Performance standards show me what the teacher is looking for in an assignment," we hear one student say to a classmate. "Standards make the grading process fairer," replies another.

Comments like these make our day. They come out of an experiment with a standards-based curriculum in American Studies, a junior-year elective that combines U.S. literature and history. Last year when we began teaching together, we struggled to find ways to involve our average-level students more actively in learning. Our students perceived us as too demanding: They felt that we expected more from them than they could give. No strategy or approach could bridge the gap between our expectations for the students and their expectations for themselves. We tried lectures, extensions, pep talks, extra help sessions, "neat" activities, and parent conferences, but nothing worked. At best, we noted a temporary improvement for only a few days. At worst, we were rapidly losing students. They became increasingly dispirited and frustrated with the rigor of the course content and the challenge of the assessments.

We wanted to increase their sense of accountability while building their understanding of the long-term vision driving daily tasks. We tried rubrics and checklists with varying degrees of success. But our attendance at a school-to-career conference prompted our new standards-based vision. We realized that no checklist in the world would fuel success if students did not first understand how the assignment added value to their lives and increased their understanding of the course material.

New Content and Performance Standards

Sitting at the conference table as the presenters continued their workshop, we scrawled notes to each other. Could we organize our course around content standards and set performance standards for them?

Back at school, we vowed to revise the entire year's curriculum. But first we needed to adopt definitions for content and performance standards. We finally agreed that content standards are the fixed goals for learning that tell what a student should know and be able to do; performance standards tell what a student product should look like if it meets the course's content standards. We were convinced that students could improve their performance if we explained the values that inspired a project and showed how the grading standards reflected those values. Students would become more accountable for quality work. We hoped for added benefits: Our grading would be more objective and would build mutual trust. By mid-July, our planning filled four three-ring notebooks.

In September, we walked into class determined to run it in a new way. We would still teach a challenging and demanding course, but without the mysterious goals and grading criteria that many students expected from their teachers. We soon realized that we were on to something big. The previous year, students complained that they would have done what we wanted-"if you had told us sooner." They also challenged our use of good and excellent on the rubrics because these words were "too subjective."

What a change to hand out and explain an assignment with performance standards already attached! We all felt as if we had signed a contract: "This is what we require. If you do it, you will get this grade." Students knew that their job was to ask questions if something was not clear. This eliminated grading surprises. If the standard was "The paper incorporates facts and data from readings and class discussions," then the student included supportive details from those areas to meet the standard. The student exceeded the standard by including more details or fell below the standard by being too general.

The fact that we entered into an agreement with students created an immediate feeling of respect. One student commented,

I finally understand what my job is and how to get it done. When I do the assignment with the standards right in front of me, I feel like I can do well. I never was a good history student before because I never really got the point. The grading process became concrete, up front, and honest.

We sometimes forgot to include a standard for an assignment. For example, when we read the first drafts of a student essay on how the Puritan legacy continues to shape U.S. culture, we realized that we had forgotten to create a performance standard for "organization of ideas within each body paragraph." Consequently, our grades did not reflect students' internal organization. We had already resolved never to change a standard during an assignment or to create a new standard after the fact-and we stood by our decision. "You got lucky this time," we told the students. "Next year's class will have an additional standard to ensure better organization. We would have held you accountable, but it is not fair to change the standards." Some students gave one another sly smiles, as if they had gotten away with something, but the rest nodded approvingly, acknowledging that we had upheld our agreement.

As we continued to honor our agreements with one another, a reciprocal accountability emerged. Our students worked to achieve the standards, and we worked to write standards that were clear, objective, and relevant. The end result was that the quality of all our work improved.

Better Standards, Better Work In addition to communication, trust, and accountability, standards also provided a structure for discussion about assignments. Students referred specifically to the standards that they did not meet or exceed to find out how to improve that skill or content area. When discussing project or essay grades, we had few emotional battles because the nature of the student's concern shifted-from "Why did I get a B+?" to "Why didn't I achieve the standard in this area?" Constructive discussions focused on improving performance rather than on negotiating points. Not surprisingly, more students took advantage of rewriting opportunities because the standards provided a concrete road map for improvement.

When our standards were weak or vague, we got into difficulty. We learned to be wary of abstract words like smooth and flowing to characterize writing or displays thought to describe the layout of a visual project. Guaranteed, a student will say, "What does flowing writing look like? Can you really tell when you see it? Because my writing flowed right from my head onto the paper"; or "Do you have any clue how hard I thought? Frank didn't think at all when he did his. He told me so, and still you gave him a higher grade than me!"

Students knew that we valued their input because we acted on their advice immediately by incorporating it into the next set of standards. With a good, well-written standard, everyone feels respected. A poorly written one, however, gives everyone a headache.

A side effect that we had not anticipated was a steady rise in our class grades. Many skeptics of performancebased assessments and performance standards believe that this innovative shift comes at the expense of "real" learning. But as overall student performance improved, we wrestled with whether our standards-based work maintained the rigor of the original course structure. Did our students earn their extra points, or had we unwittingly inflated their grades? After reflection, we concluded that our students were successful because they understood what each assignment required. The quality of their questions indicated that they were pinpointing areas in their own work and were concentrating on them. Now students bring us a draft, point to a place on the page, and ask, "Does this meet the standard?"

We saw dramatic improvements in student work, not to mention improvements in attitude, because students felt confident and in control. Students tried to exceed the standard, which often earned them higher grades. We were able to point to areas in which they did well or improved. The gap between student and teacher expectations decreased because of improved communication and clarity. We managed to maintain both the rigor of the course and the good humor of our students.

Allison Zmuda leads a discussion focused on improving performance rather than on negotiating points.

New Standards for Teaching

Our students were not the only ones who discovered more respect and success in the classroom. We, too, have been inspired by our work with content and performance standards. The process of writing standards sharpened our vision and shook up our teaching priorities. After compiling a list of skill and content areas, we went through every sheet of paper that we planned to give our students to ensure that each assignment was necessary to help achieve our standards. We managed to cut the number of class handouts by 30 percent.

We have learned that we cannot do everything. Many of our favorite performance tasks were out of alignment with our content standards. One painful cut was the removal of timed writing assignments during the fourth marking period. Although these writing assignments posed interesting and important foreign policy dilemmas-such as discussing the legitimacy of atomic force or the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine as the foundation of Cold War policy-they were not in sync with our marking period goal of using literary and artistic expressions to enhance the students' understanding of war. We had no intention of removing essential foreign policy discussions and materials from the course, but we needed to incorporate these subjects while remaining faithful to our performance assessment goal. We redirected the foreign policy work into problemsolving activities, class lectures, and short reading and writing assignments. Our decision reinforced our commitment to preserve the balance between rigor and innovation.

Forging Ahead

Keeping content and performance standards aligned has been an essential part of our success. When we introduce the performance assessment at the beginning of each unit, students see not only our long-term goals but also how daily tasks will help them achieve those goals. On any given day, both the students and the teachers can articulate the short-term objective and connect it to the content standards for the marking period and the course. This continuity makes every day feel important and relevant. As teachers, we are amazed at how often we now walk out of our classroom feeling good about the day's work.

We will never be able to kick back and relax, confident that we have done it all. We thought we had reached that point four months ago but had a rude awakening. We tried to use a "neat" performance assessment from the previous school year that was almost in alignment with the content standards. We assigned students to take a walking tour of one of our local historic neighborhoods and to contrast the houses with class readings that we had given students about early life in the town. Although we loved the idea of exploring local history and giving students an opportunity to exercise their artistic skills through their sketches of houses, the assessment did not help them address the core content standardexplaining the impact of work and play on life in the United States. This and similar experiences reminded us that our work requires constant vigilance to guard the continuity of the course on a regular basis.

But our vigilance pays off. One student noted, "With performance standards, I feel as if I am more in control of my grade in this class. This is the first time I have felt this way since I have been in high school." Although we continue to reinforce and review our standards, comments like this make our efforts all worthwhile. U