common core state standards, establishing rigor for all students

A S T U D E N T S F I R S T P O L I C Y P U B L I C A T I O N

Establishing Rigor For All Students

COMMONCORE

STATE STANDARDS

E S T A B L I S H I N G R I G O R F O R A L L S T U D E N T S

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)

represents a state-led initiative to address and close

the learning gaps among states and hold U.S. students

to academically challenging, rigorous standards on par

with their international counterparts. Common Core

covers career and college readiness expectations for

all high school graduates and grade-level expectations

for kindergarten through twelth grade.

Common standards mean learning expectations

for students are consistently high regardless of

district or state.

COMMON CORE STANDARDS 2


Establishing Rigor for All StudentsThere is an unfortunate defect in our country’s current education landscape. Each state has different standards for what is taught in a class each year, based on subject and grade level; these standards become increasingly divergent as students reach high school. This means that many students are being held to academic standards that are lower than those of their peers in other states. For example, Ms. Bradham, a fifth grade teacher at an elementary school in Cheyenne, Wyoming, is coaching student Amanda through adding and subtracting fractions with like denominators. Amanda’s father, a Captain in the Air Force, recently received orders to transfer from Warren Air Force Base to Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia. When the family makes their trek south, Amanda will enter sixth grade behind her new peers in mathematics. Because of curriculum differences between Wyoming and Georgia, the equivalent fractions Amanda would have learned in Cheyenne next year in sixth grade have already been covered by her new teacher, Ms. Lu, with her fifth graders.1, 2

Amanda still knows something about fractions, and will likely catch up, but different state standards mean the children of the one in six families that move across state lines each year will struggle with the academic barriers between different states.3

While Amanda’s case is certainly not unique, it serves to highlight a significant concern in our country’s current education landscape. Furthermore, most states’ standards are not internationally benchmarked, which means that American students are not meeting the same requirements as their peers in other countries, a fact that is becoming increasingly relevant in our growing global economy. In a study that examined the performance of 49 countries on a series of internationally and nationally comparable tests over a 14-year period, researchers found that internationally, the U.S. overall annual growth in student achievement in math, reading, and science is mediocre. Out of the 49 countries surveyed, the U.S. performs in the middle of the pack. Further, 24 countries are improving at a faster rate than the U.S.4 While the Common Core State Standards alone won’t make the country more competitive, implementation of more rigorous standards like Common Core provides an opportunity for our lowest achieving students to make gains to close the gap.

By the time U.S. students reach college and compete for jobs in the international workforce, they have very different competency levels, even when they have done all of their homework and passed all of their graduation requirements. Arne Duncan, Secretary of State of Education, asserts: “When children are told they are ‘meeting a state standard,’ the logical assumption for that child or for that parent is to think they are on-track to be successful. But because these standards have been dummied down and lowered so much in so many places, when a child is ‘meeting the state standard’ they are in fact barely able to graduate from high school. And they are absolutely inadequately prepared to go to a competitive university, let alone graduate.”5

1 “Wyoming Mathematics Academic Content Standards”. Wyoming Department of Education. http://edu.wyoming.gov/sf-docs/publications/SigCog_Mathematics_Academic_Content_Standards.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 2 ”Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) by Grade Level, K-8,” https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Pages/BrowseStandards/GPS_by_Grade_Level_K-8.aspx. 3 “Checking the Accuracy of Your Address List,” United States Postal Service, http://pe.usps.com/businessmail101/addressing/checkingaccuracy.htm.4 Eric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson, and Ludget Woessmann, “Achievement Growth: International and U.S. State Trends in Student Performance,” Harvard Kennedy School and Education Next, PEPG Report No. 12-03 (2012).5 Duncan, Arne. 2009. “Excerpts from Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the National Press Club.” The Official Blog of the US Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2009/06/excepts-from-secretary-arne-duncan%E2%80%99s-remarks-at-the-national-press-club/.


3 COMMON CORE STANDARDS

Common Core State StandardsThe Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) was developed to address and close the learning gaps among states and hold U.S. students to academically challenging, rigorous standards on par with their international counterparts. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development of the Common Core Standards, building a movement of governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia. The standards incorporate feedback from teachers and content experts, as well as the general public, and they cover career and college readiness expectations for all high school graduates and grade-level expectations for kindergarten through 12th grade.6

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) represent a policy innovation that allows for an unprecedented level of continuity among states, grades, and subjects.

6 “Process.” Common Core State Standards Initiative http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/process.

TABLE 1:

Source: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf and http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/process

U.S. DOE awards RT3 assessment grants to the Partnership for Assessmentof Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTERBalanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).

TIMELINE OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Johnson signs the Elementary and Secondary Education Actprohibiting a federally mandated and designed national curriculum.1965

APR

2009FEB

2009SEPT

2010MAR

2010JUN

2010SEPT

SEPT2014

Obama signs into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),providing $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund. RTTT or RT3 includesprovisions for adopting standards and assessments for preparing studentsfor college and vocational training.

National Governors Association (NGA) Center and Council of Chief StateSchool Officers (CCSSO) release draft of Common Core college and careerreadiness standards for public comment.

Draft of K-12 Common Core standards released for public comment.

Final Common Core standards released.

School year Common Core standards implemented withcommon aligned assessments.

SEPT



“As a middle school principal

at KIPP Philosophers Academy

Charter School in Los Angeles,

CA, I’ve had the opportunity

to observe and lead our district

adoption of Common Core

curricula. Our school culture is

built on college preparedness,

and there is an urgency driven

by the students, teachers,

and families towards high

achievement. These rigorous

standards represent the

opportunity to evaluate our

students’ progress against those

in 45 other states.”

– Reginald Greene, Founding School Leader, KIPP Philosophers Academy

TABLE 1:

OBJECTIVESThe Common Core Standards reflect three important advancements. First, as K-12 standards, Common Core describes expectations for students in the subjects of math and English language arts in elementary through high school that are leveled and shared across many states. Second, Common Core is designed to prepare students to be college and career ready.7 This means students follow K-12 standards that are unified with the college and career readiness standards that address specifically what students learn in high school. Third, Common Core addresses an issue most states face as a result of the inclusion of too many standards – they are overly broad, and therefore shallow as a result because teachers are racing throughout the year to cover all of the standards. Common Core streamlines and focuses standards in a way that enables instructors, and their students, to dive deeper into the standards and achieve a greater mastery of fundamental concepts.8

The standards have been widely accepted among states: 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the full standards and have committed to implementing them by 2014.9 Common standards mean learning expectations for students are consistently high regardless of the district or state in which they live; sharing instructional strategies, lessons, and other learning tools and practices among states will be easier than ever, furthering the potential for future growth in student achievement.10

As with all academic standards, Common Core is only one component of a comprehensive education system. Students still need textbooks, assessments, and supplemental learning tools based on these standards and effective teachers in each classroom. Formative and summative assessments aligned to Common Core will help inform parents, teachers and policymakers how students are learning the classroom. The writers behind Common Core also have released guidelines to help textbook publishers and curriculum writers develop materials aligned to the CCSS. Chicago, D.C., and 18 other big-city districts have committed to buying or creating only materials that follow the standards.11

7 Ibid.8 “The Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.9 States not adopting the full Common Core Standards: Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.10 “The Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative .11 Samuels, Christina. “Urban Districts Promote Pact on Common-Core Materials - District Dossier “ Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2012/06/urban_districts_promote_pact_o.html, Robelen, Erik. “Common-Core Writers Issue Math ‘Publishers’ Criteria’ - Curriculum Matters.” Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/07/lead_writers_of_math_common_co.html.



Critiques of the Common Core State Standards

STATE AUTONOMYOne major criticism of the Common Core Standards it that they encroach on state autonomy over its educational decisions. There are two major points to note regarding the Common Core Standards and state autonomy. First, all state adoption of the standards has been voluntary. The federal government cannot legally mandate that states adopt the Common Core State Standards. Race to the Top is likewise voluntary and incentive-based. In the best interests of students, the U.S. Department of Education incentivized states to adopt rigorous, college- and career-ready standards and assessments with the aim of closing the achievement gap and improving instruction overall, to receive an ESEA waiver. Second, there are significant advantages to adopting common standards that outweigh the benefits of maintaining separate standards. Given the needs and dynamics of today’s workforce, students in one state are at a significant disadvantage when they cannot compete with students in another state for college acceptance, training programs, or career opportunities. Yet, what it means to be proficient in one state could actually meet a much lower bar in another. States that currently have a higher bar are not forced to lower theirs either. The CCSSI is very clear in allowing states with already high standards, such as Massachusetts, to build standards above the Common Core base. Up to 15% of the state’s standards can be shaped to a state’s own interests and needs, and Massachusetts, as a lead member of an assessment consortium, helps develop the assessments administered to their students.12 Moreover, when students in different states are held to different standards, overall growth is difficult to measure. State education officials and policymakers today have no clear metric for determining how their students are learning from grade to grade compared to students in other states, making improving schools and instruction even more challenging that it already is. Finally, redundancy reigns as states develop their own separate standards and assessments at a cost to taxpayers, teachers, and students. With Common Core, states can share the costs, develop innovative partnership solutions, and achieve greater efficiencies.

12 Vohs, Janet. “National Common Core Standards and Massachusetts.” Newsline 13, no. 3 (2011).

The CCSSI promotes consistency

and rigor among state education

systems, but it is not a national

curriculum; it does not prescribe

pedagogy, as in telling teachers

how to teach the material, nor

does it prescribe any particular

curriculum framework. Instead,

Common Core outlines the

internationally benchmarked

skills students should know.

Districts and schools adopt their

own curriculum aligned to the

standards, and then teachers

design their own lesson plans

based on those standards.



QUALITY OF STANDARDSThough some critics assert that Common Core is not internationally benchmarked or that the writers of Common Core did not complete enough stakeholder outreach, research by Dr. William Schmidt, co-Director of the Education Policy Center, demonstrates through international benchmarking of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) that there is a 90% overlap between those and the “A+” top-performing countries.13 Numerous professional organizations were closely involved with the development of Common Core. For example, the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics (ASSM), National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) formed a joint task force after the CCSSM release in June of 2010 to assist their memberships in implementation.14

Current state standards correspond with the CCSSM only at a 66% - 83% rate.15 For those states with math standards closer to the CCSSM, their 2009 NAEP scores showed statistically significantly higher gains than states with more differing standards.16 While the Pioneer Institute concluded Massachusetts and California state standards to be more rigorous than those in the CCSS, both states, regarded as having some of the highest standards in the nation, chose to adopt the CCSS in 2010.17 A study by the Fordham Institute in 2010 found the Common Core Standards stronger than 33 states’ standards in both ELA and math.18

There were some concerns in late 2012 over the presumed CCSSI prescription of requiring 70% of all classroom readings to be informational text. Closer examination of the specific standards clearly demonstrates, however, that this guideline applies to all readings across the grade, not just in English class. In other words, students are expected to read a greater amount of non-fiction text, but this includes reading students do in history, science, and other subjects as well. Common Core lists the types of literature and non-fiction expected for each grade level (such as the U.S. Constitution) and maintains fiction will remain the core of 6 - 12 ELA.19

13 “Common Core Math Standards Implementation Can Lead to Improved Student Achievement.” Achieve, Inc., http://www.achieve.org/common-core-math-standards-implementation-can-lead-improved-student-achievement..14 Briars, Diane, Kathryn Chval, Linda Curtis-Bey, Brad Findell, Diana Kasbaum, Gladis Kersaint, Glenda Lappan, and Matt Larson. “Report of the Joint Task Force on Common Core State Standards.” 1-5, 2010.http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCTM/President/Messages/Shaughnessy/2010_1104_PresMess_B.pdf.15 Schmidt, William. “Dr. Schmidt’s Powerpoint Presentation.” Achieve, Inc., http://www.achieve.org/CCSS-schmidt-research.16 Ibid. 17 Stotsky, Sandra, and Ze’ev Wurman. “Common Core Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Regain Control over Their Academic Destines “, 1-13. Boston, MA, 2010.18 Carmichael, Sheila Byrd, Gabrielle Martino, Kathleen Porter-Magee, and W. Stephen Wilson. “The State of State Standards--and the Common Core--in 2010.” 1-370. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Fordham Institute, 2010.19 Pimentel, Susan, and David Coleman. “The Role of Fiction in the High School English Language Arts Classroom.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-pimentel/the-role-of-fiction-in-th_b_2279782.html.



Implementation Considerations

TEXTBOOKSMany state leaders are grappling with how to ensure that textbooks and other instructional materials are up-to-date and aligned with Common Core. Textbooks and other instructional materials have a significant impact on student learning and can complement the impacts a great teacher can have on a classroom.20 CCSSI was cognizant of the need for states to maintain their authority over developing and adopting curricula and pedagogy, however, and thus they still needed to be able to choose their own texts. As a solution, CCSSI released the Publisher’s Criteria in ELA and Math in mid-2012. The Publisher’s Criteria are applicable to materials used in the classroom, but not teaching methods, and are available online through Student Achievement Partner’s “Achieve the Core” resource site for teachers.21, 22 Achieve the Core represents a joint effort by the two national teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to supply teachers with Common Core implementation tools.23

TEACHER PREPARATIONA survey of teachers interviewed about the Common Core math standards found that 90% have heard of the CCSSM, 70% read the Standards, and more than 90% value the idea of the standards overall.24 Understandably, preparing teachers to use these standards presents a major implementation challenge. Teachers across the country need high quality professional development in order to teach the new math and ELA standards and higher-order critical thinking skills that Common Core demands. States plan to phase in the standards over the next two years to ensure that teachers are prepared to teach using the new standards. The benefits of Common Core present previously unseen opportunities to build a repository for lesson plans, grade teachers and schools, for teachers to cross states with their certification, and even build a master teacher corps of highly qualified professionals. Numerous online platforms, many of them teacher-driven, have already been launched.

20 Chingos, Matthew M., and Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst. “Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core.” 1-27. Washington, D.C.: The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, 2012.21 “Steal These Tools.” Student Achievement Partners, http://www.achievethecore.org/steal-these-tools.22 “K–8 Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” Student Achievement Partners, http://www.achievethecore.org/downloads/Math_Publishers_Criteria_K-8_Summer_2012.pdf.23 Gewertz, Catherine. “NEA, AFT Partner to Build Common-Core Tools “ Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/12/nea_aft_to_build_common-core_w.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-TW#.24 Schmidt, “The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.”



ASSESSMENTSIn 2010, the U.S. Department of Education awarded two assessment consortia Race to the Top grants to design Common Core-aligned assessments. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) includes 22 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands.25,26

PARCC released its first sample assessment items on August 20th, 2012, which are aligned to the CCSS and include measures of career readiness from grade three and above.27 Another 24 states have joined the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), which is designing a computer adaptive program to be ready with PARCC assessments for use during the 2014-15 school year.28 The assessments are summative and structured to test critical thinking skills, rather than recall ability, and to encourage mastery of the material.

It is likely that most states will see a decrease in proficiency when the new assessments are administered. This is not uncommon when states switch to a new set of standards or assessments. Because Common Core represents a substantial upgrade in terms of rigor and expectations for student learning, the transition to these standards will likely expose learning gaps that were previously unaddressed. For example, Kentucky, the first state to adopt Common Core-aligned assessments, saw a defined drop in scores from 2011 to 2012 with the advent of the new tests. For grades three through eight, 76% of students scored Proficient or higher in reading in 2010-11 on the Kentucky Core Content Tests. However, on the new Kentucky Performance Rating of Education Progress (K-PREP), elementary student proficiency in reading decreased to 48%; elementary math proficiency fell from 73% to 40%.29

State education officials would be wise to prepare educators and the public for what they can expect as students are assessed against stronger standards for the first time.

25 “About PARCC” Achieve, Inc., http://www.parcconline.org/about-parcc.26 Gewertz, Catherine. “Alabama Withdraws from Both Testing Consortia - Curriculum Matters - Education Week.” Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/02/alabama_withdraws_from_both_te.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2.27 “Parcc Item and Task Prototypes.” Achieve, Inc., http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes.28 “U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announces Winners of Competition to Improve Student Assessments.” U.S. Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-winners-competition-improve-student-asse.29 Ujifusa, Andrew. “Scores Drop on Ky.’s Common Core-Aligned Tests.” Education Week 32, no. 3 (2012): 1-20.



COSTSThe Fordham Institute released a report in May 2012 listing three possible approaches to implementing the CCSS with different costs associated with each.30 National cost estimates reflected substantial range: $3.0 billion for a mostly web-based implementation plan of online assessments and professional development webinars; $5.1 billion for a hybrid model of classroom texts, assessments, and teacher development; and $12.1 billion for traditional paper assessments and in-person teacher development.31 The last option is currently the most familiar to states, but clearly not reflective of the innovation that many states are pursuing. These costs are estimated for a transitional stage of one to three years before full implementation in the 2014-15 school year. Another national estimate by the Pioneer Institute incorporate assessment, professional development, materials, and technology costs over a seven-year period, coming to $15.8 billion total across all participating states.32 In Kansas, a legislative committee put figures for states’ CCSS adoption to be much lower than previous Pioneer Institute and Fordham Institute assessments.33 Factors such as districts’ technological capabilities and textbook adoption cycles affect anticipated costs. Also, there may be cost savings in large-scale textbook adoption across an unprecedented number of states.

It is likely that states may eventually save money through implementing the Common Core Standards, however. In November 2012, Matt Chingos of the Brookings Institute calculated that states spend around $1.7 billion a year on assessing their students, which is less than one percent of yearly K-12 education spending.34 Additional savings from joining the PARCC or Smarter Balanced testing consortia could amount to $3.9 million a year for a state with 500,000 students.35

30 Murphy, Patrick, Elliot Regenstein, and Keith McNamara. “Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?”, 1-60. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2012.31 Ibid. 32 AccountabilityWorks. 2012. “National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards.” Pioneer Institute 82: 1–30.33 “Performance Audit Report: K-12 Education: Estimating Potential Costs Related to Implementing the No Child Left Behind Waiver in Kansas.” 1-39: Legislative Division of Post Audit, 2012. 34 Chingos, Matthew M. “Strength in Numbers: State Spending on K-12 Assessment Systems.” 1-41. Washington, D.C.: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings Institute, 2012.35 Ibid.



“Common Core will help my

students by continuing to build

upon the use of their current

skills, strategies and knowledge

base in order for them to be

successful and implement

life-long thinking skills.”

– Seria Walton, Teacher, Indianapolis, IN

ConclusionWhen students in different states are held to different standards, comparative growth is difficult to analyze, which makes improvement in our schools hard to achieve. Common Core makes it possible to measure the progress of students from state to state against the same metrics, enabling policymakers to make better decisions regarding everything from adoption of instructional methods to resource allocations to professional development.

The Common Core State Standards serve as guideposts in a collective movement to set high expectations for all students and to provide equitable learning opportunities in every district in every state. Rigorous standards for grades K-12 aligned across 45 states plus the District of Columbia present the opportunity to prepare more students for college and careers of their choice. With the 2014 implementation of Common Core quickly approaching, states continue to discuss and plan how to best implement the standards and assessments, prepare educators, and select textbooks and curricula. While every state education system has undergone similar transitions in the past, the move to Common Core is notable for something different, even extraordinary. For perhaps the first time, states – and the school leaders, educators, and communities responsible for our children – are able to do this work together.

Today, too many of America’s children are not getting the quality education they need and deserve. StudentsFirst

is helping to change that with common sense education reforms that make sure all students have great schools

and great teachers. We are working to ensure educators are valued for the critical role they play in the lives

of kids, families have high-quality school choices and a real say in their child’s education, and our tax dollars

are spent wisely on programs that work for kids. StudentsFirst was launched in December 2010 by former

Washington, D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee.

825 K Street • Sacramento, California 95814 | T: 916.287.9220 | F: 916.842.3939 • studentsfirst.org

©2013 StudentsFirst. All rights reserved.

common core state standards, establishing rigor for all students

Documents