The Common Core State Standards

Until recently, every state has had its own set of academic standards, which meant that students in each state were learning at different levels of expectations. But the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative is changing that (Common Core State Standards Initiative, n. d.).

In spring 2009, governors and state commissioners of education from across the United States formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative with the goal of developing a set of shared national standards (Kendall, 2011). The new standards aim to bring consistency and clarity to American education by providing shared academic standards that will prepare students for college and a high-skills workplace. Proponents further believe the standards will provide a springboard for innovation in education and will help educators improve student achievement levels, an outcome that will benefit students individually while also fueling future economic success (Gates Foundation, n. d.).

On June 2, 2010, the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects were released. The standards raise expectations for many. According to Kober & Rentner (2011), "Almost three-fifths of the districts in states that have adopted the CCSS viewed these standards as more rigorous than the ones they are replacing and expected the CCSS to improve student learning" (p. 1).

Robust and relevant to the real world

The standards are based on current education research and reflect the best of existing state standards. They describe critical knowledge and skills, but not all knowledge and skills, and they describe what should be taught, not how learning will or should take place in the classroom.

The standards frequently are referred to as being “fewer, higher, and clearer.” They are fewer in that the standards focus on those skills needed for access to and success at two- and four-year colleges. They are higher because they expect students to be able to apply their knowledge, communicate in writing and verbally what they have learned, and transfer their learning to new situations. They are clearer in that there is minimal repetition within the standards; they will align with state curricula and assessments; and students and teachers will have exemplars, scoring guides, and other resources that explain the requirements for meeting the standards.

Built on lessons learned over two decades

To develop the CCSS, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association solicited input from educators, content specialists, researchers, community groups, and from an advisory group of experts from education organizations, such as the College Board, National Association of State Boards of Education, and the State Higher Education Executive Officers (Kendall, 2011).

The development included multiple rounds of state feedback from teachers, curriculum directors, and technical advisors, in addition to various subject-area organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In March 2010, the developers opened the process to public comment.

The College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for English language arts were developed first. They include all of K–12, describe expectations for a student to be college- and career-ready, and provide specifics for each grade under each strand.

Key differences and implications

Throughout the years of standards-based education, standards have established what students would learn. A persistent problem with this approach was that there often wasn’t enough time available to teach the identified standards. Furthermore, textbooks had to be re-written to match the standards, and the instructional materials weren’t available until long after the standards were in place.

With the CCSS, states are already developing curricula, and the standards represent only 85 percent of a teacher’s instructional time (leaving states 15% to use however they decide). As of November 2011, 46 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the CCSS. Joiners are also eligible for participation in state and assessment consortia, if they choose.

Alignment of assessments and instructional materials

Two consortia are creating common assessment systems for grades 3–8 and high school: (1) SMARTER Balanced Consortium and (2) Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.

According to guidance from Achieve, a partner in one of the assessment consortia, states should work backward from the end goal, which is to have instructional materials that are aligned with the CCSS and new assessments. In their implementation guide, they suggest that states weigh these factors when planning for new instructional materials:

• Previously scheduled textbook adoption cycles
• The introduction of new aligned assessments
• Project budgets
• Online versus printed materials
• Professional development on the new standards, assessments, and materials
• Changes to their accountability system brought on by the new standards and assessments (Achieve, 2010, p. 26)

Next steps for states

The Common Core will be fully implemented and assessed in 2014–2015. In the meantime, states can conduct a gap analysis to compare their state standards to the CCSS to determine similarities and differences, as well as to establish a set of “transition standards” to help prepare their students for the new expectations. For example, a 5th grader who is expected to know a, b, and c this year, according to the state standards, will be expected to know a, b, c, and d before entering 6th grade next year, according to the Common Core. Transition standards represent “d,” the missing content, which needs to be taught now (Kendall, 2010).

States should be asking and answering these questions:

• Are all aspects of each state standard addressed in the Common Core?
• Is the state standard content more or less challenging than the Common Core content?
• Will current resources for a particular state standard still be useful?
• Is a particular Common Core standard currently addressed in the state standards?
• Does the emphasis or focus of a particular Common Core standard differ from the state standard?
• Do we care about missing content? Should this go into the 15 percent allotted to states?

Some concerns and some benefits

Implementing the CCSS requires considerable work at both district and state levels, beginning with alignment (Conley, et al., 2011). States must provide guidance for districts to successfully implement the new standards, but state and district budgets are declining. Curricula need to be revised or written; therefore, instruction will change. “Indeed, classroom teachers must be fully equipped to elevate the standards from mere words to tangible improvements in learning. . . Educators will need targeted professional development to help them understand the standards, develop new lesson plans, deliver effective instruction, and use new assessments” (Griffith, 2011, p. 95).

On a positive note, once implemented, the CCSS potentially means more easily shared resources that apply across state boundaries, multiple pathways for students, and opportunities for teachers to advance in the profession.

References

Achieve. (2010). On the road to implementation: Achieving the promise of the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/FINAL-CCSSImplementationGuide.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative, n. d. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

Conley, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Seburn, M., Stout, O. & Rooseboom, J. (2011). Lining up: The relationship between the Common Core State Standards and five sets of comparison standards. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Gates Foundation. (n. d.) Fewer, clearer, higher: Moving forward with consistent, rigorous standards for all students. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/fewer-clearer-higher-standards.pdf

Griffith, D. (2011). Catching up with the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 95.

Kendall, J. (2010) The 15% solution? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 80.

Kendall, J. (2011). Understanding Common Core State Standards. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.

Kober, N. & Rentner, D. (2011). Common Core State Standards: Progress and challenges in school districts' implementation. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

McREL Resource

To help educators understand and identify differences, we’ve aligned our Compendium of state standards to the Common Core standards—and included a video tutorial explaining how to navigate the Compendium. We’ve also linked lesson plans, unit plans, and other instructional resources to Common Core expectations, via the benchmarks, providing supplemental material for teachers during this transition.