan students.

Level 2: Met standards

The student’s performance is proficient and indicates sufficient understanding and application
of key curriculum concepts defined for Michigan students.

Level 3: Basic
The student’s performance is not yet proficient, indicating a partial understanding and
application of key curriculum concepts defined for Michigan students.

Level 4: Apprentice
The student’s performance is not yet proficient and indicates minimal understanding and
application of key curriculum concepts defined for Michigan students.

SOURCE: From the Michigan Educational Assessment Program, Parent Report, Fall 2005. Reprinted with
permission of the Michigan Department of Education.

can be an important skill in such school subjects as history, reading, writing, or

mathematics, but it is not confined to any one of these subjects. As a result, some
state curriculum frameworks may have a separate category of standards related to
these skills or processes.
Kendall (2001) defines a lifelong-learning standard as “a summary description
regarding what students should know and/or be able to do across a variety of
disciplines—for example, ‘The student applies decision-making techniques’” (p. 4).
He goes on to say that “lifelong-learning standards may address self-regulation, the
ability to work with others, and critical thinking. Although they are ‘content free’ in
description, this is because they are and can be applied to content across the
curriculum” (p. 4).
Lifelong-learning standards may be included in a separate category in your
state’s curriculum framework. They may also be embedded into each of the subject
area content standards and benchmarks. We mention them briefly here to alert you
to them so that you can explore how your state has chosen to articulate and assess
them.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, states often work closely with national profes-
sional organizations as they develop content standards and benchmarks. These

19
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 20

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

organizations often represent researchers, university faculty, and classroom

practitioners dedicated to conducting research and exploring theory, as well as
learning from and influencing classroom-level instruction in particular subject
areas. Although our intent is neither to promote individual organizations nor to
provide a high level of detail on them, we believe that an awareness of their role is
important as we consider the dynamics of working with content standards and
benchmarks.

National Professional Organizations

Early on in the standards-based reform movement, various professional organiza-
tions established content standards within their own subject area. Among the first
was the NCTM, which began writing content standards for mathematics curriculum
and assessment in 1987 (Kendall & Marzano, 2000). In the ensuing years, several
other subject-focused groups began writing or revising standards. This process has
not been without controversy.
Some professional organizations believed that content standards should be
written at a level of abstraction that would allow local interpretation. In short,
they believed that specific content should be determined by states and local school
districts rather than at the national level. Further complicating this situation,
organizations often wrote standards using different formats, some focusing on
skills and processes and others using a performance-based approach (Kendall &
Marzano, 2000). Other organizations were criticized for producing standards with
a political or ideological agenda (Glatthorn, 1998). In an attempt to bring coher-
ence to the diversity of approaches used by these organizations, other groups ded-
icated their efforts to providing a synthesis of standards and benchmarks, drawing
on those developed and used by states and professional organizations. One such
example is the work done by the Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning organization.
The standards and benchmarks developed and promoted by various profes-
sional and national groups can be of great help to both local administrators and
classroom teachers. In Table 1.3, we have supplied the names of many of these orga-
nizations and the Web sites that contain their standards documents. We urge you
to explore these Web sites (as well as others you may discover) to familiarize your-
self with the standards and benchmarks these organizations and agencies have
developed or synthesized.

20
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 21

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Table 1.3 Professional Organizations With Standards and Benchmarks for Subject-Matter Teachers

Subject Organization Web address

General resource Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning www.mcrel.org

Reading, literacy, and reading International Reading Association (IRA) www.reading.org

in the content areas National Reading Conference (NRC) www.nrconline.org

English National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) www.ncte.org

Mathematics National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) www.nctm.org

Social studies National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) www.ncss.org

The sciences National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) www.nabt.org

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) www.nsta.org
The National Academies Press (NAP) www.nap.edu
American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) www.aapt.org

Foreign languages American Council on the Teaching of Foreign www.actfl.org

Languages (ACTFL)

Music National Association for Music Education (MENC) www.menc.org

Physical education, health, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, www.aahperd.org
and dance Recreation and Dance
National Association for Sports and Physical Education www.aahperd.org/NASPE

The arts National Art Education Standards www.artteacherconnecti

on.com (enter and click
on National Standards

Technology International Society for Technology in Education www.iste.org

(National Educational Technology Standards for
Students)

SOURCE: Reprinted by permission of Richard J. Mezeske, Education Department, Hope College, Michigan.

21
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 22

PART 1 What We Teach and Why

Summary
Since the beginnings of the standards-based reform movement more than two decades
ago, much work has been done to bring clarity to the question of what content teachers
should address in their classroom-based instruction. As reported in a study by Kirschner
(2004), classroom teachers can learn much about their own approaches to content stud-
ies, enhancing their “beliefs, knowledge, and practice” (p. 195), when they study and use
the standards documents designed to guide their instruction and assessment practices.
Despite ongoing debates over the need for consistency in standards documents and the
use of mandated assessments based on them, curriculum frameworks that include well-
designed content standards, benchmarks, topics, performance standards, and lifelong-
learning standards can serve as powerful tools in your work as a teacher. Familiarizing
yourself with them may even allow you to avoid your own version of a frantic assembly-
line birdhouse-building session with your own students in the future!
In the models chapters in Part 2 of this book, we have used sample standards and
benchmarks to illustrate how each of the models can aid you in reaching the standards
and benchmarks set by your own state and local agencies. We urge you to consider
how standards can be a vital component in helping you select models appropriate to
your own learning goals and objectives for the students in your classroom.

Student Study Site

The Companion Web site for Models of Teaching: Connecting Student Learning With
Standards
www.sagepub.com/delloliostudy
Visit the Web-based student study site to enhance your understanding of the book content
and discover additional resources that will take your learning one step further. You can
enhance your understanding by using the comprehensive Study Guide, which includes
chapter learning objectives, flash cards, practice tests, and more. You’ll find special features,
such as the links to standards from U.S. States and associated activities, Learning from
Journal Articles, Field Experience worksheets, Learning from Case Studies, and PRAXIS
resources.

References
Bloom, B. S. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain.
New York: Addison Wesley.
Council for Basic Education. (1998). Standards for excellence in education: A guide for
parents, teachers, and principals for evaluating and implementing standards for education.
Washington, DC: Author.
22
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/24/2007 11:47 AM Page 23

CHAPTER 1: Working With Standards and Benchmarks

Glatthorn, A. (with Bragaw, D., Dawlons, K., & Parker, J.). (1998). Performance assessment
and standards-based curricula: The achievement cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Kendall, J. S. (2001). A technical guide for revising or developing standards and benchmarks
(Report No. ED-01-CO-0006). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457198)
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1995). A report on the findings of phase I: The identifica-
tion and articulation of content standards and benchmarks. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED383763)
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and
benchmarks for K–12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Kendall, J. S., Richardson, A. T., & Ryan, S. E. (2005). The systematic identification of
performance standards. Aurora, CO. Midcontinent Research for Education and
Learning.
Kirschner, B. M. (2004). Working with curriculum standards to build a community of
readers in a culture of non-readers. Educational Horizons, 82(3),194–202.
Michigan Department of Education. (2005). Parent report. Lansing: Author.
Montgomery, P. S., Ranney, L., & Growe, R. (2003). High-stakes tests versus high-quality
education (Report No. TM-035–318). Washington DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED481061)
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of pre-kindergarten standards. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 125–145.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Glossary). Retrieved February 2, 2006, from
www.ed.gov/print/nclb/index/az/glossary.html
Resnick, L. B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., & Vranek, J. L. (2004). Benchmarking and
alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 9(1-2), 1–27.
Yates, S. (2004). Constructive teaching through the deconstruction of standards. Retrieved
March 3, 2006, from www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tools/initiative/summerworkshop/
yates/yates.pdf

23
01-Dell’Olio-45141.qxd 1/23/2007 5:24 PM Page 24