A significant amount of discussion has revolved and evolved around the concept of standards-based instruction (SBI). Discussants join the conversation from a variety of viewpoints, experiences and foundational understanding. The most unfortunate reality of the topic of SBI is that most of the contributions lack a fundamental appreciation for what it actually is. It has become as nebulous, and yet as ubiquitous, as “instructional rigor.” SBI, in many instances, has become nothing more than code for marketing of instructional design material and content-based textbooks which seem to want to assure teachers and school administrators that buying a particular product will increase students’ chances of scoring well on state mandated tests. More often than not, the materials and texts have little, if anything, to do with standards-based instruction.

The concept of standards-based instruction is much too complex to be given the short shrift of peripheral educational reform critics, instructional wonks, and purveyors of pedagogical claptrap. With the plethora of blogs, articles, websites and advertising devoted to SBI, precious little has anything to do standards-based instruction in any substantial way. Bandied about with indiscretion, SBI is as prevalent as Bloom’s Taxonomy but understood far less. Benjamin Bloom knew that educators who had never read the book or even comprehended it’s purpose were referencing the taxonomy pell-mell. It was popular. It was necessary for “intelligent” discussion of education and educational reform. It still is. But Bloom’s work is known more for its anecdotes than for the development of cognitive skills. There are critics and apologists, passionate educators and educational politicians staking their fortunes on one interpretation or another, none of whom may have ever opened a volume to know, for certain, just what Bloom and his colleagues were trying to accomplish.

It seems a vast majority of educators and educational writers attribute the accession of standards-based instruction onto the educational reform scene as an off-shoot of High Stakes Testing. While the connection may appear logical, even intuitive, it is misleading at best and patently false in most applications. Much of what constitutes High Stakes Testing assesses established standards; this is true. The ACT, SAT, GRE, ISAT and others do indeed test student skills in a number of academic areas. We must consider, however, that the skills and standards under consideration have been identified by state and national experts as those needed to advance to higher order thinking and more complex academic work. The Prairie State Achievement Examination is one such High Stakes Test taken over a two day period and used to determine a student’s relative proficiency on a number of academic skills. The resultant data are great indicators of student academic capacity but are, unfortunately, used primarily to rate students, schools and school systems based upon metrics concocted in educational think tanks. As Kim Marshall once told me, “I put it out there, but I can’t be responsible for how it’s used.”

So the question has been begged; what is standards-based instruction? SBI is a systematic approach to learning which utilizes proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills across disciplines to continually increase depth of understanding and interdpendency of skill relationships. In order to utilize proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills, an SBI practitioner must regularly assess student skills for proficiency and mastery. He must continuously review and reflect on the skills and skill levels under consideration. If the skill and level have already been mastered by the student, the student is not learning. If the skill and/or level has not been properly anticipated in previous work the lesson may appear too abstract or unconnected to established skills resulting in a variety of responses, few of which promote student learning. Gradually increasing depth of understanding of simple skills to complex skills, within a framework of skill “strands,” creates a progress map for mastery and expertise.

What is often lost in this simplified explanation is the very crucial role of cognitive and metacognitive development. When teachers teach units of instruction based solely upon topic content, student learning is isolated into specific knowledge within a particular aspect of a particular discipline. This type of instruction limits contextual implications and applications which are often unrecognizable outside of that particular classroom. Within the gathering of discipline-specific information there are few opportunities for student discussion and/or problem-solving. As students are assessed on retention of what was taught, they lack any real investigative skills which may be applied in other contexts. Content-based instruction usually does not require, or sometimes even request, that students develop cognitive skills to improve their understanding. Having observed hundreds of classrooms, I can tell you it’s often quite mindless.

Another barrier to standards-based instruction are the many brain-based neuromyths. These logical sounding pseudo-scientific nuggets are often little more than fabrication that have for one reason or another become accepted “truisms.” They dot the educational reform landscape like European starlings and daylilies. Once inserted into the dialogue, they take hold and seem as natural as any scientific rationale. Probably the favorite (surely the favorite of John Geake ) is the common belief that humans use only 10% of their brain. If this was true, Geake tells us, we’d all be brain-dead. Perhaps we are. Another of Geake’s favorites is the VAK (Visual/Auditory/Kinesthetic) learning styles theory. While we should all use a variety of instructional strategies in the course of teaching, VAK is just not based upon any scientific research supporting its widespread acceptance.

Introduction of VAK methods in the classroom would surely lead to greater student engagement than continual lecturing. By breaking up the monotony of a teacher talking for an hour or so at a time, students given a change of pace are not so easily lulled into unconsciousness. But the research here does not support VAK; the research opposes the droning lecture style. The research supports classroom discussion. The best way for students to learn is to have them participate in their own learning. Substituting one passive learning style for another does not improve academic skills or problem-solving capacity. Richard Elmore’s mantra, “Task predicts performance,” should be an ever conscious aspect of classroom instruction. What are the students doing? Students are never assessed on how well they stay awake in boring classes.