belinda's common core research paper

RUNNING HEADER: COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION 1

Common Core Implementation

Belinda McCune

American Public University

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION 2

Abstract

In this paper, the implementation of Common Core will be reviewed through twenty articles. The

authors will point out the ways of implementation of Common Core was imperative in making

sure students were equally compared to other students in different states. In some states, the old

curriculum was not preparing students for the rigorous college curriculum. It was also

detrimental to the public school system for students to be successful in college. Administrators

pressed urgency with exposing teaching to different types of Profession Development (PD). In

this paper, it will be reviewed how Professional Development has helped teachers with

implementing Common Core in their teaching techniques. Throughout this paper, it will discuss

many aspects how Common Core has changed the Mississippi educators. Different annual test

assessments will show progression of implementation in students in the state of Mississippi

public school system.

Keywords: Professional Development, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College and Career (PARCC), Mississippi Curriculum Test 2nd edition (MCT2), Subject

Area Testing Program 2nd edition (SATP2)


Literature Review

The debate over the Common Core State Standards Initiative has rocketed to the forefront

of the education policy discussions around the country (McShane, 2014). Over the years, the

discussion and implementation of Common Core has fueled educators in the South to look at the

curriculum standards in the public school system. Educators provide the curriculum to help

ensure students are successful in their future careers. Administrators were pressed to ensure

teachers were teaching the curriculum effectively. Previously, students entering into college were

taking intermediate classes just to be successful. Parents have voiced their concern over their

children being unprepared to withstand the pressure of four year colleges’ academic

requirements due to their lack of the educational background.

Conley (2014) thinks with the implementation by 43 states of the Common Core State

Standards in Mathematics, implementation will be difficult. Many teacher educators,

administrators, and classrooms teachers are asking how the Standards for Mathematical Practice

can be integrated into daily teaching. The Common Core State Standards are a relatively new

concept in education. The current research study looked at secondary teachers' perceptions of

their preparedness to implement the Common Core State Standards as well as their feelings

about the training they have or have not received related to implementing the standards (Burkes,

2015).

Addison and McGee (2005) discusses how standardized tests have pushed educators’

thought process in implementing Common Core. An explanation of the history of standardized


tests in the United States reveals the ways they have shifted from tools of articulation to tools of

accountability not only in K–12 classrooms, but also in higher education. The purpose of this

comparative case study was to explore the ways educators at the school level experience the

Common Core Standards and examine the contextual factors that impacted the way it was

initially implemented. As part of the incentive to obtain Race to the Top funding, nearly all states

have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English/ language arts and math,

which constitutes a sweeping curriculum reform effort of unprecedented scale (Porter, 2014)

Despite the views, teachers are still expected to implement the curricular changes thrust

upon them. With each generation of students comes a change in educational practices (Burks,

2015). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts and Literacy in JL

History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects have necessitated reforms that include a

shift in instructional strategies, including those related to questioning. Teachers must utilize

questioning in the classroom that focuses on common language for curricular development and

instructional purposes (Giouroskakis, 2014).

A common misconception is that kindergarten students are not able to write. The writing

process scholars have known that writing is an important expressive practice for children across

early elementary grades. The CCSS emphasizes the importance of cultivating student writers

beginning in kindergarten. As the teachers worked through their own struggles with how to teach

writing, and as they made some hard methodological decisions, these teachers began to see the

writing standards as a flexible framework whose expectations could be exceeded by their general

education, special education, and English Language Learner kindergarten population (Kramer,

2012).


All teachers face some challenges when teaching Common Core to students. Professional

Development is designed for the challenges and to discuss the benefits involved in implementing

Common Core (Walsh, 2014). Since the implementation of Common Core, teachers have felt the

need to explore Professional Development training. The curriculum was more rigorous than

many teachers expected, leaving them unprepared. Teacher professional development (PD) is a

complex, ongoing challenge as educational systems attempt to deliver excellent programming in

pursuit of increased student achievement. Understanding the belief structures of teachers is

essential to improving their practices. Although the process is recursive, quality teacher PD that

changes teacher knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs can lead to improved student learning.

Three characteristics of PD training are: improved student learning, scaling up models and

outline for implementing the standards, guiding framework for teacher motivation in science

education (Ruchti, 2013). Professional development gives teachers the training to improve

student achievement to better prepare our students for college.

School choice programs have improved overall student academic achievement in public

schools. Evidently, competition is good for learning. Programs that include religious schools and

those limited to public institutions alone have both demonstrated that choice leads to higher

quality education. When public schools are faced with the possibility of large student transfers,

and a corresponding loss of funding, they have shown a willingness to make improvements both

in how and what they teach (Nina, 1999). With Common Core, parents, teachers, and students

questions their role in the college readiness curriculum. College and career readiness for all

students includes supporting the needs of students with disabilities. Ensuring students with

disabilities are college and career ready goes beyond academics and must include self-

determination skill development (Rowe, 2014).


As educators, it is important to come together to discuss ways to improve education.

There are many worthwhile educational programs serving a cross section of students that have

elements of both the public and private sectors. It might be very important for educators to

correctly evaluate the nature of programs that cross between the public and private sectors and

encourage honest debate about how they can work together to enhance education for all students

(DeBloise, 1997). Common Core is a program designed for students entering college, but it can

still enhance the knowledge of those choosing other fields to pursue.

Methodology

Participants

In this study, the participants will be the teachers, students, and administrators in the

school system. The main focus is growth with the third through eighth, and high school students’

annual test scores in the Mississippi’s school system. The participants will display all their

knowledge and growth of the standards on the annual assessment. The administrators will access

the data of the standardized tests. The administrators will also evaluate the data to determine how

professional development will be implemented.

Types of Research

When dealing with Common Core, quantitative research is the best option. It will allow

me to compare specific data from different test assessments. The data will entail the 2014

through 2016 school years. Hopefully, using this data will allow me to see an increase or

decrease in test scores. It will also help with the knowledge of understanding if the

implementation of the Common Core standards helped the Mississippi’s public school system.

Instruments


To compile the quantitative data, I will use the information from the Mississippi

Department of Education website. The website will give the tests scores from the different

assessments used each year in the state. I will use the data to understand if the implementation of

Common Core has helped our students compare with other students in different states. Also,

understanding this data will help educators and parents consider the benefits of the

implementation.

Design of Data Collection

To investigate the test data change of the school system, I will review the Mississippi

Department of Education website. The website has public assess of the Mississippi schools’ test

scores. The website will also show the different testing assessments used throughout the 2014-

2016 school year. The main assessments focus will be the PARCC, MCT2, MAP, and the

SATP2. The timeline of the data assessments is normally annual, unless district testing are

involved. There was not a breach in confidentiality, due to the scores being public knowledge.

Data Analysis

In Mississippi, Common Core was a tremendous new journey for teachers, students, and

parents to explore. The journey included learning the new instructional methods, encouraging

students to use critical thinking skills, and connecting learning with home. Since its beginning as

a state-based initiative for universal learning standards, Common Core has become highly

debated. Many critics of Common Core see the standards as a federal intrusion into state and

local affairs. The Race to the Top grant contest encouraged states to adopt college- and career-

readiness standards. The U.S. Department of Education has predicated waivers from the

mandates under No Child Left Behind on the adoption or maintenance of college- and career-


readiness standards. In this analysis, we will discover if Common Core has help our students

through the compiling of data.

Common Core was implemented to help students ensure they were on the same level

entering into any elementary, secondary school and college. Mississippi continues to strive for

excellence in measuring up with other states. Superintendents, principals, and teachers have all

worked diligently to implement higher academic standards and help students achieve better

outcomes in national assessments. Our students’ have shown significant gains on the National

Assessment of Education. The rising graduation rate and their achievements in Advanced

Placement all show that students are rising to higher expectations with the help of Common Core

curriculum. The administrators for the different school districts receive their data results and

begin to compile the information. The student’s information is broken down into many skill

subgroups (proficient, advanced, basic, graduation rate, and the dropout rate). The administrators

examine ways to improve teachers’ skills in the areas they lack knowledge of by providing

professional development.

Professional development, also called professional learning or continuing education, is a

major tool for improving student learning. When collective bargaining is used to address

teaching and learning issues, students and educators both benefit. Teachers want to improve

their professional practice, and collective bargaining is a practical way to provide educators a

genuine voice in the design and implementation of their own professional development. Some of

the professional developments are: writing workshops, literacy/reading coaching,

listening/speaking, and classroom management.

The 2014 assessment for fourth grade was the Partnership for Assessment of

Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). The PARCC test results were the first for


Mississippi’s students to measure higher learning goals. PARCC is one of two state consortia

that developed a common set of K-12 assessments aligned with higher standards for college and

career. After the rigorousness of the PARCC assessment, Mississippi is no longer a member of

the PARCC consortium. The PARCC assessment was replaced with the Mississippi Curriculum

Test 2nd edition (MCT2) for English Language arts, and Mathematics for third and eighth grade,

and the Subject Area Testing Program 2nd edition (SATP2) for Algebra I and English II. The

test results provide valuable information for parents and communities on whether students are

learning and making progress in school.

This test was first implemented in the 2007-2008 school year. Mississippi’s new

assessment system has several benefits not found in previous assessment systems. The benefits

include: students will know if they are prepared for college and careers, teacher will receive

results to guide learning and instruction, and parents will have clear and timely information

about the progress of their children.

In 2015, Mississippi state testing assessment was called the Mississippi Curriculum Test,

Second Edition (MCT 2). The MCT2 was given to students in grades 3 through 8 in English

language arts and math. The majority of Mississippi students scored proficient or advanced at

every grade level on the 2014 MCT2. Although most students scored proficient or higher on the

MCT2, the overall percentage of these students dropped (MDE). After reviewing the data, Dr.

Carey Wright (state superintendent of education) stated, “The performance levels on state tests

were lower this year as expected because the 2014 tests were not aligned to Mississippi’s higher

academic standards. We are looking forward to implementing the state’s new assessments in

2015, which will provide a more meaningful measure of what students are currently learning in

class.”


In high school, students take the Subject Area Testing Program, Second Edition

(SAPT2). In the SATP2, students are tested in subject areas Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and

U.S. History. The percentage of students passing Biology I, English II, and U.S. History dropped

one percent, and the percentage passing Algebra I fell by two percent (MDE). After showing

some growth, Mississippi educators decided to give the MAP a chance.

The state of Mississippi used the Mississippi Assessment Program (MAP) in 2016

to estimate the growth of the students. The Mississippi Assessment Program (MAP) was

designed to measure student achievement on the Mississippi College-and Career-Readiness

Standards (MS CCRS) for English Language Arts and Mathematics, and to provide valid and

reliable results to guide instruction through data driven instruction. The MAP will assess students

in grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics, Algebra I, and English II (MDE). The

state of Mississippi also mandated that students pass a state test pushing for mastery of grade-

level reading. Students need to score at least 926 on the 3rd Grade Reading Summative

Assessment, which are administered in public schools in March and April.

The students have shown growth of 2% from 2015-2016. The 2016 Mississippi

Statewide Accountability System assigns a performance rating of A, B, C, D, and F for each

school and district based on established criteria regarding student achievement, individual

student growth, graduation rate, and participation rate. Statewide assessments are used to

measure proficiency and growth in proficiency for students in grades 3-8 and high school

students taking end-of-course subject area assessments in Algebra I, English II, Biology, and

U.S. History (MDE).

In 2016, the Mississippi graduation and dropout rates were calculated following the four-

year implementation of Common Core. The results determined the high school completion status


for students entering in the ninth grade is rising due to more students entering college. The

graduation rate shows increasing numbers from 74.5 to 78.4. The high school dropout rate went

down from a 12.8 in 2014-2015 to 11.8 in 2015-2016 (MDE). After comparing the data,

implementing Common Core standards has proven to raise test scores in the public school in all

grades. Of course, Mississippi public schools are different. So some schools did not show growth

and were put on probation. The schools are given a year to show growth before full State

rehabilitation begins.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Common Core did cause a great fear among educators due to the lack of

knowledge and change. Supporters of Common Core argue that having clear standards for all

students benefit everyone. Regardless of the state, the students will receive an education that

prepares them for life after high school, college, and work. Parents will be able to compare their

child’s school to others more easily, and teachers will have a clear expectation of the standards.

Teachers were unsure of how to deal with implementation, and administrators was uncertain how

to properly assist the teachers. This was a fundamental shift in the way teachers approached

teaching and learning, and it was a challenge to get students up to speed and for teachers to

adjust their practice.

In the end, educator decided to focus on getting teachers in as many Professional

Development training to ensure knowledge of the standards. Parents send their children to school

to prepare them for the real world of college. After reviewing all the data, it has proven that

teachers are embracing the new standards of Common Core. The students and parents are more

accepting to the fact students are rising to the level of their peers in other states. In Mississippi,


educators still have a hill to climb to measure up with other states’ advanced curriculum, but they

are well on the way.

References

Addison, J. & McGee, S.J. (2005). To the Core: College Composition Classrooms in the Age

of Accountability, Standardized Testing, and Common Core State Standards. Rhetoric

Review, 34(2), p. 200 – 218.

Baker, D. (2015). Understanding and Implementing the Common Core Vocabulary Standards in

Kindergarten Teaching Exceptional Children; Reston 47.5: 264-271.

Bailey, L. B. (2014). A review of the research: Common core state standards for improving rural

children's school readiness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(6), 389-396.

Baule, S. (2013). With Common Core and NCLB, are we missing the point? Tech &

Learning; San Bruno 33.6: 32

Bennett, S.M., & Hart, S.M. (2015). Addressing the “Shift”: Preparing Preservice Secondary

Teachers for the Common Core. Reading Horizons, 53(4), p. 1-33.

Burks, B., Beziat, T. L., R., Danley, S., Davis, S., Davis, K., Lowery, H., & Lucas, J. (2015).

Adapting to change: Teachers perceptions of implementing the common core state

standards. Project Innovation (Alabama).

Conley, M. Trinkley, R., & Douglas, L. (2014). Using Inquire Principles of Art to Explore

Mathematical Practices Standards. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 89-102.


Davis, E., Sinclair, S., & Gschwend, L., (2015). A Mentoring Program Drills Down on the

Common Core. Phi Delta Kaplan, 96(6), 59-64.

DeBlois, R. (1997). Public vs. private: Time for an honest discussion that could benefit all

schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 81(589),

90-98

Giouroukakis, V., & Cohan, A. (2014). Common Core, Common Language: Reforming

Instructional Questioning. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4), 12 -18

Kramer-Vida, L., Levitt, R. & Kelly, S. (2012) Kindergarten Is More than Ready for the

Common Core State Standards. Language Arts, 90(2), 93-109.

Marzano, R. J. (2012). Teaching Argument. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 80-81.

Mississippi Department Education. (2016). Retrieved 2/26/2017 http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/

McShane, M. (2014). Navigating the Common Core. Education Next; Stanford. SUMMER 2014/

VOL. 14, (3)

Nina, S. R. (1999). Public school benefits of private school vouchers. Policy Review, (93), 16-19.

Porter, R., Fusarelli, L. & Fusarelli, B. (2014). Implementing the Common Core: How Educators

Interpret Curriculum Reform. Educational Policy. Vol. 29(1) 111-139.

Rowe, D., Mazzotti, V. & Sinclair, J. (2014). Strategies for Teaching Self-Determination Skills

in Conjunction with the Common Core. Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol.50(3).131-

141. Doi:10.1177/1053451214542043

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/


Ruchti, W.P., Jenkins, S. J., & Agamba, J. (2013). Critical Supports for Secondary Educators in

Common Core State Standard Implementation. The Clearing House, 86, 246-254.

doi:10.1080/00098655.201.82694

Walsh, C. (2014). Three Priorities for Professional Development in Literacy. Language Arts,

Urbana 91(4), 268.

Wexler, A. (2014). Reaching Higher? The Impact of the Common Core State Standards on the

Visual Arts, Poverty, and Disabilities. Arts of Education Policy Review, 115: 52-61.

doi:10.1080/10632913.2014.883897

Zhang, S. (2014). New Teachers’ Implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Action

in Teacher Education, 36(5/6), 465 – 479.