Argumentative synthesis

SIR CD

Society for Reÿearch n Child Development

sharing child and youth development knowledge volume 28, number 2 2014

I Social Policy Report Common Core Development and Substance

David T. Conley University of Oregon

Abstract

his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-

erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards

generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-

ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources

used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards

developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con- tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety

respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer

insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties

understand the effects on educationa[ practice.

Common Core Development and Substance

'he Common Core State Standards burst upon the scene in June 2010 and were quickly adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been followed by a period of reexamination in some states. Although the idea of standards

that are consistent across states has become controver-

sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu- cational governance and who should control curriculum are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn- thesis of college and career readiness standards already developed, the expectations contained in the standards of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys- tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life in the dynamically changing economic and social systems of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez, Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon- zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State School Officers Et National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

This Social Policy Report considers the Common Core State Standards, where they came from, what they are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa- tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more students who are college and career ready, and the role of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL- oped is described, followed by a consideration of the facts about the standards and the evidence base used to create and validate them. Next is a high level summary of the standards at the college and career ready Level, which indicates the targets toward which the educational system should be pointing from preschool onward. This is

followed by a discussion of the implications for teaching and learmng generally and for early chldhood educators particularly. The brief concludes with tips on how educa- tors can be successful implementing the Common Core, policy implications and recommendations, and sites where readers can go for Common Core-related resources.

Why Common Standards? Educational standards are not new. They have been around since the early 1990s. Every state has had grade-level educational standards for at [east a decade, and most for much Longer than that. They express the knowledge and skills students need to master at each grade level and in specified courses or subject areas to be successful. Standards by their very nature leave the choice of the curriculum and teaching methods to local educators. Educational standards are well established in schools throughout the nation. They are widely accepted as the reference point for decisions about curriculum and instruction at the schoot district and school Level

Educational standards are important in the US be- cause of its long tradition of local governance of schools. Educational standards can help ensure that students in every school have the opportunity to acquire the knowl- edge and skills critical to success in college, career, and life. Standards serve as a frame of reference for local school boards as they make critical decisions about cur-

ricu[um, textbooks, teachers, course offerings, and other

aspects of district instructional programs. When devel- oped and implemented properly, they help ensure all students have access to an education that addresses the knowledge and skills they will need to be successful

In the past, vast differences in educational expec- tations existed across states. However, this variation had

fewer consequences in part because formal education

was not as important to all students, many of whom were able to obtain stable, well-paying employment in their focal community without high revels of education. The

Soc=aÿ Policy Repolt V28 #2 3 ConlmOFI Oole Development and Substance

situation is much different today. The U.S. economy has

transformed over the past 40 years (Carnevale, t991). Local economies in many parts of the country have seen radical transformation. Fewer jobs provide career-tong

security. To retain their jobs, workers more often need to

acquire new, more complex skills (Carnevale, Gainer,

Me[zer, 1990). An educational system that is based on the assumption that people will hve in one community doing one job their whole Uves is no longer as rea[isUc. Neither is a system that enables some students to be lifelong, adaptive learners while leaving many others with only minima[ knowledge and skills. The role of educational standards is to ensure that all students have access to an education that enables them to be successful in a rapidly changing economy and society. Success is going to require the strong knowledge foun- dation that high, consistent academic standards provide.

The need for improved college and career readiness has been made elsewhere in greater detail (Carnevale, Jayasundera, Iÿ Cheah, 2012; Con[ey, 2014). How- ever, several staUstics help it[us[rate the need for stu- dents to be prepared better for college. ACT annually publishes a report on the number of students taking its test who meet its col- lege readiness benchmarks.

In 2012, 52 percent of all high school graduates took the ACT, and 25 percent of test takers reached the college readiness level in all four areas tested (English, reading, mathematics, and science) (ACT, 2012). The Institute for Education Sci- ences reported that 20 percent of students in 2007-2008 indicated that they took remedial courses in college (Sparks ÿ Malkus, 2013). The rate was higher for two- year institutions and open-enroUment cot[eges.

The Common Core State Standards are a potentially important component in any comprehensive strategy to make more students fully ready for cotlege and careers. Evidence suggests they are aUgned with the demands of college and careers (Con[ey eta[., 2011a, 2011b). They can be used to create a common language that identi- fies what students need to learn to be college and career ready. Building upon previous experience with U.S. and

international standards, Common Core State Standards are a focused and challenging set of [earmng expecta- tions that educators can interpret and implement locally through the curriculum, programs, and teaching methods they decide are best stated to their students.

How They Were Developed The Common Core State Standards came into being in response to the challenges of the new U.S. economy and the desire of states to ensure their standards were suf- ficient to meet those challenges. They were designed to ensure that students have the opportumty to [earn core knowledge and develop critical skirls and to eqmp stu- dents to be successful lifelong [earners who can adapt to new challenges and take advantage of new opportumtles.

They hop educators create consistency of expectations, equity of opportunity, clar- ity of [earmng targets, and economies of scale as they make decisions about their cumculum and instructional practTces.

Evidence Used in the Development of the Common Core State Standards The development process for the Common Core State Standards drew upon over a decade's worth of ewdence describing what ]t takes to

be ready to succeed in postsecondary career-training or generabeducatlon courses. The evidence base that

underUes the standards contains much of what has been learned about college and career readiness standards over the past decade and includes studies of the content of entry-level co[tege courses, focus groups of instructors

in those courses, readiness standards developed from expert judgment processes, vaUdatlon studies of these standards, and instructor surveys of the ma)or topics taught in genera[ education courses.

In 2003, Standards for Success (Conley, 2003) re- teased the first comprehensive set of college readiness standards based on research conducted at over a dozen universities around the country, all members of the As- sociation of American Universities. The American Diploma Project (Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, ÿ Thomas

Social Policy Repot1 V28 #2 4 Common OOlO Development and Substance

B. Fordham Foundation, 2004) quickly followed suit with standards that also addressed community college and workplace readiness. Both ACT and the College Board released their versions of co[(ege readiness standards, as did the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, soon thereafter (ACT, 2011; The ColLege Board, 2006; Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 8t Educational Pohcy Improvement Center, 2009). National testing orgamzation ACT in 2009 conducted a nationwide curriculum survey that collected information about college instructor per- ceptions of the skills students need to succeed in their courses (ACT, 2009). The College Board administered a similar survey that included high school teachers along with college instructors (Kim, Wiley, & Packman, 2009).

All of these documents provided important reference points for the Common Core State Standards. They helped ensure they were derived from standards that were devel- oped with significant educator input and previously tested in the field and validated (ConLey, McGaughy, Cadigan, Ftynn, et at., 2009; ConLey, McGaughy, Cadigan, Forbes, a Young, 2009). Content area standards from prestigious groups such as the National Assessment Governing Board and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also served as important reference points (National Assess- ment Governing Board, 2008; National Cound[ of Teachers of Mathematics, 2003). In addition, state standards were referenced. Most notably, Massachusetts and Catiforma standards were valuable sources, and both have been identified as being of high quality by independent studies of state standards (KLein et al., 2005; Stotsky, 2005).

The standards are longitudinal in scope, designed down from the goal of college and career readiness. This is a departure from most previous standards, which tended to be designed independently at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The standards sought to follow a developmentally appropriate sequence across grade levels leading to cotteÿe and career readiness by the end of high school WhiLe the standards do repre- sent a challenge, they are based on expectations that students in the US and elsewhere have proven capable of meeting. Achieving them will require changes in educational practice though, and examples of which are discussed tater.

In addition, the experience of other countries with high educational expectations helped identify knowledge and skills that are universally important (Schmidt et at., 2001). These international comparisons helped ensure the standards were set at the right Level of challenge. For example, the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS) yielded detmted profiles of the subject matter taught at each grade [eve[ in numerous countries, which assisted in identifying the most effec- tive sequencing of mathematics topics (Schmidt et a[., 2001). Additional research conducted on TIMSS data and the results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) along with observations about high performing nations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ko- rea helped to identify the mathematics skills that are ex- pected in other countries and the types of texts and [eve[ of complexity found in other nations (Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell, ÿ Pollock, 2005; G]nsburg, Lelnwand, Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; Ginsburg, Leinwand, ÿ Decker, 2009). A study by the American Institutes of Research demonstrated the wide range of challenge levels pres- ent in U.S. state standards when they were benchmarked against TIMSS (Phillips, 2010).

Development and Review Process The initial drafts of the Common Core State Standards were w|dety reviewed and commented upon by educa- tors, state education department staffers, subject-area

orgamzat]ons, and a wide range of interested parties in the genera[ public. The results generated from the review process were incorporated into the final version, which was presented to states in June 2010. Forty-four states have now adopted the Enghsh language arts (ELA) Common Core State Standards, and 43 have adopted the math standards. Figure 1 presents an overwew of the timehne for the development process for the Common Core State Standards.

The evidence base underlying the Common Core State Standards and the process used to develop the standards was reviewed fn detaff by a Vahdatlon Commit- tee appointed by the sponsors, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association (Council of Chief State School Officers Ft National Gover- nors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). After five months of review that included group meetings and individual critiques and comments, the committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse the standards. It indicated that standards contained the core knowledge students need to be college and career ready, was informed by re- search, had been developed appropriately, was dear and challenging, and was comparable to expectations that other leading nations have of their students.

Social Policy_Report V28//2 -5 Common Coÿe Development and Substance

i+gUÿ ÿmmÿn/Cotedege!opment process timeline

@

+ /

J • [ ÿ+ t

D Mid 1990s-2010 Tÿcnty :,ears of standards based ¢ducattorÿ .. • States develop conlent standards "ÿolunlanl) and opolattonally

*No Olld Lÿtl Behind (2001) mandates steps to adopt standards • Considerable vartatlon across states m terms of subject matter taught and chaUenge ]es el at whicker is taught, sÿquenced, and requÿd

• 1996 group of nathan's go,.emorx e stahlBhed Achieve, devoted Io improving educal:onat quahty across states and develop mg of of the Dst sets ofeolkÿgo rÿadmÿss standards, the American Diploma Pÿojv ct

. Adequate )earl) progress (AÿP) data, requtred byNtlB, along ÿ,vlth othernational dala sources such as those Iÿom the National

% " ÿ Assessment ofEducattorml Pÿogress (NAIÿ. alhw compamon of student pezformanc¢ across states i O P0ase 1 2009+2010 Standardÿ Dovebpment, cosponsored b) the Counoÿ of GatofState School Oltÿers (CCSSO) and Iho

Hatmnal Go..emDrÿ ASSO.ÿ atÿan Cÿnt¢ r for ÿLst practices (NGA O¢nt¢ 0 .. +ÿ"ÿ ÿ+ÿ++ 1 .StandardsDo,¢lopmentWot].group State lÿdÿffarLmade upofparents, teach ...... hoolad ........... p ...... d state

"ÿ " " leaders through membarshlp m the CCSSO and the NGA Center

i 4 ÿ I IaPhaso 2 FÿedbaekGcoup Multiplo[oundsoffeedbackgarnoÿd from slates, teachors, researehÿrs, htghcredueation, and thegeneral pubbo Paase 3 Vaitdatton Committee hldependent, natlonaleducatton experts nomalalÿd bystatesand nattonatorÿanÿattons roxlswthe (x:z,s to ensure the) meet dose!opmont cntam

JUnÿ 20t0 Final CCSS released m.hne 2010

E 2010-2011 Approxhnat¢ly fort) states adopLCCSS 2012-20t3 Forty.O.e states have adopted tba CC:SS

From Conleÿ D. T. 12014a). Gettm9 ready for college, careers, and the common core: What every educa - tor needs to know. San Franmsco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Repnnted wÿth permlsmon.

Evidence of the Quality of the Common Core State Standards Once the standards were devetoped and reteased a num- ber of analyses were conducted to ascertain the quahty of the standards. Almost every state compared its standards to the Common Core State Standards to identify common- a[ities, differences, and omissions. National orgamzat]ons

undertook simitar anatyses. The authors of a 2010 study sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation con- ctuded that the Common Core State Standards are clearer and more rigorous than the vast major]ty of existing state standards (Carm]chae[, Martino, Porter-Magee, Ft Wilson,

2010). A separate study pubtished in 2012 used statistica[ techniques to conctude that states with standards more like the Common Core math standards had, on aver- age, higher NAEP scores than did states whose standards atigned less with the Common Core (Schmidt ÿt Houang, 2012). These studies strengthen the conc[umon that the Common Core State Standards represent an improvement on the standards currentty in place in most states•

Two other studies spec]fica[ty examined the reta- tionship between the Common Core State Standards and college and career readiness• The first study, Lininÿ Up, compared the Common Core to five sets of high qua[- ity standards (Con[ey eta[., 2011b). One was Standards

for Success, described previously. Two of the five were exemplary state K-12 standards (Cahfornm and Mas- sachusetts). One was the Texas postsecondary system's co[{ege and career readiness standards, and one was the Internat]ona[ Baccalaureate, an international orgamza-

tion with a long history of preparing students for the most demand]ng postsecondary institutions in the wor[d. The study found a high degree of ahgnment between the Common Core State Standards and these exemplary stan- dards geared to co[[ege and career readiness.

A second study, Reachÿnÿ the Goal, queried nearly 2,000 instructors from a cross-section of U.S. postsecond-

ary institutions to determine ]f the Common Core State Standards were app[icabte and important to entry-[eve[ courses ÿn 25 different subject areas (Con[ey eta[., 2011a). These included subjects necessary for a bacca- laureate degree atong with those associated w]th career preparation. The results of the study indicated that instructors found nearty a[[ of the Common Core State Standards to be appticabte and important to the success of students in their courses.

A study of curricular coherence exptored the reta- tionshÿp of the Common Core State Standards in math- emat]cs to student achievement internat]ona[ty (Schm+dt t Houang, 2012). It found a very high degree of mm][ar-

r---ÿ --

Social Pohcy Report V28 #2 O01-nlTlOFI O0le' Development and Substance

ity between the Common Core mathemat]cs standards and the standards of the hlghest-ach]ev]ng nations that partldpated in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1995. A subsequent analysis revealed wide variation in the degree of alignment of the math standards of state standards in effect ]n 2009 and those ]n Mgh-achlevlng nations.

Looking at the ELA standards, Ach]eve, Inc. com-

pared high-achieving educat]onal systems in Alberta, Canada and New South Wales, Australia with the Common Core State Standards (Achieve, Inc., 2010). They found that, while the specific language of grade-level expecta- tions may differ, standards across all three systems are comparable in rigor and share a s]mllar orgamz]ng struc-

ture (i.e., by outcomes, by strand, by [ever) and a com-

mon focus on the most important student knowledge and skills in English language arts.

These studies support the conctusion that the Com- mon Core State Standards are dearer in emphasis and at a higher level of cogmtlve chatlenge than many previous state standards. These analyses also illustrate the fact that the Common Core State Standards are consistent with the national and international consensus about stu- dent performance important to post-high school success. While additional efforts to validate, refine, and improve the Common Core State Standards will be necessary, the standards in their current form represent a solid starting point toward the goat of ensuring consistent, high, and appropriate expectations for U.S. students.

Figure 2. Readmg College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards

Key Ideas and Details • Read ctosely to determine what the text says exphcitly. • Read ctosely to make togica[ inferences from it. • Cite specific textural evidence when wnting or speaking to

support conclusion drawn from the text. • Determine central, ideas or themes of a text and anatyze their

development • Summarize the key supporting detaits and ideas. • Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop and

interact over the course of a text.

Craft and Structure • Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, mctud-

mg determ|mng technicat, connotative, and figurative mean- lngs.

• Analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone. • Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentenc-

es, paragraphs, and l.arger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.

• Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.

Summary of the Common Core State Standards The major elements of the Common Core State Standards can be accessed online. Below is a summary of several

important areas covered by the standards with an example of their structure. The summaries include the college and career readiness anchor standards in reading and writing and the Standards for Mathematical Practice to provide a better sense of what students are supposed to know in these areas. Understanding the larger picture of [earn- ing outcomes helps in the process of setting appropriate expectations at each grade level reading to college and career readiness. This is different from the more com-

mon practice of designing scope and sequence based on grade-level preferences or traditions and not necessarily on

learning progressions tied to student developmental capa- bilities and the goal of college and career ready students.

'Integration of Knowledge and Ideas • Integrate and eval.uate content presented in diverse media

and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

• Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the ewdence.

• Analyze how two or more text address s]milar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity • Read and comprehend complex Literary and information texts

independently and proficientty.

From Conleyj O. T. (2014a). 6ettinÿ reody for college, careers, and the common core: What every educator needs to know. San Frans|sco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Repnnted

th permission. The standards are Copyright 2010. National Governors Assocla. bon Center for Best Practices and Counal of Chief State School Officers. AU rights reserved,

S&clal Policy Repolt V28 #2 7 Common Coÿe' Development and Substance

I

i Figure 3 Writing College and Career Readiness i Anchor ÿandards

Figure 4 Standards for Mathemahcal Practice s

!F ÿ - ................. ,'I Text Types and Purpose - - • Wdte arguments to support da]ms m an analysis of substan-

twe topics or texts. • ÿ Use valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence, ii

I " wi;ite informatlve/explanatory text to examine and convey ii ! complex ideas and information dearly and accurately ,: I thr0ughtheqffect]ve.se{bction, organlzafilon, and analysis ÿf !l, ; t: , Ii ! • :Write naÿtratiÿies to develop:real or imagihed experiences or II events. '! • Use effective technique, welbchosen details, and weft- (ÿ

structured event sequences,

I Produobon andDisinbuhon of Writing i. i • Produce clear and coherent writing in which the develop. ' i mentÿgrganizati°nÿand style are appropnate to task, il IllIÿ purpoSe;;ÿDdaudieilce, , , . , !ÿ,, QqYÿlop{ÿdÿstmngthenÿ.W\dt.mg as needed by p{anning, revls- i' i/ iiÿ, edltillÿ, l:ewHting, at:trying a new approach.

• Use technology, including the lnternet, to produce and pub- I fish wnUng and to interact and collaborate with others.

h

Research to BUild and Present Knowledge • Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects ÿ

• based On:fgcusedÿqUÿsti°Ds'L DemonÿnClerst'aÿd!ÿgof the subject under

• Ga!heÿ" ÿetevant information from mutUpte print and digita[ sources.

, • Assess the credibility and accuracy of each source. • Integrate the information while avoiding ptaglarism. • Draw evIdence from literary or informational, texts to

suppoÿ.ana[ysis, reflection, and research.

i, I. -Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them ii 2. Reason abstractly and quanUtativety.

3. Construct viabte arguments and cntique the reasoning of : others. i 4, Mode[ with mathematics,

Use appropriate tools stratesEaffy. ,,I 6, Attend to precision. !i 7. Look for and make use of structure, ,i 8, Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

enÿ Over extended time fra:ÿSe ,time for r:s" sÿarcliyÿ "fle(ÿti0n,.anÿ;reVislon) ndsh r r time fram (a

singl,e sitUnÿ 9ra day or two) fora range of tasks, purposes, and audiences.

From Contey, O. Tÿ (2014a), 6ettlng ready for college, careers, and the com. . mO)iCOÿe, Whaÿeveryeducatofneedstoknow. SanFransisco, CN. Jossey.Bass, ' . Re#dnted ÿth QeÿIsslgn. Thestandards are Copynght 2010, National Governors i Assodalioo Center.for Best Practices and Counc [ of Chief State School Officers All

From Conley, D, T, (2014a). Oettlnÿ ready for college, careers, and the common core: What every educator needs to know. San Fransÿsco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Repnnted with permission. The standards are Copynÿht 2010. National GovernorsAssodat]on Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers All nÿhts reserved.

Figure 5 Example of the Structure of Common Core State Sÿandards Fourth Grade Math

Uildef$ Landilÿg and praperhes 1 of o£eratloi,; 5taridÿrd

to perforrn nlL'ÿtldlÿit ÿ .... +/

ariÿtirletlc

Standard

From Conley, D. T. (2014a). Gettmÿ ready,or colleÿe, careers, and the common core: What every educator needs to know. San Franslsco, CA: Jossey Bass. Reprinted with permission.

Social Policy Report V28 #2 8 Common Coie Development and Substance

Practices Emphasized by the Common Core State Standards White much of what is in the Common Core State Stan- dards is currently taught in schools that already success- fully prepare students for college and careers, at[ schools wilt need to review their practices to ensure their cur- ricutum and instructional program addresses the content and Learning processes contained in the standards (Con- tey, 2014a). Student Achievement Partners (2014) has identified practices that support successful implementa- tion of the Common Core State Standards ("Florida Board of Education", 2014). These examptes focus on math- ematics and hteracy.

contexts. In content areas outside of math, particularly science, students are given the opportunity to use math to make meaning of and access content.

Mathematms Greater focus on fewer toptcs The Common Core State Standards call for greater focus in mathematics. Rather than racing to cover numerous topics that are then not

retained, the Standards deepen student engagement with key mathematical content. The standards focus deeply on the major work of each grade so that students can gain strong foundations, sohd conceptual understanding, a high degree of procedural skit[ and fluency, and the ability to apply math to solve problems inside and outside the math classroom.

Stronger hnkage among topics and thinking across grades. The Common Core State Standards are designed around coherent progressions from grade to grade. Learn-

ing is carefully connected across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years. Each standard is not a new event, but an

extension of previous learning. Additional or supporting topics are designed to serve the grade [eve[ focus, not to detract from it. For example, instead of data displays as an end in themselves, they are an opportunity to do grade-leveL word problems.

More emphasÿs on conceptual understandtng, procedural skdls and/kuency, and appltcatlon The stan- dards call for conceptual understanding of key concepts, such as place value and ratios. Students must be able to access concepts from a number of perspectives so that they are able to see math as more than a set of mnemon-

ics or discrete procedures. In addition, they cart for speed and accuracy in calculation. Students are given opportu-

reties to practice core functions such as s]ngte-dlglt mul-

tiplication so that they have access to more complex con- cepts and procedures. The standards also expect students to use math flexibly for applications in problem-solving

English language arts/Literacy Regular practice wtth complex texts and their academtc language Rather than focusing solely on the skirts of reading and writing, the Common Core State Standards highlight the growing complexity of the texts students must read to be ready for the demands of college and careers. They build a staircase of text complexity so that at[ students are ready for the demands of cortege- and career-level reading by the time they leave high school. Closely related to text complexity-and inextricably con- nected to readinÿ comprehension-Is a focus on academic

vocabulary: words that appear in a variety of content areas and have different meanings in different academic contexts.

Reading, wrlhng and speaking grounded en ew-

dence from texts, both literary and informattonal The Common Core State Standards place a premmm on students writing to sources (i.e., using ev]dence from

texts to present careful analyses, welt-defended claims, and dear information). Rather than asking students ques- tions they can answer solely from their prior knowledge or experience, the Common Core State Standards expect students to answer questions that depend on their hawng read a text or texts with care. The Common Core State Standards also require the cultivation of narrative writing throughout the grades. In tater grades a command of se- quence and detail wilt be essential for effective argumen- tative and informational writing. The reading standards also focus on students' ablhty to read carefully and grasp reformation, arguments, ideas, and details based on text

evidence. Students should be able to answer a range of text-dependent questions, questions in which the answers

require inferences based on careful attention to the text. Bulldtng knowledge through content-rich non/kc-

tton The Common Core State Standards represent a new balance between content rich non-fiction and literary texts. In K-5, fulfilling the standards requires a 50-50 balance between informational and hterary reading. Informational reading primarily includes content rich non-fiction in history/social studies, science, and the

arts; the K-5 Standards strongly recommend that students build coherent genera[ knowledge both within each year and across years. In 6-12, ELA classes place much greater

attention to a specific category of informational text-lit- erary nonfiction-than has been the case previously. In

Social Policy Repolt V28 1t2 Common Cote Development and Substance

grades 6-12, the Standards for Literacy in history/sociaL studies, science, and technical subjects ensure that

students can independently build knowledge in these disdphnes through reading and writing. It is worth not- ing that the Common Core State Standards do require substantial attention to Literature throughout K-12. HaLf of the required reading in K-5 and the core of the reading in 6-12 is assumed to be hterature.

Another area where young children can begin deveL- oping capabilities that wl[[ support success in mastenng the Common Core is the acquisition of key [earning skirts (Figure 7). In other words, children can begin developing techniques and dispositions from a very early age that enable them to be [earners who are in charge of their

Implications for Early Childhood Educators White the Common Core State Standards were not neces- sarily designed with early childhood education specifi- caLLy m mind, it is crystal dear that the Common Core cannot succeed fuLLy without the involvement and contri- buUons of early childhood educators. What are some of the things they can do?

First and foremost, early childhood educators can help students develop the academic vocabulary critical to academic success. Words such as argument or explain

are used in muLtipLe academic contexts in sometimes radicaLLy different ways, and helping young children understand how these important words mean different things in different contexts in school is an important foundational skit[.

Figure 6 contains examples of some academic words that students wltt encounter throughout their schooling. Most of these are not necessarily appropriate for preschool children without extensive scaffolding and support, but the idea that some words are associated with academic [earning and that their meanings might be somewhat different in school than they are outside of school can be developed by preschool educators.

Figure 6 Sample Verbs of the Common Core

AnaLyze Extract Modify Refer Annotate Foreshadow Note Rephrase AnUclpate Frame OutLine Review Compare Generate Persuade Show CompiLe Hypothesize Portray Specify Define Incorporate Prectucle Suggest Oenve Integrate Presume Vatidate Discern Locate Prove Verify Excerpt Model Recall

own [earning.

Strategies and techniques such as goat setting, self- monitoring,

attention to de-

taft, time man-

agement and sus-

tained task focus,

and persistence are examples of toots that writ be increasingly criti-

cal as students progress through the grades and are given as-

signments that require increased seLf-direction

and the ability to engage in tearmng more deepty.

The Four Keys to Cortege and Career Readi-

ness is an em-

pinca[ty vatidated modet that con- tams 42 compo-

nents associated

Figure 7 Key Learning Skills and Techniques

Key Learning Skills & Techniques

Ownership of Learnmg • Goat Setting • Persistence • Seff-awarenes

From Conley, D. T. (20|4a). Getting ready/or college, careers, and the common core. What every educator needs to know San Franslsco, CA: Jossey-gass. Repnnted ÿth permission.

MohvaUon • Hetp-seeking • Progress Momtoring • Serf-efficacy

Learning Techmques • ]']me Management • Test Taking SklUs • Note Taking Skirts • Memorization/recaLL • Strategic Reading • CottaboraUve Learning • TechnoLogy

From CoNey, 1), £ (2014a), 6etting readyfor college, careers, and the common core: What every educa- tor needs to know. San Franslsco, CA: Jossey Bass. Repnnted vath permission.

with success in postsecondary studies (Contey, 2014a). The four Keys are Key Cognitive Strategies, Key Content KnowLedge, Key Learning Skirts and Techniques, and Key Transition KnowLedge and Skffts. White early childhood ed- ucators can address aLL four Keys in different ways, they may be able to add the greatest value to student [earning success by teaching children the specific strategies and techniques needed to do welt in academic settings. Many of these skirts also generalize to tile success as welt.

This Key is dwided into Ownership of Learning and Learning Techniques. Students can be taught to take greater responsibility for and control over their [earning

Social Pohcy Report V28 #2 10 Common Coÿe' Development and Substance

by setting goals for themselves, reflecting on which Learn- ing techniques are working weU and which are not, and by persisting with challenging and difficult tasks, not giving up. They can also begin to master specific techmques such as Learning to remember things efficiently, working with others to learn, making decisions about how they manage their time, and being exposed to technology as a Learning too[. These are all important capabihties that wit[ help them subsequently in school and will begin to prepare them for postsecondary success while not restricting their ability to learn as young children by expionng, experi- menting, and experiencing the sheer joy of discovery.

FlnaUy, early childhood educators can begin helping children set high aspirations for themselves and be aware of the wide range of futures available to them. Although anything Like career exploration is too much to ask, young children can be made aware of a range of oppor- tunities beyond the stereotypical occupations that young children often cite when asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" The goal here is only to suggest pos- sibilities and, in the process, establish a mindset that pre- disposes chffdren to academic engagement, goat setting, and the cu[twation of high but achievable aspirations.

One other important implication of the Common Core for early childhood educators is the need to align programs better with the PreK-3 education. This can be done a variety of ways including the increasingly popular PreschooL-Grade 3 approach (PreK-Thlrd Grade National Work Group, 2014). The Common Core creates a frame- work for alignment between high school and college, middle school and high school, elementary school and middle schoo[, and also between preschoo[ and the pri- mary grades. While informal atignment may exist focally m some places, the Common Core State Standards create both the need and the means to increase atignment. Educators can identify the knowledge, ski[is, and Learn- ing dispositions that students will need to determine the [earmng experiences needed in the PreK-3rd grade years to ensure that they are achieving the foundationa[ skills necessary to progress through the Common Core se-

quence successfully (National Association for the Educa- tion of Young Children, 2012).

an awareness of the relationship between current stan-

dards and the Common Core State Standards by examin- ing gap analyses that show which areas are covered by both sets of standards and which are addressed on[y by one set or the other (Achieve3000, 2014). Then educators can decide which content to add or remove from their curriculum. This process lets teachers decide how best to organize their curricula.

It wi[[ also be beneficial for educators to gauge and understand the cognitive level of the standards. While a gap analysis often focuses on the nouns (i.e., content

covered), cognitive challenge is gauged by [ooklng at the verbs (i.e., the cognitive processes students are expected

to use when [earmng the content). Doing so helps teach- ers see that although the Common Core State Standards often contain familiar content, they may need to teach the material at a different, higher cognitive level than current[y. Knowing where the standards expect more cog-

nitive engagement is important as curriculum developers, teachers, and others begin to translate the standards into practice. This knowledge helps achieve the fundamental goal of the Common Core State Standards, which is to develop deeper understanding of a core set of content and skills by all students, and to do so ÿn a way that Leads to readiness for college, career, and [fie (Con[ey, 2014).

Myths and Truths about the Common Core State Standards A great deal has been written and said about the Com- mon Core State Standards. Several of the most commonly raised questions about the Common Core State Standards are addressed here.

How Educators Can Be Successful with the Common Core State Standards Educators who are making the transition from their cur- rent state standards to the Common Core State Standards Likely do so m severat steps. They may want to begin with

Common Core State Standards Were Developed by the Federal Government The standards were not developed by the federal govern- ment. As noted, they resulted from a process that was mÿtiated entTre[y outside of government by the nation's governors and educatIon commissioners. They were sub-

jected to careful and rigorous scrutiny by content-area ex-

perts, state education department staff, teachers, school district administrators, members of community groups, parents, and many other individuals. The federal Race to the Top competition provided points to states that adopted a set of college and career readiness standards, and many states, but not all, chose to adopt the Common Core State Standards around the time of this competition. In a 2010 survey, state education Leaders cited educational quabty

Social Policy Repod. V28 if2 11 Conlmol-ÿ Oole' Development and Substance

issues more so than Race to the Top (RttT) as important factors in their states' decision to adopt the Common Core State Standards (Kober Et Rentner, 2011),

Common Core State Standards Require a Common Assessment The Common Core State Standards are owned and man-

aged entirely independently and separately from the two assessments be]ng developed by states to measure

the standards. The Council of Ch]ef State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Nat]ona[ Governors Association (NGA), both voluntary non-profit orgamzatlons composed of state leaders, hold the copyright for the Common Core State Standards. Ent]rety separately from the sponsoring agencies, two consortia of states are being funded by the U.S. Department of Education to create assessments of

the Common Core State Standards. The Partnership for Read]ness for ColLege and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) consist of voLun- tary groups of states that have banded together to create high quality assessments to measure student progress toward learning key sM[ls identified in the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathemat- ]cs. States can choose to participate in either, both, or

neither of these assessment consortia, and a number of

states never signed up in the first place, changed alle- giances, or dropped out attogether and are now develop- ing their own tests of the Common Core State Standards (Gewertz, 2013).

scratch and redes]ÿIn all that they do. They are organized and sequenced in ways that lead toward all students being college and career ready, and they do so by focusing on key content and higher cognitive challenge. This is consis- tent with current knowledge about [earmng theory {Brans- ford, Brown, ÿ Cocking, 2000; Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegnno, 1999; PelIegnno & Hffton, 2012). In this sense, the Common Core State Standards encourage best prac-

tices ]n teachmÿl and learning. Educators build on their current effectwe methods to implement the Common Core State Standards in ways that make the most sense for the students in their classroom.

Implications for Policy and Implementation Implementing the Common Core State Standards with fidehty creates the potential for substantial and pos]twe changes and improvements in the ways in which students learn. Current curriculum and instructional methods large-

[y favor compbance-based [earmng where chffdren follow directions to complete tasks without engaging deeply In what they are learning. The key changes contained in the Common Core all suggest greater student ownership of [earning and more cognitwe processing of content by students, who will need to be able to use and apply what they are learning, not just repeat it, Imphcat]ons for policy and ]mptementation may be based on several key features.

Common Core State Standards Specify the Instructional Methods and Curricula That Teachers Must Follow The standards identify outcomes that are Important for students; they do not specify the instructional methods or curriculum teachers choose to address the broad frame-

work estabhshed by the Common Core State Standards. The outcomes students Wl[[ ultimately achieve are varied and include readiness for hundreds of potent]a[ college majors and literally thousands of potentla[ careers. The Common Core State Standards expect teachers to pick cur- nculum and use instructional methods best suited to their students and that result ]n their students hawng choices avaitabIe to them when they complete high school.

The Common Core State Standards Require Schools to Start from Scratch to Redesign Their System The Common Core State Standards are not such a radi- cal departure that they require educators to start from

Professional Development Adoption of the standards wffl be a major undertaking in most school systems. Most teachers will need time and training to modify their current approaches in ways that reflect the focus and depth of the Common Core. For example, many teachers may find it challenging to expect students to use evidence to support their asser-

tions, to read informational texts, to think more deepty and systematicatly, to demonstrate a better command of language, and to use core mathematical concepts to solve more complex problems that may have more than one possible correct answer. As noted, schoo[ systems wilt

not be starting from scratch when adopting Common Core State Standards, but they will be changing from "business as usual" to a new way of thinking about learning, and

such change does not happen without a consistent and well planned professional devetopment effort.

Social Policy Repolt V28 li2 12 ConllllOn COle Development and Substance

Nature and Form of Assessment A revised assessment process may be necessary to cap-

ture this type of [earning and outcomes promoted by the Common Core State Standards. While Smarter Balanced and PARCC wff[ create useful tools that measure many aspects of the standards, those tests will by no means assess all the standards. Nor will one-time summative as-

sessments of this nature get at student development over time in areas such as complex problem solving, writTng in multiple genres, or interpreting complex texts. If teach- ing and [earmng becomes focused primarily or exc[uswely on performing we[[ on one of the consortia assessments,

much of the promise of the Common Core State Stan- dards will be lost. The ultimate success of the standards will hinge to some degree on the ability of educators to develop and use a range of formatwe assessments that let students demonstrate the more complex thinking the standards are designed to ehc]t.

level The Common Core ]s organized in a way that facih- tates ski[[ development across grade levels. Educators, used to operating in isolation from one another, will need

to plan and work together in much more systematic and dehberate ways if students are to encounter these more complex cogmtwe capabitities from year to year, leading to mastery before they exit high school

Postsecondary Education Third is the issue of postsecondary education and its wllhngness to use and even to demand the more com-

plex and meaningful information on student readiness for college that the Common Core State Standards, implemented with fidehty and measured with appropri- ately sophisticated assessments, will generate. Without a demand by colleges for more information on complex student performance and deeper mastery of key content, it is less hkely students and teachers will expend the energy necessary to make this happen. Alternatives to traditional transcripts will be necessary. A digital profile that captures information across multiple dimensions of student knowledge, skills, dispositions, and metacogni- twe [earning skills is one way to approach this challenge (Conley, 2014b). Additionally, admission officers will need to communicate the value of such information and their willingness to use it in a range of declsions, not all neces- sarily high stakes.

Student Aspirations The Common Core creates a demanding set of learmng expectations. Currently, while schools and educators may

hope their students strwe for challenging futures, they do httle systematically or programmatlcally to help raise student aspirations. Students will need far more oppor- tunities to understand the academic and career options available to them if they take ownership of their [earn- lng and pursue the high standards of the Common Core State Standards. They will need to aspire to postsecond- ary education from a very early age because the [earmng progressions of the standards take time to master. They will need to have experiences that allow them to [earn more about themselves, their interests, how they [earn best, and what skills they will need to pursue the future of their choice.

Scope, Sequence, and Learning Progressions Learning progressions identify the development of key knowledge and skills across grade levels. Preschool and elementary teachers will need to make many more stra- tegic decisions about the cumculum and instructional activities they select to enable students to develop the skills in the [earning progressions, many of which will require practice over multiple years with increasing so- phistication and reduced scaffolding at each subsequent

Conclusion The Common Core State Standards represent a new way of thinking about education in the US. The practical ef- fects of implementing a set of standards that attempts to raise expectations in all U.S. schools to levels currently found only in the best U.S. schools and around the world in the educational systems of high performing countries are yet to be fully understood. And while the goals of Common Core advocates are clearly we[[ intentloned, It may also be worth restating that the goal is not stan- dardization, but higher ach]evement. This needs to occur while simultaneously preserwng and even energizing the local diversity and creatwity that Is the hallmark of the best of the U.S. educational system and what makes it

unique in the world, n

Social Policy Repott V28 If2 13 Oonlmoll OOle Development and Substance

References

Achieve, Inc. (2010). Achieÿqng the common core: Comparing the common core state standards for English language arts and hteracy in hlstorylsoclal studles, sclence and technical subjects and the standards of Alberta, Canada and New South Wales, Austraha. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham Foundatlon. (2004). The American diploma project: Ready or not: Creating a hlgh school dlploma that counts. Washington, DC: Ach]eve, Inc

Achieve3000. (2014). 10 steps for mlgratmg your cumculum to the Common Core Retrieved July 3, 2014 from http: llwww ach]eve3000.comlresourceslwh]te-paperslgated131

ACT. (2011). ACT College Readiness Standards. Retrieved November 23, 2011 from http: llwww act.orglstandardl

ACT. (2009). ACT national curriculum survey® 2009. Iowa City, Iowa. Author.

ACT. (2012). The condltlon of college ¢z career readiness 2012. Iowa City, Iowa: Author.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). Howpeople learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: Natlonat Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, CommTssion on Behavtorat and Social Sciences and Education, U.S. Department of Education.

Carmlchae% S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W. S. (2010). The state of state standards-and the Common Core-in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Carnevate, A. R (1991). America and the new economy: How new competltive standards are radically changing American workplaces. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carnevate, A. P, Garner, L. J , & Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Workplace basics: The skills employers want. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training and Development, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

Carnevate, A. R, Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The college advantage: Weathering the economic storm. Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Pobcy Institute, Center on Education and the Workforce.

The College Board. (2006). Standards for college success New York, NY: Author.

Conley, D. T. (2014). The Common Core State Standards: Insight into their development and purpose Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Con[ey, D. T. (2014a) Getting ready for college, careers, and the Common Core: What every educator needs to know. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wfley.

Contey, D. T. (2014b). New conceptions of college and career ready: A prone approach to admission. The Journal of College Admisslon (223).

Contey, D. 1". (2003). Understanding umversity success. A report from Standards for Success. Eugene, OR. Center for Educational Pohcy Research.

Contey, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011a). Lmm9 up' The relation- ship between the Common Core State Standards and Ave sets of comparison standards Eugene, OR' Educational Pohcy Improvement Center.

Contey, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzatez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011b). Reachinÿ the ÿoah The applicability and importance of the Common Core State Standards to college and career readiness Eugene, OR: Educational Pohcy Improvement Center.

Contey, D. T., McGaughy, C., Cad]ganÿ K., F[ynn, K., Forbes, J., & Veach, D. (2009). Alignment of the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards wRh entry-level general education courses at Texas postsecond- ary institutlons. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Contey, D., McGaughy, C., Cadigan, K, Forbes, J., & Young, B. (2009). Texas College and Career Readiness Im- ttatwe: Texas career and techmcal education phase I alignment analysls report. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Counclt of Chief State School Officers, & Natlonat Governors Association Center for Best Pract]ces. (2010). Reaching higher: The Common Core State Standards validation committee. Washington, DC: Author

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pel[egrino, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). Howpeople learn: Bndginÿ research and practlce. Washington, DC' National Academy Press.

Social PohcyRepor[ V28 #2 14 Oommon Oole Development and Substance

Fior]da Board of EducaUon approves Common Core changes. (2014, February 18) Retrieved from redeAnED webs]te" http ÿwww.redeÿnedÿnhne.ÿrgÿ2ÿ14ÿ2ÿnda-bÿard-educat1ÿn-approves-cÿmmÿn-cÿre-changesÿ

Gewertz, C (2013) Assessment consortla. Who's m and who's out.2 Educat]on Week. Retneved from Curriculum Mat- ters webs]te' http: I Ibiogs edweek orgledweeklcurncu[uml20131101m]ssoun_chooses vendor for 20.htmL

G]nsburg, A, Cooke, G., Le]nwand, S., Noel[, J , & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassesslng U.S. international math- emat iÿ performance New Andlngs from t he 2003 TIMS8 and PISA Washington, DC: Amerlcan InsUtutes for Research.

Glnsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pottock, E (2005). What the United States can learn from Sin- gapore's world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An exploratory study. Washngton, DC' American Institutes for Research.

G]nsburg, A., Lemwand, S., & Decker, K (2009). Informmg grades 1-6 standards development: What can be learned from hlgh-performmg Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Klm, Y., Wiley, A., ÿ Packman, S. (2009). Natlonal curriculum survey on English and mathematlcs New York, NY: College Board.

Klein, D., Braams, B. J., Parker, T., Quirk, W., Schmid, W, & Wilson, W. S. (2005). The state of state math standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B Fordham Foundation.

Kober, N, & Rentner, D. S. (2011). States' progress and challenges in implementing common core state standards. Washington, DC: Center on Education Pohcy

National Assessment Governing Board (2008). Mathematms framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author.

Natlona[ AssoclaUon for the EducaUon of Young Children. (2012). The Common Core State Standards: Caution and opportunity for early childhood education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/fl[es/naeyc/11_CommonCore1 2A rv2.pdf

National Counclt of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). A research compamon to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics Reston, VA: Author.

Pel[egrtno, J., ff H]tton, M. (Eds.). (2012). Education for hfe and work Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC' NaUona[ Academy Press.

PhiUips, G. W. (20t0). International benchmarking. State education performance standards. Washlnston, DC' American Institutes for Research.

PreK-Thlrd Grade National Work Group. (2014). Reduÿng the achievement gap by 4th grade The PreK-3rd ap- proach m action. Retrieved from http: / /prek-3rdgradenatlonalworkgroup.org/node/1

Schmldt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curncu[ar coherence and the Common Core State Standards for math- ematlcs. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294-308 doi:10.3102/O013189X12464517

Schmldt, W. H., McKnlght, C. C., Houand, R. T., Hslng Ch, W., Wiley, D., Cogan, L. S., 8: Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Sparks, D., 6t Ma[kus, N. (2013). Fi rst-year undergraduate remedial course t akl ng 1999-2000. 2003-04, 2007-08. Washington, DC: InsUtute for Education Sciences, National Center on Educational Statlstlcs.

Stotsky, S. (2005). The state of state English standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B Fordham Foundation.

Student Achievement Partners. (2014). Retrieved January 31, 2014 from http: //achlevethecore org/search?q=shlfts

Texas Higher EducaUon Coordinating Board, & Educational Pohcy Improvement Center. (2009). Texas College and Career Readiness Standards. Austin, TX: Authors.

Social Policy Repoll V28 #2 15 Common Cole, Development and Substance

GIFTED CHILD TODAY January 2015

COLUMNS [

Arguments for and

State Standards Against the Common Core

Joyce VanTasseI-Baska, KdDÿ

Abstract: This alticle ldentihes the algtunents for and tlgainst the common core state standalds m English languqge alia and mathematics Although the standalds need to be dliterentiated iot gitted students, the attthor suggests that these standards may offer a way to transform education in tile classroom, so that all students ate able to fulfill the,r learning potenttal.

Keywords: common core stttte standards, gifted education

with them iheir own assessments honlcally, the mlpetus fol tile new common core standards was boll1 of tile disÿausfaction ruth the results of these state-based effolts that employed lowel and uneven st'mdalds couplecl with even lowel assessments in maW states The decision to tr,' to estaNish "t set of national standards with eontlacted assessments that addressed them appeared to be on the toad to success, given past htstory Would it nol make sense to have all states requinng similal things of students in an age of nadon,d and international

competttlon, in an age of economic concerns tbÿ job skills that match the needs of employment mmkets?

CCSS ENGLISH

LANGUAGE ARTS AND

MATHEMATICS PRESEN'F

A DAUNTING CHAId£F, NGE

TO OUR SCHOOLS . . .

he COllcerns about tile new common cote standards ale so politicized that both sides ot the pohttcal spectrum• are

butlding alguments against their use as well as chfletent stakehoklels wtthin the educational famil); ,ÿpecitically, paents, tea&ers, and admmlstmto, s To suggesl that the criticisms ae misplaced is somewhat heletlcal Howeveq I do think it is hnpomlnt to clarify ceÿtam points regadmg the standards that shoukt suppolt theil continued use in schools,

"File new corllnlon cole standalds ,eptesent the second attempt m this countD' to laise standards tor all students. Irt the late 19808, thele was a SlmiM attempt, appma( bed diffemntl} [tom a pohtical perspective, to do a similar thing--provide standalds that focu,ÿed moJ e on Ingher level skills wltlnn tile snblect areas. plovide a pathway to hÿgllel conceptual learning, and elm, ate the discourse around insu uctional apploaches that emphasized inqu,, y including ploblem-based lem ning and question-asking Authentic assessment was also stressed at that Ume as an apptoptmte way to assess thÿs higher level learning. These standmds were deleated as a national movement by Ihe desire o[ mdMdual states to estabhsh their own standards and ahmg

2,

3

Arguments in Favor of the Standards

"Iqÿese arguments have been stated elsewhele m gdted education pubhcattons but the following teplesents a sy,lthesis of what Ideas have been developed to .ÿuppott tile use ot the gnghsh language sits (FLA) and math standards in schools

1. The conunon cole state standmds (CCSS) provide a lramewoÿk lot h,ghet level skill devdopment than has been the case wÿth eahel state standards

The CCSS locus on the use el instlUCtJonal tedmlques that me more open-ended and htghet level. "[lae C(,SS iequim students to produce evidence el learning through pÿoducts that emphasize the use of higher level skdlÿ. Both eotmactual agemes [el assessnlent dm-dopment, working across states, have dewsed and tested pel foHnance-based assessments that have many higher level exempla

DOI, 10 1 !7-[/10762175!4556535, From ÿCollege oT %lllam & Mary, Address correspondence, 1o Jeyce VanTasseI-Baska, EdD, Oenter Ior Talent Development, College of Wÿltlam & Mary, 6829 Derby Run Way, 6alnÿsvJlle, VA 20155, USA, e/nal jlvant@,vr&eau For fepnnts and permissions queees, please vlat 8AG[-'s Web site at Nip/Awcw sagepub comiioumalsPerml%ions nay Copy@ht © 2015 [he Aulilor(s)

60

voL 38 [] no 1 GIFTED CHILD TODAY

These arguments me strong ones foÿ gaining tile support of the Jted communiiT, As we have shown in om lecent teacher guides (see Hughes, Ketfler, Shaughnessy, & VanTassel-Baska, 2014; Johnsen, Ryser, 8: Assoultne, 2014), file standards are sufficiently stlong to build differentiated cuniculum for the gÿfted learner. At the same tune, the standards can he used to flame strong curriculum for mum typical learners as well Assessment approaches being emplo)ed mutot the approaches found to be dfective with gitted learners

etthel ELA or math. Many schools have not ÿesponded m a ptoactive way to otgamzmg ongoing ptofesstonal development to meet the challenge.

m 2lÿe,v also are many arguments about CCSS tlÿat ate liL4 and math ,7ÿeÿ![tc. hÿ k'LA, aome gtoups ate co,ceÿ ned that ÿlltdettlÿ will be leas egÿo.sed to gp eat lileÿ atw e became of the emphasis o, noÿHwtÿon ,eadng. Other gÿoups worry lhat studenls twll not Iearlÿ .sÿgflclenth, the opela/iona of malbemaliG t&ile ÿcuÿhtg too muclo attention ou theprocesses that undeJgnd ptoblem solving

These last three m guments aÿe mum general, yet important considerations for gifted learnels its well. Because thele is so lmmh that students need m know and be able to do, the use of well-oÿganized and sequenced standalds that pt ovkte pathways to advanced learning ale needed.

2, There zs peal conceJ n that teacbep s and schools lack the capaÿ iOÿ to implement these new slandaMs efJÿclive[y

The gear-up toward nnplementatlon of the CCSS has been slow, uneven across and wtthm states, and fiaught with the realihes of what schools me ready m do. Many teachers ate not uamed m the practices leqtumd to teach h,gher level sMlts m

Aldaough it is tree tlÿat the CCSS attempts to standmdtze what needs to be learned by Amencan students at given ,',tages of development m these cote sublect aaeas, tt does not repaesent an attempt to dictate to sdtools ol teachers as to hmv to go about ensunng that learning has occmmd (Council of Chlef State School Officers [¢CSSOI, 2011). Smndmds ale only the broad flamewoÿk within which cuuiculum and instruction ate developed. Conselvatives have attacked the standards because of the ';uong emphasis on standatdtzatlon that might be petce,ved as tedeml conttol. Liberals, however, have also attacked the CGSS, using the same standardÿzahon mgument, but on the basks that it may contribute to less it:<ltvlduat attention for students. Them ts always a need to be concerned about the level at which standmdtzahon gives way to individual adaptatÿ(ms

'I he stance of the gifted conmmmty has been to use the standmds and adapt for individual differences at the level of classroom activities and pmjeds

Arguments Against the Standards

1 "lÿe standalds lepreÿent a [edeJal takeovep ofeducatton that u,ill lead to a ha.dual cun'lcuhtm that is totally standardized

Arguments about the nature of the content and the processes oJ- the new standards ate healthy if they ale geared towald improvement at the implementanon stage The development of these standards was woven through existing evidence to suggest the substance of what the standards should contain and do take new dnections to pmvtde gleater balance m teaching [iteÿatme, for example, between the use of hcuon and tmn-flctk)n and m math, moving more toward nonÿdgorthmÿc problem solvmg. These charÿges ate still open to the inteÿpÿetatton of school'ÿ and teachers at ditlemnt stages of development. The standards do not confine, rather they provkte a k)cus for instruction.

4 7be new assessments aÿe too d{/ftc.ll, do notfoctts on ..porlanl content, and ÿw.ire lhe use qf te&noloÿw in t&ic'h ,slltdeiIts are ilol proficienl

Although most educators would adcnowledge that 50 sepalate state assessments 1'3 an meftlcient way to assess the learning level of American students, them is leas agreement on a vmble alternative The nero. CCSS asse.ssments clearly represent a step in the &tecuon of mum perfomÿance-based types o1 items that me mote open-ended and mquile greater effort on the pint of the student to complete. However, it ÿs unclear how U.S. students will perform undel these new testing folmats and onhne platform.',. One oi- the assessment agencies PARCC (Paltnetshtp for Assessment o{ Readiness tor College and Careers) hits been pmacttve m provtdmg altemam es fol schools in tile use of technology lot accessing the new assessments.Most states ale concerned about the performance level o! students. Pÿehmmary ev,dence from New York, foÿ example, suggests that students ale petfotmilag at loweÿ levels on the new assessments. This ÿtesult ÿs to be expected The level of peÿfonnance ÿequired is much hÿghe, than what eadÿe! state standards have. Perhaps as the stand'trds ate new, teachers need time to adjust mshu( tion

5. ht a recc, nt essaB Scbroede,-l)ama (2014) atgues that the new ÿtandardÿ weÿ e not &,.sgned wtth g!fled students tn mind and fall,sbort qf pt ot,iditÿgJor the .ldwtduahzation, collaboration, and letM oj'cttn tcuhtÿt that these students

equilÿ; thtts i.qaegh.g lkelrptogtess 11l schools

Although the 8chroeder-Daws essay praises the work o[ the National Association of Gifted Chikhen (NAGC) guides m providing assist'race 1ol teachers m translating the new

Other leasons for using the new

standards include the following:

1 The CCSS conelate well wÿth 21st-centmy ÿequirements for world learning and testing

2. The CCSS emphas, ze the knowledge imd ,',kills necessary foÿ working m high-powered careers.

3 The CCSS provide a common base fo, leanring at the national level.

61

GIFTED CHILD TODAY January 2015

standards mto dlffemntiatton acttvities and prelects, his cttttcÿsm of the standards themselves lemams. He then proposes his own model for dlffetenttatmg cuniculum, addmg to those we aheady have in the field The underlying message of the essay is that teachers should retain total control over the cunicuhlm foÿ the gifted, diflerentmtmg according to criteria and translating those cnteria into indmduahzed oppommÿties while not being influenced by outside standalds. Although I have empathy M this viewpoint of total diffemntiatton, it seems less than pragmatic in the face of the cuuent general education envHonment that calls for unitorm accountability through a standalds-based and assessment approach. Adaptation of the existing standmds seems a morn practmal way to ensure flint diffeÿentlation may occur, given that professtonal development elated to common core cumculum standmds ts ongoing. It

seems more hkely that we will get "air ume" with teachers where a structure fol protessional development (PD) already exists latheÿ than going it alone. The arttcle lightly asse!ts that them me no gumantees of unitoÿm differentiation tmdel any model of cumculal otgamzatum, Connecting to the existing CCSS eumcular flamewolks, however, may be om best optton.

Conflict of Interest

The attthoffs) declared no potential conflicts of mterest wtth respect to the lesemdl, autholship, and/oÿ publication el this atticle

Funding The author(s) lecelved no financial support re1 the research, authorship, and/el publication of this article

Conclusion

The CCSS m ELA and mathematics present a daunting challenge to om schools at a time when they may be least prepared to take it on, especially given lack of funding fol teacher sataues, deehning morale, and computing agendas Yet, it also otters the best hope for cohment high-level schooling for American students. The gifted communtty must join this effort and transk)ma om wotk to demonstrate to all that high-level standat& need high-level translations in the classroom if all students ate m fulfill their learning potentml Foÿ gifted learners, that teqtmes diffelentiation o1" the CCSS in a comprehensive al ticu tared wa}:

References

Common core standards now have cntÿs on the left, (2014, Febmm7 I6) )be New gcak Times

Council of Chtef State School Officma. (2011) htTASC ntodel coÿe teal hmg slandatd¢. A resomce for atate dlalogue Retueved tmm http'/i www ccsso orgkesou,(es/pmgmms/,nteraate teacher_assessment_ consortium %28mtasc%29 html

Hughes, C Kettler, T, ShmlghaessT, E. & VanTassel-Baska, J (2014) A gatde to dtJJetenttatton (ftloe CCSS EL4 ,Slandaÿ&lo, a&ÿattced leameÿa (Vol [1) Wa(o, "IX, Pmfiock Pm',s

lennlM, L (2014, Febmaq 27) A lesson on the common cote, flJe?¢ew Yolk 7trees

Johnsen 8 K, RDer, O R, & kssoutine, S G. t2014) A tea&eÿ'sgmde to using the Commott Cote State Standat& will) malhemattcalli, gÿed and advancedlearneJx. Waco, TX Pruhock Press

8chmedm-Daws, S J. (2014) k cuw fol the common core Gifted Fdttcatton Ptwa Quarteth,, 28(,4), 2.-10

Bio /oyce Vcm7?tsqeI-Baska, f'dl), is tbe Smtlh PtoJcÿ.sor Emertta at the College oJ" Wÿlliam N 34a(y m Vilgittia where ÿbe developed a graduate proglam and a reseaÿ ch and development center m gifted e&lcaliom Formed); .she tmtiated and d#ecled the Q, ntel /el Tale, tl Development at No, lhu.,estetvt Unh.,e,attÿ,

62

feature

NO COMMON OPINION OI T

CORE Also

• TEACHER GRADES,

. SCHOOL CHOICES,

• AND OTHER FINDINGS

FROM THE 2014 EDNEXT POLL

ON MOST POLICY QUESTIONS, public opinion changes slowly, if at all.

But when new msues arise, impmtant shifts can occur before opinion sorts itself into settled patterns. And, on occasion, critical events can jar opinion from settled patterns into a new equilibrium,

These generalizations apply as much to education policy as to opmion in othm areas of public life. During the eight years (2007 to 20!4) that the Education Next (EdNexO poll has been administered to a representative sample of American adults (and, in most of these years, m a representative sample of public school teachers), we have seen only minimal changes fi'om one year to the next on such important issues as charter schools, merit pay, teacher tenure, teachers unions, and tax cÿedits that fund private-school scholarships That pattern persists into 2014, despite heated public disputes concerning many of these topics.

Sometimes sharp changes in opinion do occm; For example,

the share of the punic that say it favors the Common Core State Standards slipped noticeably between 2013 and 2014. Establishing a common set of standards across states is a new policy proposal that emerged as a public issue only in 2011, and it appears as if many citizens have yet to decide where they stand on the mattm. Also, in 2009 we observed a steep drop in public support for higher school expenditures and higher teacher sNaries in the wake of the financial crisis and the economic recession, We now find that even by 2014 support for expen- ditures and salary increases has not returned to 2008 levels, at least among respondents told current per-pupil expenditures and teacher salm7 levels. A new, lower equihbrium has been established, perhaps because of the wallet tightening required by the slow, uneven economic recover):

These are among the many findings to emerge from this installment of the EdNext Survey, administered to some 5,000 respondents in May and June of 2014 (see methodology

by MICHAEL B. HENDERSON, PAUL E. PETERSON, AND MARTIN R. WEST

educatmnnext org WINTER 2025 ! EDUCATION NEXT 9

sidebat). Among other key findings are the fbllowing. 1) While Americans asked to evaluate the quality of teachers'

work think, on average, that about half of the teachers in their local schools deserve a gÿade of A or B, they think that more than one-f'ffth deserve a D or F; even teachms give these low marks to mote than 1 m 10 of their peers, on average.

2) More than one-fourth of all families with school-age chil- dlen have educated a child in a setting othm than a traditional public school.

3) The public thinks less moneyshould be spent on class-size reduction relative to the amount spent on teacher salaries or new books and technologies, if they are told the relative price ot each intervention.

We discuss these and other topics m this review of the 2014 EdNext poll, the complete results of which are available on the Education Next website.

Common Core State Standards Public debate ovm a nationwide effm t to set common edu-

cation standards has been tagmg m many states over the past year. Encouraged by the federal Race to the Top initiative, 45

of the public continues to support the standards set by CCSSI, and supportms outnumber opponents by a two-to-one margin, trend lines show serious erosmn in suppmt. In 2013, no less than 65% of the general public favored the standards, but that portion is now just 53% (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, the opposition has doubled from 13% to 26%. (The share talcing no position on the issue has remained essentially unchanged, at 21% in 2014.)

The debate has had a polarizing effect as well. In 2013, CCSSI gathered backers fl*om across the political spectrum. Since then, support among Republicans has fallen from 57% to 43%, while support among Democrats has remained nearly unchanged (64% in 2013 and 63% in 2014). Opposition among Republicans jmnped from 16% in 2013 to 37% in 2014. Opposition grew among Democrats as well, but to a much smaller degree; only 17% of Democrats express opposition now, up from 10% in 2013.

The staunchest opposition comes from the conservative wing of the Republican Patty. The Common Core has the support of a majority of self-described "moderate" Repubhcans (57%) and a pluralitT of "slightly conservative" Republicans (45%). It drops off considerably among Repubhcans who

Although a majority of the public continues to support the Common Core, trend lines show erosion in support.

states had by 2011 quietly adopted benchmarks that detail what students should learn at each glade level, set by the Common Cme State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), an entity formed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Yet the undertaking has become increas- ingly controversial as the standards have been implemented and appropriate tests devised. While most states remain com- mitted to the standards, oppositmn has been vmced both by conservative groups who fear expanded federal control and by teadÿers unions worried about the consequences for teacher evaluatmn. Five states under the leadership of conservative govmnors--Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--have rather repealed the standards or initiated a process to review them. From a qmte different place on the pohtical spectrum, the New York affiliate of the National Education Assocmtion has withdrawn ÿts support for the Common Core as implemented in that state, and the American Federation of Teachers is calling tbt a moratorium on all consequences attached to student test results while the standards are being implemented, a policy that has been affmned in California,

Declining, potal izilÿg public support. The controversy has had a striking impact on pubhc opmion. Although a majority

describe themselves as "conservative" (38%) or "extremely conservative" (23%),

Declining teacher support. Teachels, too, have soured on the Common Core (see Figure 1), Just a year ago, 76% of teachers backed the Common Core, but the pot tion in favor has now plummeted to 46%. Meanwhile, teacher opposi- tion has more than tripled, from 12% to 40%. (The per- centage without a positron on the issue remains essentially unchanged ) Once again, sÿgns of polarization are evident, with positive views expressed by Repubhcan teachers fall- ing by 34 points, from 69% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, while among D emoct atlc teachers the pet centage has slipped only 15 points, from 69% to 54%.

Especially intriguing is the flip in the opinion gap between teachers and the public as a whole, hÿ 2013, teachers were more positive m their views of the Common Core than the pubhc (76% compmed to 65%), but today teachers are less positive (46% compared to 53%). A year ago, only 12% of the teaching fmce expressed opposition--virtually the same as the public. Today, teachel opposition is nearly twice as high as opposition among the public (40% compared to just 26%).

A Tainted Bt and? The words "Common Cm e" elicit greater antagomsm than does the concept of common standards itself.

10 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N r E R 2015 educatÿonne×t, or9

feature

2014 POLl, HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST

While Common Core Support Slipped, a Majority of the Public Remains Favorable (Figure 1)

We discovered this by askmg one landomly chosen half of our respondents the same question as was posed to the other half, except that we dropped any specific mention of the Common Core. The difference in the questions posed to the two groups is in brackets below:

Opposition is glowing among Republicans and among teachers

Public

2013 2014 (Percent)

As you may know, m the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use [the Connnon Core, which are] standards for reading and math that are the same across the states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance Do you support or oppose the use of these [the Common Gore] standards in your state?

Republicans

Democrats

Teachers

Question: As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states, In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Com- mon Core standards in your state?

SOURCE: "the 20t.1 FdPle¢t Survey

t>ÿ Support {.ÿ2., Neither JU Oppose

When the Common Core label is dropped from the question, support for the concept among the general public leaps from 53% to 68%. &gnificantly, the pro- nounced partisan polarization evoked by the phrase Common Core disappears when the questmn does not include those seemingly toxic words. The level of sup- port among Republicans is 68%, vntually identical to the Democratic level of support. In other words, a broad consensus remains with respect to national standards, despite the fact that public debate over the Common Core has begun to polarize the public along partisan lines.

Perceptions versus CCSSI Stated Principles. When people oppose a label but not the basic concept to which it is attached, it may mean they have heard the label but understand it to refer to something else, possibly stone- thing more fad-reaching CCSSI emphasizes that state pm tmlpation remains voluntary, that local educators will retain control over instructional materials, and that the federal government will not gain access to information on indMdual students. As of now; each of these claims is factually correct.

Critics note, however, that the federal government has encouraged states to adopt the Common Core through the Race to the ÿIbp competitive grant program and a stieam- hned path to waivers from the prmdsmns of No Chdd Left Behind. They warn that adoptmn of the Common Cme wil! inevitably lead to greater federal control over instructional materials and monitoring of individual students' perfm mance.

Who is winning the battle of pubhc perception of Common Core design? 'lb find out, we first asked indi- viduals whether or not they had heald of the standards (we asked this question before gauging support) Only 43% of the public--but 89% of teacher s--says it had heard of the Common Core before the survey, indicating that the debate over the Common Core has yet to register in the minds of many Americans.

educatmnnext.org WINTER 2015 / EDUCATION NEXT 11

The public, on average, thinks about one-fifth of teachers

in the local schools are unsatisfactory (13% D and 9% F).

We then asked fl:ose respondents who said they had heard the phlase to identify three statements as true or fÿse or to say they do not know. In no case &d a majority of the respon- dents give an answer that corresponded with CCSSI's stated principles, In two instances only a small minority understood the principles in the same way as CCSSI itself (see Figure 2).

Teacher perceptions were much more consistent with CCSSI's stated view, however. Although a majority of teachers perceived two of the three statements in Figure 2 in a way that is consistent with ccssrs position, only a minol ity of the public petceived any of these statements in the same way that CCSSI does. This may indicate that opposition to the Common Col e is driven, in part, by misconceptions.

Yet among the public, supporters and opponents of the Common Core differ significantly in the:r assessment of only the last of these statements. Supporters are more likely than opponents to say that the Common Core allows local school districts to decide which textbooks and materials to use m then schools (64% compared to 30%). Apptu'ently, CCSSI needs to reassure the public that the new standards allow local districts to make key cumcular decisions.

Evaluating Teachers Teacher-tenm e laws leaped on to thc fi'ont page of the nat:onal

media in 2014 when a Cahfb:ma judge responded favorably to

Misperceptions z)

Teachers have a more accumteperceptmn of CCSSI's stated prindples than does the generalpublic.

False

In states using the Common Core standards, the federal government will

receive detailed data on individual students' test performance.

False

Under the common Core standards, states and local school districts can

declde whlch textbooks and educational materials to use in their schools,

True

Public and Teacher Percephons

% saying false

64

% saying false

% saying true

0% 20% 40% 60%

[] Public :ÿ' , Teachers

74

80%

*Respondents asked to "indicate if you think the following statements about the Common Core standards are true or false." These questions were asked only of those

respondents who indicated that they had previously heard of the Common Core,

Source: The 2014 EdNÿ,'¢t Survey

The federal government requires all states to

use the Common Core standards.

Consistent with CCSSJ Stated

Survey Statement* Principles?

a plaintiff's argument that the state's teacher-tenure laws vio- late its state constitution. While defenders of tenure clamÿ that :t merely plotects teachers from arNtrary &snnssal, crit- ics contend that tenme now makes it extremely difficult to remove poorly perfbrming teachers from the classroom. Where do Amelicans come down on the issue of teacher tenure? Just how many of America's teachms do they think are ineftÿcuveÿ

We explored these issues by asking respondents to grade teachers on the same A-to-F scale haditionally used to evaluate student per- formance. Specifically, we asked them what percent- age of teachers in the local schools deserved each letter grade The average membel of the public says that 50% of teachers at the local schools deserve an A or a B, If we use the traditional definitmn of a C grade as "satisfactory;' then the public, on average, thinks about one-fifth of teachers in the local schools

12 EDUCATION NEXTtWINTER 2015 e¢tucattonne×t,orq

feature

2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST

are unsahsfactory (13% D and 9% F) (see Figure 3).

Teachers, though mote posi- tive towald their peers, do not enurely disagree with the public's judgment. The average teacher thinks 69% of his or her col- leagues in local schools deserve an A or a B. Even teachers say 5% of their colleagues in local schools are ratlines deserving an E with another 8% performing at no better than the D level.

Perhaps because the public is concerned about the performance of some teachers, 50% of those interviewed oppose "giving tenure to teachers" altogether. Only 32% favor the idea (and another 18% take no position), We followed this quemon with another as!ong whether teachers should demonstrate that their students are making adequate progress on state tests in otdel to receive tenure. Overall, 60% of the pubhc liked the idea. Even 65% of respondents who favor tenure say it should be based on student performance. Only 9% of Americans favor "gwmg teachers tenure" and oppose using student performance on state tests to determine tenure.

Teachers unions, of course, remam steadfast in their defense

Evaluating Teachers (Figure 3)

The public, on average, gives about half the teachers at local schools a grade of A orB, but it also gives one-fÿh of these teachers a D or an E

A

Public

F

D

A

Teachers

F

D

(Percent)

B

25

Question: Suppose you had to grade each teacher in your local schools for the qual-

ity of their work using the grades A, B, C, D, and F. What percent of teachers in your

local schools would you give each grade? Your answers should add to 100%.

Source: The 2014 BdN¢ÿ.t %trey

just 41% of teachers both favor tenure and oppose using infor- mation from state tests when awarding it. In short, when ÿt comes to the teacher-tenure laws in most states, less than half of teachers and fewer than 1 in 10 Americans prefer the status quo.

It is no surprise then, that a plurahty of the public (41%) says that teachms umons have a "negative effect" on the local schools and iust 34% says they have a "positive effect." Both numbers remain essentially unchanged since last year

Teachers, meanwhile, are far more generous in their assess- ment of their umons' influence and appear to have become less critical of the umons over the past year. Fifty-rune percent of teachers now report that teach- ers unions have a posltwe effect on schools. The share of teach- ers saying that teachers unions have a negatwe effect fell from 31% to 23% between 2013 and 2014, wtdenmg the gap between the pubhc as a whole and teach- ers over the role of unions m American pubhc educatmn.

Teachers and the public also remain shalply divided on the issue of merit pay. Fifty-seven percent of the public supports

of teacher tenure. D enms Van Roekel, the outgoing president of the National Educatmn Association, described the Califorma lawsuit as "yet anothei attempt by millionaires and corporate special interests to undernÿne the teaching professxon and push their own ÿdeological agenda on public schools;' American Federation of Teachers president Randi Wemgarten assured her members that "this [decision] will not be the last word"

But, surprisingly, a majority of teacheis do not favor the status quo of most states, under which most teach- ers receive tenure as a matter of course without explicit consideration of student-achievement data. It is true that teachers endorse tenure by a two-to-one margin: 60% in favor, with 32% opposed. Furthermore, only 31% of teachers like the idea of basing tenure on student test performance. But when responses to the two questions are combined,

"basing part of the salaries of teachers on how much their students learn;' while 31% opposes tins idea Among teach- ers, however, just 21% support merit pay and fully 73% are opposed. This 36-point gap in support between teachers and the public is the largest observed for any ÿtem on our survey.

Beyond Traditional Public Schools The practice of school choice has now spread to such an

extent that more than one-fourth of all American families have a school-age child who has been educated elsewhere than m a traditmnal pubhc school. Many American families are ignoring the bright lines routinely drawn between tl a&- tional public schools on the one hand and charter schools, private schools, and home schooling on the other. We asked respondents who live with children aged 6 to 17 to report

educattonnext org WINTER 201 5 / EDUCATION NEXT 13

School choice is no longer an abstract concept. It is part and parcel of the American educational fabric, directly affecting 26% of all Americans living with school-age children.

whether those children have ever attended a traditional public school, a charter school, or a private school, as well as whether they have been home schooled. No fewer than 26% percent of respondents hvmg with school-age children have used an alternative to traditional pubhc schools at some point in those children's education, About 16% of them have combined multiple types of schooling.

The vast majority oflespondents with school-age children in the home (87%) have experience wÿth tra&tlonal pubhc schools, and most rely on them exclusively (see Figure 4). Still, 14% have used private schools, and 9% have enrolled

Alternatives to Traditional Public Schools (Fig.re 4)

More than a quarter of those with school-age children have previously used or currently use an alternative to the traditional public school.

children in charter schools. Charters attract a larger share of African Americans hying with school-age chddren (15%). Even home schooling has a broad conmtuency. Eight percent of respondents living with school-age children said that at least one of the children has been home schooled.

Teachers make just as much use of these alternatives as the public at large. About 28% of teachers living with school- age children have used or currently use prwate schools, charter schools, or home schooling alongside or m heu of traditmnal pubhc schools. The most heavily used alterna- tive for teachers is private school (19%), but 8% and 7% use

charter schools and home school-

ing, respectively. School choice is no longer an abstract concept. It is part and parcel of the American educational fabric, directly affect- mg 26% of all Americans hying with school-age children.

District public school

Alternative to district public school

Private school

Charter school

Home school

26 ..... :':,, 28

4

NN9

WNa

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

m Public ÿ. I Teachers

Question: Thinking about the school-age children who currently live with you, what kinds of schools have they attended?

NOTEÿ Atternatwes to d,strÿct public school are private school, charter school, and home scrmot Percentage does not add to 100%, as households may have utilized more than one type of school. Percentage attending schools other than traditional school Is not the total o[ each type displayed, as those utilizing alternatives may be using more than one ophon

Source: "l he 2014 LdNext Stlrvel,

School Choice Given that Americans use the

school-choice optmns available to them, it is worth asking, Do Americans support the expansion of choice, especiallywhen it is tat- geted to disadvantaged students? The answer, it seems, depends on how the program is structured.

Charter schools. Public discus- sion of charter schools recently escalated with the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, who prom- ised to limit charter school access to school-district facflÿtles m New York City. When charter school supporters marched in the city's streets and rallied at the state capitol in Albany, they won enthu- siastic support flora Governor Andrew Cuomo and favmable action in the state legislature. Similar battles between charter detractors and supporters have

14 EDUCATION NEXT/WINTIÿ:R 2015 educahonnext org

feature

2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST

taken place in Chicago, Los Angeles, and many other parts of the country.

Despite all the public disputation, public opinion on charters remains essentially unchanged. R is true that a higher percentage of the public is now wflhng to take a position on the issue, one way or another. The pelcent- age of those surveyed who say they "neither support nor oppose" chatters dedmed 5 percentage points (from 23% to 18%) over the past ),ear. But chatter proponents con- tinue to hold a near two-to-one advantage over opponents. Support increased shghtly from 51% to 54%, while oppo- sition hcked up from 26% to 28%. It appears as though the controversies have only convinced citizens that their original opinions were correct all along (see Figure 5).

School vouchers and tax credits, School-voucher and tax-credit programs that enable more families to choose a private school are also becoming a more familim part of the U S education system. Half of the states now have a school-voucher or true-credit program of some kind, accord- ing to the Fliedm,-m Foundation, a teadmg orgamzation promoting private school choice. Most common is a tax- cledit program that allows businesses or individuals to contribute to organizations that distribute private-school scholarships to low-income families, The pubhc remains f:avorably disposed towmd this policy Sixty percent favors the idea, with just 26% opposed, a margin of support that exceeds that observed not only tbr charter schools, but also for school voucher programs benefiting the same popula- tion of students.

When it comes to school vouchers, modest shifts appear to be occm ring m opposite directions (see Figure 5) The public is somewhat less inclined to favor vouchers for low-income t;amilies hx 2014 than it was a year ago, but it is a bit more willing to lend support to universal vouchers for all fhmilies. (In both cases, the changes over the past yeal fall just stay of statistical significance.)

[b gauge suppmt for vouchers directed toward poor tamilies, we asked respondents whether they favol ed "a proposal...that would use government funds to pay the tuition o flow-income students who choose to attend pri- vate schools? Opposition to the Mea shifted upward flora 45% in 2013 to 51% this year, while support slipped flora 41% to 37%. On the other hand, support for umversal vouchers went up a bit. Respondents were asked whether they favored "a proposal..that wou]d give families with children m pubhc schools a wider choice, by allowing them to emoll their children in plivate schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition" To that question, 50% of those surveyed iesponded positively, an uptick of 5 percentage points since 2013.

if the public resists vouchers made available only to low-income families, that hardly means it is opposed to

Assessing School Choice (Fig. 51

Pubhc suppot tJbr the expansion of school chotce depends on how the program is structured,

Tax credits

Universal vouchers

Source," 'lhe 2014 L'dNÿt Survey

educahonnext org W1NTER 2015 / EDUCATION NEXT 15

For question wording, see questions 22, 23, 24a, 24b, and

24c in the complete results from the 2014 EdNexf survey at www, educationnext.oro/edfacts.

Support ÿ2 Neither [] Oppose

Vouchers for low- income families

Vouchers for those in falling public schools

Formation of charter schools

(Percent)

Accurate information influences the public's view on how best to allocate education dollars.

helping the disadvantaged. If a voucher proposal is directed toward families with students attending failing schools, 51% of the public favors the idea; just 35% is opposed.

Blended learning. The public has yet to be sold on the idea of blended learning, a recent innovation that gives students oppoltumties to learn online within the tradinonal school day. When respondents wine asked whether they favoled "students spending more of their time at school recewing instruction independently through or on a computer;' opm- mn was evenly divided. While 42% responded positively, 41% gave a negative response.

How Much to Spend and How to Spend It The public underestimates public school expendltme

levels by a wide margin. When we asked respondents to estimate how much was spent per pupil m theil local school district, the average response was short of $6,490, just over half the actual per-pupil expenditure levels of $12,400 in the districts reported for the school yea ending m 201 [ by the U.S. Department of Education. Simdarly, the public grossly underestimates levels of teacher compensation, Members of the public estimate teacher salaries in their own state, on average, to be less than $38,900, barely two-thirds of the

When Told Expenditure and Teacher Salary Levels, Percentage Favoring an Increase Drops (rig.ÿ 6)

Among those giveÿz reformation, support temains below the pre-recession high.

Percentage who favor increasing,..

70%- I1

'x

-- '% € % ÿ' "60

5 0% ___ÿ_._L'ÿ.. ..............................

4oo/o ....... ÿ;-ÿ" =o.,ÿ.-ÿ ..........................

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

----'leacher salaries (uninformed) ..... ,-,Teacher salaries (Informed)

---,--Per-pupil spending (uninformed) ............ Per-pupil spending (informed)

2014 30%.

For question wording, see questions 2ta, 21b, 31a, and 31b in the complete results from

the 2014 EdNext survey at www.educationnextorg/edfacts.

SOURCE: I he ZOIJ EILNcÿ.I Survey

$57,000 average reported for 2012 by the U.S. Department of Education for the states in which lespondents lived.

Given this misperceptmn of expenditme and salay levels, receiving additlona] informa- tion on these subjects has a major impact on the public's assess- ment of the need for an increase. When the pubhc is provided with specific information on the current level of expenditure in the local school district, Lt is less willing to spend more money on schools than when this inftn ma- tion ÿs not gwen, We have noted this diffeience each year since we began asking one-half 0an- domly chosen) of our sample for an opinion only ariel supplying this information while leaving the other halfuninfbl reed,

Among informed respon- dents, public support for greateÿ spending on local schools remains well below levels reached in the spring of 2008 (see Figure 6), At that time, the country &d not realize it was about to enter a deep ÿecession followed by a prolonged, uneven recovery, and 50% of the public was ready to spend more on schools even after being told cut rent levels of

16 EDUCATION NEXT/W[NTEIt 2015 educahonnextorg

feature

2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST

per-pupil expenditme hi the local school district. By the same tnne the following year, the countrywas in the midst ofa sevme financial crisis, and public support for more spending, when given information on current levels of expenditure, plummeted to 38%. Support fo, more spending has hovered in the low 40s since, with just 43% endorsing higher expenditure in 2014.

But among those not told current levels of expen&ture, support fbr more spending remains nearly as high as at was in 2008. In that year, 61% of the "uninfoLmed" public (those not told current expenditure levels in their local &strict) endorsed more spending tn 2014 that percentage ÿs still 60%, full}, recover ed from the drop to 46% registm ed in 2009

improvement. Does the public shale this view? Would it prefer to devote any new spending on public schools to higher teacher salaries or smaller classes? Or would it instead plefer to see the money spent on new books ,and technologies?

When asked about these issues m the abstract, the public is most enthusiastic about reducing class size. Forty-sLx percent of the public selects that option, compared with 30% who would purchase new books and technology, and 24% who would increase teacher salaries (see Figure 7).

Enthusiasm fol class-size reduction drops sharply, how- ever, when information is provided that makes clear the tradeoff between spending to produce smaller classes and

when the financial crisis was on the country's mind. Only if the pubhc is aware of current expenditure levels is it mote cantmus than previously about committing additional thnds to the schools,

A similar pattern is ob- served tor incremems in teachm salaries, In 2008, the portion favoring highm sala- ries among those told average salary levels in then state was no less than 54%, But in 2009 that percentage fell to 40%, and it has ÿemained at that low levd ever since. In 2014, only 38% of those informed of cmrent teacher salaries were prepared to support a salary boost,

Among those not given information about current salaries, 69% thought teacher pay should be boosted back in 2008. That percentage skidded to 56% in 2009 and &opped to a low of 52% in 2011. But it has since crept higher, reach- lng 62% in 2014.

Deciding how much to spend on public schools is only the first step; school districts must also determine how to use whatever resources are made available, Reducing class sÿze is a generally populat idea, but a number of researchers have concluded that increasing teachm salaries maybe a better long-tram strategy for school

Class Size Reduction Popular, Unless Public Told Its Cost (Figure 7)

When given information on relative costs, support for spending extra fimds sh¢ÿ awa), from class stze reduction to other options.

(Percent)

Publtc (uninformed) Teachers (uninformed)

Public (informed)

Reduce class size

Increase teacher salaries

[] Buy new books and technologies

Question (uninformed): Suppose the government plans to increase spending in the school

system, Which one of the following options do you favor?

Question (informed): Suppose the government plans to increase spending m the school system. Reducing average class sizes by 3 students would cost roughly the same amount as increasing teacher salarms by 13 percent or buying $10,OOO In new books and technolo-

gies l'or each class every year. Among these options, which do you favorÿ

SOURC£: "1 hc 2014 £d,V,\t fit=rvey

educatlonnext.org WINTER 201 5 / EDUCATION NEXT 17

other options facing a typical American school district. One group of survey respondents, randomly chosen, was told, "Reducing average class sizes by three students would cost roughly the same amount as increasing teachel salaries by 13% ol buying $10,000 in new books and techno[ogles for each class every year:' Among this group, just 35% of the public favored reducing class size, while 33% preferred

increasing teacher salaries ,and 32% would purchase new books and technology.

When uninformed of costs, teacheÿ s were even more com- mitted than the public to smaller classes, with 54% selecting that option and only 37% prefemng a salary increase, lust 9% of teachers would prefel to see the money spent on new books and technology, When relative costs wele explained,

METHODOLOGY

THE RESULTS PRESENTED HERE are based upon a nationally representative, stratified sample of adults (age 18 years and older) and representative oversam- pies of the following subgroups: public school teachers, African Americans, and Hispanics. Respondents could elect to complete the survey in English or Spanish, The size of the sample available for analysis depends on the question examined, Most questions discussed here were embedded within an experiment designed to estimate the impact of information about local student performance, in this experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: 1) a treatment condition in which information about local student performance was provided and 2) a control condition In which no student performance information was provided. For the purposes of this

report, we make use of the responses from the sample of 2,269 respondents who were not provided informa-

tion about the performance of students in their local district. However, if the question was not included within the experiment, we make use of the responses from the full sample of 5,266 respondents, Questions in the latter group include knowledge of the Com- mon Core; child's enrollment; and spending tradeoffs between increasing teacher pay, reducing class size, and purchasing materials. In every case, the sample consists of those who responded to the question as

presented in the full list of questions and responses reported on the EdNext website at www, educationnext. org/edfacts. Survey weights were employed to account for nonresponse and the oversampling of specific groups. In general, survey responses based on larger numbers of observations are more precise, that is, less

prone to sampling variance than those made across

groups with fewer numbers of observations, As a con-

sequence, answers attributed to the national population are more precisely estimated than are those attributed to groups. The margin of error for responses given by the full sample in the EdNext survey is roughly 1.5 per- centage points for questions on which opinion is evenly split and 2 percentage points for questions using the smaller sample. The specific number of respondents varies from question to question due to item non-

response and to the fact that, in the cases of opinion about the Common Core, school spending, teacher sap

ary, and vouchers, we randomly dwided the sample into multiple groups in order to examine the effect of varia- tions tn the way questions were posed. In these cases, the online tables present separately the resuRs for the different experimental conditions, The sample ts also smaller for the knowledge questions about the Common

Core, as these were asked only to those respondents

who reported having heard of the program. The exact wording of each question Is displayed

at www.educationnext.org/edfacts, Percentages re-

ported in the figures and online tables do not always add precisely to 100 as a result of rounding to the nearest percentage point.

The survey was conducted in May and June 2014 by the polhng firm Knowledge Networks (KN), a GfK company. KN maintains a nationally representative

panel of adults, obtained via list-assisted random digÿt-dtaling sampling techniques, who agree to par- ticipate in a limited number of online surveys, Detailed information about the maintenance of the KN panel, the protocols used to administer surveys, and the comparability of online and telephone surveys is avail- able online at www, knowledqenetworks,com/quality/,

18 EDUCATION NEXT/WINTFR ÿ.0 15 educahonnext,org

feature

2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON&WEST

the &ange m teacher opinion was even more pronounced than among the public, with support for class-aze reduction dropping i?om 54% to 38%, and support for a salaly increase jumping from 37% to 48%.

Ii1 short, accurate mtormation also influences the pubhc's mew on how best to allocate education dollars. Helping citizens understand the tradeoffs involved in efforts to reduce class aze may lead to better declsmns about how to use the funds we invest in public education.

Conclusions Readels will decide for themselves Much of the many find-

ings reported in the 2014 poll ale of greatest interest. In our vÿew, the poll ymlds four especially important new findings:

1) Opinion with respect to the Common Core has yet to coalesce. The idea of a common set of standards across the country has wide appeal, and the Common Cme itself still commands the support of a majority of the public. But proponents probably need to clarify their intentions to the public if they are to keep support flom slipping within both the natmn's teaching force and the public at large.

2) Americans give good grades to about half the teaching

force in their local district, but they hand out an unsatisfactory grade (D or F) to nearly one-fifth of the teachers. This may hdp explain why a majority of the public opposes teacher tenme. However, a majority of teachers favor tenure and, in general, teachers give their colleagues a hÿgher grade than the public does. Yet they still give about one-tenth of teachers one of the two low grades.

3) In a quarter of households with school-age children, a child ÿs attending or has attended a school other than the traditional public school.

4) Members of the public are less inclined to favm using additional funds for class-size reduction iftheyknow its cost relative to the cost of teacher pay and the purchase of new books and technologies.

Mldmel B. Hendersott is tesearch director for the Public Poti0, Research Lab at LouTsiaÿm State Umvet=ÿtt): Paul E. Petetsotÿ, edito>in duef ofEducation Next, tsprofessot and director of the Program on Educatzon Poti0, and Gore1 mince at the Harvard Kennedy SdTool. Mat tm R. West is associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and deputy &rector of the Program on Education Policy and Govmzance at the Harvard Kemwdy School.

Good theory explains the world. ry trons orms it.

To learn more about the transformational power of disruptive renovation, visit www,Christensenl nstitute,org,

educatlonnext.org WIN'! I.R 20!.5 / EDUCATION NEXT 19

• '%.ÿ Volume 42, No 3 I Januaÿ//February 2014 37

All rnatenels in this journal subject to copynght by the Amencan Library Assoclatmn may be used for the noncommercial purpose of sclentlflo or educational advancement granted by SecUons 107 end 108 of the Copynght Revmÿon Act of 1976 Address usage requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions

tech opemng (Salzman 2oi2, Salzman and Lowell 2007, 2008; Teitelbaum 2007) According to the Atlantic (Weissmann 2o13), the U.S. is producing more PhDs in

science than the market can absorb.

Finally, there is no evldence that

having national standards and

increamng testing have improved

student learning in the past

(Nichols, Glass, and Berhner 2006; Tienken 2011).

The effects of food insecurity

are reversible; when previously

food-secure children experience

food insecumty, their reading

development slows clown relative

to Food-secure ehddren But "a

change from food insecurity to food

security can bring concomitant

improvements: the study also found

that poor reading performance

for food insecure children in the

beginning grades was reversed if the

household became Food secure by

srd grade" (Coles 20o8/2oo9).

abdity (McQmllan I998, Krashen 2004:) In fact, the evidence is strong

that reading for pleasure--self-

selected reading--is the major cause

of advanced hteracy development.

Making sure that all children have access to books makes literacy

development possible Without access

to books, hteraey development is

Impossible.

Libraries

Studies have documented

how poverty impacts school

performance Food inseeumty, lack

of health care, and lack of access

to books, among other aspects of

poverty, all have devastating effects

on students' abillty to learn

Children of poverty are hkely to suffer from food insecurity (hunger and concern about future

availability of food). Studies (Coles 20o8/2oo9) show that food= insecure children are more hkely to have slow language development and problems in social behavior and emotional control, They are more likely to miss school days, repeat a grade, and have

academic problems.

Food Insecurity

Lack o£ Heahh Care

High-poverty famihes are more

likely to lack medical Insurance

or have high eopagments,

circumstances that result in less

medical care, and more childhood

illness and absenteeism, which, of

course, negatively impact school

achievement David Berliner cites

studies showing that "children in

poor families xn most states are six

times more hkely to be in less than optimal health, experiencing a wide

variety of illnesses and injumes, as

compared with children in higher income famihes" (2009, I6). School is not helping, poor schools ale

more likely to have no school nurse

or have a hÿgh ratm of students to

nurses (Berhner 2009).

Lack of Access to Books

Very clear evidence demonstrates

that children from high-poverty families have very little access

to books at home, at school, and

in their communities (Newman

and Celano 2ooi; Duke 2o0o; additional studies reviewed in

Krashen 2ooff). Studies also show when chddren have access to

interesting and comprehensible

reading material, they read

(Krashen 2ooi, 2oo4ÿ). And finally, when children read, they improve in all aspects of hteracy,

including vocabulary, grammar,

spelling, reading, and writing

As noted above, when we control

for poverty, American students

rank near the top of the world on

internatmnal tests. This finding

confirms that poverty is the major factor in determining school

achievement, a finding that is consistent with the results of many studies showing the powerful negative impact oF poverty on many

aspects of learning, including, oF course, reading comprehensmn

• and other aspects o£1iteracg development (e.g., Biddle 2ooÿ, Duncan and Brooks-Gunn 2ooi)

The Real Problem: Poverty

Librames are often the only source

of books and other reading material

for ehddren of poverty, and they are a potent source. A number of

studies confirm that providing access

to books via libraries has a posture

impact on reading developmentÿ

the better the school hbrary (more books, presence of a credentialed

librarian, better staffing), the higher the reading scores (e,g., Lance 2004;

Lance and Helgren 2oio, Krashen

20lI). Multivariate studies show that the positive impact of school libraries can be as strong as the

negative impact of poverty on reading

achievement (Achterman 2 o o 8,

Krashen, Lee, and McQuillan 2OI2); in other words, a good hbrary can

offset the effect of poverty on literacy

development

Protect Children from the Effects of Poverty

The imphcatmns are straightforward;

until poverty is ehminated, until

we have full employment at a living wage, we need to protect children

from the effects of poverty This reality means they need adequate

food programs, Improved health care,

including more school nurses in

high-poverty schools, and, oF course,

more investment ÿn hbrarles and

hbrarians.

As readers of this journal know,

however, funding for school

and pubhc hbrarles is not being increased, It is being cut

(Keliey 2on).

38 Knowledge Quest t Beyond the Core

All matenals In this journal subject to copynght by the Amencan Library Association may be used for the noncommercial !ÿurpose of scIenhfic or educational advancement granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copynght Rewslon Act of 1976 Address usage requests to the ALA Office of" Rights and Permissions

Volume 42, No 3 January/February 2014 39

All matenals in this journal subject to copynght by the Amencan Library Association may be used for the noncommercfal purpose of scientist or educational advancement granted by Sachons 107 and 108 of the Copynght Revision Act of 1976 Address usage requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions

Funding

An obvious way to free up money

that could be used to support food

programs, increased health care,

and librames and librarians xs to

reduce testing. An unprecedented

amount of testing has been planned

to monitor compliance and

achievement under the CCSS--far

more than the amount done under

No Child Left Behind and far more testing than has ever been seen on

this planet (Krashen 2012). The new tests will include the usual encl-

of-year tests, but m more subjects,

and in more grade levels, as well

as Interim tests during the year

and, possibly, pretests in the fall

to measure improvement over the

academic year.

replacement, and even complete

overhauls as progress IS made in

technology (Krashen and Ohanlan 2o11). All this effort and expense

are planned, despite the fact that

there is no evidence that standards

will help, that new tests will help, or

that onhne technology will help.

arts standards appear to be

unaware of the extensive and deep

criticism of the Natlona! Reading

Panel's conclusions and the

unimpressive results of Reading

First, which was based on the

these conclusions (Garan 2002,

Krashen 2OOl, 2005, 2009,

Alhngton 2oo2; Coles 2oo3). What is clear is that the testing and computer Industries will profit,

and taxpayers will pay the cost of setting up the Infrastructure

and supporting the numerous

adjustments and changes, as

software and hardware regularly

become obsolete.

I need to point out that I am not

presenting an argument against

all standardized testing. My

position is that we should have only

standardized tests that actually do

some good--that help with teaching

and learning (Krashen 2008). My position is No Unnecessary

Testing (NUT).

The Nature o£ the Standards

Despite the claim that the standards

do not tell teachers how to teach,

the nature of the language arts

standal (Is (especially Reading. Foundational Skills, Writing,

and Language) make it hard for teachers to do anything hut direct

instruction

First, the standards have accepted In

full the conclusions of the National Reading Panel: "Materials that are

aligned to the standards should provide exphcIt and systematic

mstructmn and diagnostic support

m concepts of print, phonological

awareness, phonics, vocabulary

development, and fluency"

(Coleman and Plmentel 2oi2a, 2oi2b), as well as text structure

(Common Core State Standards Initiative 2oloa, II, 4ÿ2,) and

grammar (CCSS Initiative 2OlOb, 31, 33) The creators of the language

All tests are to be delivered online

Therefore, all students must have

access to the Internet with up-to-

date equipment. Providing this

access will involve a staggering

expense, and one that promises to

increase as systems require updating,

Second, the CCSS are so demanding that in Enghsh language arts classes, educators

and students will have little time

for anything not directly linked to the standards Nor should there be, according to the Common

Core State Standards Inltmtlve's

Publisher's Criteria "By

underscoring what matters most xn

the standards, the criteria Illustrate

what shifts must take place in

the next generation of curricula,

including paring away elements

that distract or are at odds with the

Common Core State Standards"

(Coleman and Pimentel 2o12b, 1). As Ashley Hastings has pointed out (personal communicatmn), the

Common Core is clearly more than

a "core", it is the entire apple.

Third, constant high-stakes

testing ensures direct teaching. As

noted above, the standards will

be enforced by a massive amount

of testing, including "Interim"

testing through the academic year,

to make sure students stay on their

"educational trajectory" (Duncan

2oo9). Performance on these tests

will have serious consequences for

students, for teachers, and, we are

told, even for schools of educatmn

"We need comprehensive data

systems that do three things,

track students throughout their

educatmnal trajectory, . track

students back to teachers ..track

teachers back to their schools of education" (Duncan 2oo9). The pressure to stick with what is in

the standards will be extreme,

and the force of constant testing

40 Knowledge Quest [ Beyond lhe Core

will ensure that direct teaching

methods will be used; educators will be concerned that there IS no time ,v

for the target structures to emerge ' ÿ ,

naturally; It may not happen in time

for the next test.

In short, It is likely that laffÿuage arts will consist entirely of direct

instruction, with no time for self-

selected reading. However, focusing

primarily on direct Instruction In '

reading conflscts with the massive

research that shows direct teaching

o£ aspects of literacy produces very °

hmsted results and that most of

our literacy and academic langÿge

competence is the result o£ reading,

especsally self-selected reading.

This quote sends (he message that hard reading:reqmring grlrrÿ det'ermlnation is the real

stuff, the true way to "stretch readmgabslitles." Easier, more

comprehensibleÿr eading thai'we

actually enjoy is fine for a break but only to experience some

"s atlsfactioh anÿ plÿasure.ÿ''

The ELA standards' Appendix A does hOt-cite anyof the pl,entiful

research, that strongly indicates

that reading that does not requxre

struggle is the source of nearly all o£

our literacy competence, that st ss

thÿ bmdge between "conversational"

language and "academsc" language.

a new word in print, they typically . pick up a small part of sts meaning,

about 5 to I5 percent, as people

read more, they encounter the

word more and gradually acqmre

the meaning. Appendsx A does not

point out that research, ÿncludmg

studms ested sn Appendix A, shows

that l£people read enough, a 5 to 15 percent increase in acquisition of a

new word's meaning each time st is

encountered is more than enough to

account for vocabulary growth

The Common Core and SelfZ, , %

Selected Free Reading '

The CCSS dssparage self-selected free reading. This quote from

Appendix A of the ELA standards presents the creators' posltson on

free reading. ÿ

"Students need opportunities to

stretch their reading abslmes

but also to experience the

satssfaction and pleasure of easy,

fluent readsng within them, both of which the Standards allow for" (CCSS ImtIative

2oIob, 9).

Appendix A, along wsth the rest of the ELA standards, has very httle respect for the power"of reading

It assumes that grammar must be

taught directly, even though maW studies show that our grammatscal

competence is largely the result of

reading ELA Appendix A barely acknoMedges that vocabulary ÿs the result of reading, maintaining that

"direct-study is .. ,essentsal" (CCSS

Initiative 2olob, 32). Appendsx A states that "at most between 5 and Ig percent of new words encountered

upon first reading are retained"

(CCSS InitsatIve 2oIqb, 32), whsch is not what studses show. Studies

actually show that when readers see

The Common Core State Standards do not allow "easy reading". The

pubhsher's cmterm explain that

materials for Independent reading

"will need to snclude texts at students'

own reading level as well as texts

with complexity levels that will challenge and motivate students"

(Coleman and Psmental 2oi2a,

4:). In other words, nothing below

the readers' current official level

is allowed.

The creators of the CCSS seem

not to be aware that reading below

one's current officsal level can

be beneficial, reading level is an average; "easy" texts often contain

plenty o£1anguage above one's level Easy reading provides background knowledge, and easy reading can

sncrease enthussasm for more

reading (Krashen 2005).

42 Knowledge Quest [ Beyond lhe Core

All matenals In this journal subject to copyright by the Amencan Library Association may be used for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copynght Revision Act of 1976 Address usage requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions

Consequences for Libraries

The Common Core movement will be a disaster for libraries

and will have a negative impact

on nearly every aspect of our

educatmnal system

produce dramatic results, "experts"

will blame teachers and call for tougher standards and even more

testing, requiring newer (and even

more expensive) technology. And

the profits for the .oI percent will be even greater.

Like other groups, school

hbrarians have argued that the

CCSS is inevitable, the train has

already left the station. Yes it has,

but xt has not yet arrived. The

public has little idea o£what the CCSS require, and no idea of what

Like other mffÿor educational

organizations, the hbrary

organizations have dedicated

their efforts to finding a way to

live with and adjust to the dictates

of the CCSS In fact, acurrent

argument for supporting hbrarles

is that hbrarles and librarians can

help students meet some of the

requirements of the CCSS

? Given the serious problems withÿ the

Common Core--it is unsupported by

research, it creates a lxgld, test-prep

version of schooling, and there

is the real possxbÿhty that it will dram every spare dollar from the

educational system--to borr£ÿ¢ from

Alfie Kohn's comment abouÿ efforts

to prlvauze education, we should

not be "scrambling to comply with

its prov, lsions." Rather we should be

trying to figure out the best ways to

resist (2004).

44 Knowledge Quesi ]

We should, at a minimum, Cemand

that experiments and descriptive

studies of groups of students be ,

carried out so that the standards

and measures can be evaluated.

Instead, states whose departments

of education and legislatures have

jumped on the Common Core

bandwagon are using nearly their

entire student populatmns as

expemmental subjects. When the

new standards and technology fall to

All matenals in this journal subject to coJ3ynght by the Amencan Library Assoclatton may be used for the nencommercml purpose of setenhfic or educattonal advancement granted by SecUons 107 and 108 of the Copynght Revision Act of 1976 Address usage requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions

the drawbacks are. If the public were aware that the CCSS is "a radical untried curriculum overhaul and...

nonstop national testing" (Ohanlan

2oi3), the rush to adopt the CCSS would be halted Immediately.

Stephen Krashen is ÿ'oÿsor m-ÿritus[ÿ

Cÿ'sit Ebÿxithern ÿli@niaLÿandÿsn0w

aNliated ÿith Uold's [ÿLÿmiceEIÿaliÿnia.

Heisthe author o[Free Voluntary Reading

YlLibranes YhlinitM LI2ÿ

ADAPTING TO CHANGE: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON

CORE STATE STANDARDS

DR. BROOKE A, BURKS

DR. TARA L. R. BBZIAT

SHÿ,RÿR DANLnV KASHARA DAVIS HOLLY LOWBRY JESSlCA LucAs

/luburn Umversity at Montgomery

Abstract

The current research study looked at secondary teacher£ (grades 6--12) perceptions of their preparedness to implement the Common Core State Standards as well as they feelings about the training they have or have not received related to tmplementing the standards The problem: Many conflicting views exist among teachers, parents, and others interested m education on the topic of the Common Core State Standards. Despite the views, teachers are still expected to implement the curricular changes thrust upon them The methods: Thirty-five re- spondents participated m an online survey that asked about teachers' comfort levels with teaching the Common Core, the amount of training they received, and their pereepaons of the adequacy of the training. The results: Fifty-seven percent of respondents were eÿther "comfort- able" or "extremely comfortable" with implementing the standards al- though 55% reported that riley had received insufficmnt training.

Review of Literature

With each genemtmn of students comes a change in educational practices. In 1954, Brown v, Board of Education of Topeka de- clared the unconstitutionality of separate pub- tic schools tbr White and Black students. In 1975, the lndiwduals with Disabilities Educa- tion Act (IDEA) granted students with disabil- ities equal opportunities for free public educa- tion. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act sought to raise standards for all students while assessing students' attainment of those stan- dards, Many educational changes have been

looked at with admiration as a much-needed change in education, Nevertheless, others have been viewed with less than welcoming sentiments. The latest change in the educa- tional system is the adoption of the Common Core State Standards--also known as CCSS or the Common Core--which has received much ambiguous attention by teachers, ad- ministrators, and parents.

The Common Core State Standards are a relatively new concept in education. In 2009, a group of state officials, members of

253

254 / Education Vol. 136 No. 2

the National Governors Association Cen- ter for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, designed "real-world learning goals" that would prepare students for college, career, and beyond (CCSSC, 2015). States begma reviewing the standards in 2011, and in 2013, 45 states had adopted the Common Core standards. Since that time, 2 states have withdrawn their support. Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yang (2011) assert that having this common curriculum across states would allow for consistent expecta- tions, focus, efficiency, and computerized assessments. However, in their comprehen- swe analysis of the Common Core standards at their tmplementation in 2010, they report a shift in "cognitive demands" on students. The researchers analyzed the data through Surveys of Enacted Cttrrieulum (SEC), "a two-dimensional framework defining content at the intersections of topics and cognitive demands" (Porter et al., 2011, p. 104). They also note that while the Common Core math standards are "somewhat more tbcused," the

same cannot be said for the English language arts and reading standards; and the Common Core standards are different from what many teachers report they are currently teaching. Some state standards are more focused than the Common Core standards while others are less focused.

Despite these findings, 43 states are still involved with Common Core and push to assess students based on its standards. While ACT (2012) points out tÿactors that have helped some schools succeed with Corn_men Core (e.g., high expectations, formative as- sessments, strong relationships between stu- dents and their teachers, etc.), many parents argue that the standards are taking the focus away from what is important, especially in the early grades (Gallagher, 2013). Two mothers in Indiana, for example, noticed their elemen- tary children's changing math homework. Instead of simple addition and subtraction

problems, students were being asked diver- gent questions, such as "How do you know?" (Gallagher, 2013). Just as parents notieed and complained about the changes in their chip dren's homework, teachers are also noticing but are the ones being required to implement the change.

Educational Change

Change in any industry is inevitable. In education, change comes more frequently than in most other arenas. In education, vet- eran teachers are often criticized for being hesitant to implement the latest modification in the education system. However, although teachers are generally the individuals re- sponsible for implementing changes, they are rarely given the opportunity to provide input into the development of such changes (Sikes, 1992). Many teachers fear change, or have an aversion to it, because of its moral implications. Some teachers worry that the newest rendition of the system "will not work or will make matters worse" (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992, p. 5). However, many teachers realize that these changes are neces- sary because research constantly shows many first-year college students are unprepared for undergraduate work and need remediation (Cheng, 2012). In a national survey (Achieve, 2011), 79% ofteaehers agreed that enhancing public education's quality was important, and 50% noted that some change in education is needed.

Wiener (2013) lists 10 action steps that state education agencies should employ in order to help meet the challenge--and change--of the Common Core. The question then becomes whether or not state agencies have actually implemented these steps that include building teams within schools along with other agencies, developing teacher and principal evaluatmns that meet the reqmre- ments of the Common Core, and providing relevant professional development.

Adapting To Change / 255

Support for Common Core

Several supporters of Common Core argue that creating a single set of national standards would address the problem of curriculum variation in the Umted States. One of their most substantial arguments is that what stu- dents learn should not depend on where they live (Cheng, 2012).The Kentucky Department of Education argues that the Common Core standards ensure students have the "opportu- nity to learn the skalls that are deemed most important and relevant to the world today" (Kentucky Department of Education, 2012).

Both those who support and oppose the Common Core generally agree with the main objective: prepare students to compete in the ever-changing job market and the global economy. Williams (2014) argues that the education system is past due for a renovation since U.S. students have been academically behind students in other countries. For years, colleges and universities have offered reme- dial courses out of a growing need to offer them. In 1985, Wright's survey of over 2,700 instflutions of higher education reported that 21% of all college freshmen took a remedi- al writing course. In 1998, almost 75% of colleges and universities offered remedial courses because many students were arriving ill-prepared for college-level work (Knudson, t998). The National Center for Educational Statistics (2011) states that 36% of students who were college freshmen during the 2007- 2008 schoolyear report that they have taken or were currently enrolled in a remedial course. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education reported 20% of college freshmen report they had been enrolled in a remedial course during their first year.

Others such as the Natmnal Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), argue that although the Common Core standards are crucial to the development of student learning, they are not a conclusive solution. Instead, NCTM (2013) recommends the

implementation of supplemental aspects to help boost Common Core's effectiveness. These recommendations include providing professional development, adjusting teacher evaluations to allow teachers time to adapt, providing sufficient state funding, and fund- ing research. NCFM (2013) also notes that "all stakeholders must acknowledge that sys- temic improvement takes a number of years, and a long-term commitment to supporting the Common Core State Standards is neces- sary, even if mitaal assessment results do not show substantial improvements in student achievement" (para. 4).

Training

Fewer than fifty percent of school dis- tricts planned professional development geared towards implementing and aligning Common Core standards in 2012 (Sawehuk, 2012) The Common Core is different from most previous state standards and expec- tations. Therefore, the new standards will require many teachers to make significant changes in thetr instructional practices. As a result, high-quality training and extensive professional development are often cited as a cntlcal factor for supporting meaningful integration of the Common Core into the day-to-day operation the classroom (EPE Research Center, 2013).

In its survey of 599 teachers in states that had adopted the Common Core, the EPE Research Center (2013) found that overall, teachers agreed that implementing the stan- dards would assist them in becoming better teachers, and most of them had knowledge of their state's previous standards. The teachers admit that although they have recewed pro- fessional development in the lmplementatmn of the Common Core standards, they spent less than four days on average in these ses- sions, and staff from their own schools were typically the presenters during these events. The results of the survey 'also showed that

256 / Education Vol, 136 No. 2

although teachers felt prepared to use the CCSS, they were not as confident with par- titular groups of students, such as those with disabilities and those whose first language is not English.

The impacts of both change and training in light of that change is important to determine among teachers as they are the implementers of such change in the school system. With this in mind, the current study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. Do teachers feel comfortable adapt- ing to the change of implementing the Common Core state standards in their classrooms?

Results

, Do teachers feel they have received adequate training in implementing the Common Core state standards in their classrooms9

Methods

Permission to conduct the study was granted by the Instttutional Review Board of the university at which the researchers are employed and!or enrolled. Participants were recruited lÿom a pool of inserviee teachers at secondary schools (grades 6 through 12) m Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, and Texas. Thirty-five teachers responded to the electronic questionnaire created by the re- searchers. The questionnaire consisted of se- lected-response, Likert-type, and open-end- ed items.

Participant responses were reported anonymously, and demographic data were collected. Descriptwe statistics were used to evaluate teachers' comfort levels with the Common Core State Standards. Although each state has its own requirements for implementing---or not implementing--the Common Core, each teacher reported famil- iarity with the standards.

Of the 35 participants, 71% had 7 or more years of experience, indicating that most of the participants have been teachers since before the days of Common Core and there- tore have a means of drawing comparisons between Common Core and their state's pre- vious and current standards.

Participants were asked their comfort lev- el with the CCSS, Twenty respondents (57%) expressed that they were either"comfbrtable" or "extremely comfbrtable" with implement- ing the CCSS while 26% reported being "uncomfbrtable" or "extremely uncomfort- able"; and 17% were neither comfortable nor uncomfortable. Of those with 7 or more years of experience, 32% were neutral, "uncomfort- able," or "extremely uncomfbrtable" with the implementation of the standards. Still, 80% of those with 0 to 6 years of teaching experi- ence were either "comfortable" or "extremely comfortable" with implementing the CCSS (See Table 1).

The teachers also expressed concern about the amount of training they received in order to implement Common Core in their class- rooms. Nearly 55% of the respondents indi- cated that they did not receive adequate train- ing m implementing the standards. However, nearly 47% of respondents reported partici- pation in 3 or more professional development sessions related to the Common Core (See Table 2). Most of the training sessions (64%) took place at the school in which the teacher was employed. This finding supports the EPE Research Center's (2013) report which indi- cates that the majority of professional devel- opment took place at the teacher's school and was conducted by district staff'.

Adapting To Change / 257

Discussion

In response to research question #1 (Do teachers feel comfbrtable adapting to the change of implementing the Common Core State Standards m their classrooms?), the data indicate that a majority of the secondary teachers who responded (57%) are comfort- able or extremely comfortable with imple- menting the Common Core State Standards. A similar finding was discovered in EPE Research Center's (2013) national survey of teachers in which 49% of teachers indicated they were "prepared" or "very prepared" to teach the Common Core State Standards. However, the same survey indieated that only 24% of teachers felt that their students were prepared to master the standards; and, although teachers felt eomfbrtable with Com- mon Core's implementation, only 22% had fully implemented the standards into their teaching (EPE Research Center, 2013).

In response to research questkm #2 (Do teachers feel they have received adequate training in implementing the Common Core State Standards in their classrooms?), the data indicate that 55% of the respondents reported that they have not received adequate training.

Limitations

Despite the eltbrts to recruit teachers to par- ticipate in the study, only 35 teachers respond- ed to the call for participants. The researchers attribute the low retttm rate to the busy sched- ules of teachers along with the electronic nature of the survey. Many teachers are more likely to respond if the survey is in hardeopy tbrmat and they have a specified amount of time to sit and finish the survey (such as during a faculty meeting). The low response rate was a disappointment; however, the teachers span from a variety of locations, which gives the researchers hope that the results are stltl indica- tive of the attitudes of many teachers in similar geographical locations.

Table 1. Implementation of CCSS

Years of Experience Level of Comfort

0-6 7+

Extremely comfortable 20% ! 2%

Comfortable 60% 36%

Noutral 10% 20%

Uncomfortable 10% 28%

Extremely Uneoml'orlable 0% 4%

All Teachern

14% 43% 17% 23% 3%

Table 2. Training in CCSS

Years of Experience Amount of Training

0 - 6 7 + All Teachers

3 or more training scansions 50% 46% 47%

2 training sessions t 0% 17% 15%

1 training session 10% 21% 18%

No traimng provided 10% 17% 15%

lk'almng provided but madequato 20% 0% 6%

Note: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rotmdmg.

258 1 Education '4ol 136 No. 2

Implications

How can teachers be confident m imple- menting a change such as the Common Core without having the adequate professional de- velopment they seek'? It is often said of teach- ers that they teach because they simply love teadfing and the students they teach. They know that the pay is slim. According to the Center on Education Policy's (2012) report, teachers in the United States earn "61% of the average salaries paid to other U.S. employees with the same experience and a col]ege educa- tion" (p. 70). Despite this alarming discrepan- cy, teachers still work approximately 52 hours each week preparing lessons, grading as- signments, etc. (Center on Education Policy, 2012). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to the researchers that in spite of the inadequa- cy of the professional development designed to help them implement the Common Core, teachers are still confident that they can do so.

The current study sheds light on one char- acteristic of teachers: the determination to continue doing what they love for the good of the students they teach. Good teachers are confident in their abilities. They are teachers. Despite the changes that come their way, they are trained professionals ready to tackle the next educational change.

References

Achieve. (20tl). Strong support, low awareness Pubhc perception of the common core stale standards Re- trieved from http'//www achieve.orglfiles/PubhePer- ceptlon-CCSS FinalReport.pdf

ACT (2012) College readiness. A first look at Ingher performing high schools, Retrieved from www.aet.org

Center on Education Pohey (2012) A public educatton prtmer. Basic (andsometimes .vurprÿmg) facts about the US educattonalÿystem Washington, D C : Ko- ber, N. and Usher, A

Common Core State Standards Commission (2015) Development process. Retrieved from http:// www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/ development-process/

Kentucky Department of Education (2012) "lop 10

rcasonÿ to support file common core. Retrieved from http://edueahon,ky gov/comm/UL/Pages!Ken- ttmky*Core-Academle- Standards.aspx

EPE Research Center. (2013). From adophon to practice: Teacher porspectwes on the common core. Retneved from www, edweek,org/media/

ewrc teachcrseommoneorq_2014 Farmer, B (2014, June 23). Common core is rotten to

the core New American (08856540), 30(12), 17-21 Fullan, M & Hargreaves, A (1992). Teacher develop-

ment and educational change. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher Development and Edueattonal Change. (pp t-9). Washing- ton, DC:The Filmer Press

Gallagher, M. (2013, May 12). Two morns vs. common core National Review Onhne Retrteved from http:l/www.natlonalreview.eom/article/3479731 two-moms-vs-eommon-eore

Knudson, R (1998) College students' writing: An as- sessment of competence 771eJournalofEdueattonat Ravearch, 92(1), 13-19

Na0onal Center for FAucattonal Statistics (2011). The condition of education 2011. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from htlp://ncea.edgov/ pubs2011/201 t033.pdf.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (20t3), Supporting the common core state standards for mathematic*. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/ cessmposltlon/

Porter, A., MeMaken, J, Hwang, J. & Yang, R (2011). Common core standards: The new U S. I n t e n d e d curriculum EducatlonalRÿeareher, 40(3), 103-116 dot. 10.3102/0013t89)(11405038

Sawehuk, S. (2012). Many Teachers Not Ready for the Common Core Education Week, 31(29), 16-22

Sikes, P J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds,), Teach- er Development and lgdueattonal Change, (pp. 36- 55). Washington, DC. The Falmer Press.

Wiener, R, (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating implementatton of Common Core mid teacher ef- fcetlveness poheles. Council of Chkf State School Officers The Aspen Institute: Education & Society Program. Retrieved from' http.//files.ene.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED542704 pdf

Wllhams, J, (2014, Febnmry 27) Who ÿs fighting lor common core? US New,ÿ Digital Weekly, 6(9), 6

Wright, D. (1985), Many college freshmen take remedial coarses National Center for Educatton Statistws Washington, D C

7 ome people might remember the 1970s book "Ylÿe (;ÿeeÿ¢mg 0J" 'ÿ)ÿAme,vca by (;harles Reich in which he comments--at some

tJJlength--ahi)ut how American culture systematically replaces

the real with the fake and the genuine xvlth the simulacrum. The

results, he says, ate predictable: It is an impoverishment of our

experiences, feehngs, ,and events through pass,vlty. Reich argues

that people become numb due to tt'te cot)st)at, rapid cultural

changes that only allow us to expermnce eve1 ,,'thing superficially.

Despite all this lmpovenshment of the spirit, he claims that people

have a natural need to be creative, to perform tot others in some

meaningful xva)5 but the omnipresence of passive activities due to

corporate culture chmunshes our creatavit):

Have the corporations of dreams of yesteryear become the

culture of today? Reich might have blamed the corporations of

1970 fox the passlvlt3 of peoplc, and, therefore, the subjugation of

then cJeattvitv But do we do anything m ouJ school systems to

foster creative expression?

There is much good to be said about the Common Cote as a

set of coheient standards, but the !,000-page ftamewoik has

expediency ingrmned in its hones. Its basic tenet is the search and

pursuit of an elusive futuie: college and career rea&ness. In this

new and improved producmm line, all the standards fit into a

rubric, and as educators, we package up our students each ),ear to

send flle,n along to the next grade, newly improved with the latest

widget, quaht) contro/ measurcd b) accumulated know/edge.

Students are never in a paltmulm glade. 'i'he) are always preparing

fol the next one.

They must surely feel that they are always behind on the skills

the), will need in a competitive lob market where they can work for

wages to buy mote things that they can experience passivel!:

Student skills will undoubtedly nnplove with the Conunon Core,

and teachers will be able to provide even better frontloadmg,

scaffolding, and assessment. The gloat, tmspokcn casualty m all of

this is creativity.

Where is there tmÿe for cÿeatfvÿty in dlts new system when

students need to be able to wtÿte argumentatrve essays, understand

narrative stiucmres, recognize themes, ol indicate explicitly what

they have learned) Where is creativity rewaided within the

institution> How can *t be assessed effectively'? A useful exercise

m this respect is to xvtite measurable oblectlves that a school

administrator would understand, students will be able to

extemporaneously be creative w, th a poem, song, ol skit of their

own making. TJ'y that one out )tad sce how long it takes before you

experience yore own form of rendmon to the prmc,pal's office for

tack of measurable outcomes

There is little institutional reward for teachers to promote

creativity in their students--at)ore and beyondÿthat which they

feel personally obhgated to do A creative student xvJll require mole

mvesttnent of time and differentiation of instruction. While it is

defLmtelv rewarding to foster such students, it doesn't fit into the

Should CFeativity be a Common Core Standard Keith Vance

standards in a measureable way. Well, luckily in our post-Charles

Reich world, we don't seem to have this ploblem. There is no ),my

of creataÿe kids banNng on our doo/s, stoÿes and skits atÿd ideas

for craTy prolects all ct umpled up in thew creative fists. Whÿ not)

IMaybe all those potentmlly cleative kids are home playing ÿ ideo

games, watching TV, textlng, Uacebookmg, YouTubing, or

Snapchattmg There has to be a reason why the Kaiser l:amily

FoundaUon Generation M2 stud)" (2012) found that 8-18-year-olds

had over four hours of screen time daily and an additional one

hour of computer scxeen time. If it isn't leisure time spent

xÿ atelung TV, playing video games, oz social netu ozkmg, then

perhaps wc can blame tlÿe cveÿ mcleasmg workload. If the poll

that appeared in the lÿorM1ge/e¢ 7ÿ*Jze, is correct ÿfa, 1st, 2014),

then high school students a*e ass*gned with 31/2 hours of

homework per night or 17 hours per week. J\dd up the amount of

homework plus screen time, and that's about eight hours a do}:

Throw m a sport or an extracurricular activity ot the occasi(mal sit-

down family dinner, and alI the free time is gone. It's hard to write a

poem when there are still 25 calculus problems to do, Facebook to

update, and Tÿvi/zghtreruns to be watched.

Creativity requtrcs time foJ retlcctton, for tntcglatÿon of one

1den with another, for revision, ÿethmkmg, or the occasional

epiphan}: It's flÿe work of yoking metaphors to the plough hoÿse

of knowledge to see what seeds can be sowed, and someumes iXIÿ

Hd simply doesn't deign to cooperate, A hoise is a horse, after all

Beyond lack of time, being creative is strenuous work. It takes

lots of pondering, pzacnce, and the pursuit of novel ideas. It

doesn't come easy. This isn't like William Gÿbson's Cyberpunk

umvetse where you can just phig in a S600 Intd chÿpset m )'our

spree and know how to be clcatlxe at Level 4. Fol a mole htelarv

reference, creativity does not only come m the foÿm of the

Romantic yet isolated, neal-etaÿed )rust whose soul is tortured in

direct proportion to the grace of his gdft

To play devil's advocate, could we say that om stude,ÿts ate

creative through technology> Not ÿeally For all the technology

available to our students and all the hype of Web 2.0 where

students are not skrnply consumers of mecha but parncapants in the

production of that media, children ate essentially passive

consumcrs ilÿ most areas of theÿ lives, At home, they watch TV

and movies, pla) vÿdeo games in worlds that somebody else

conceived o1ÿ designed, and coded They post materml on socml

media sites in fairly prescribed ways (most of the time) They

flutter from one webslte to the next, Creative) 1 think not

Theÿe ate few outlets for creativitT when so muctÿ has to be

learned in order to be read), for the next grade, for college, for a

career. Reich may have been discussing popular culture as

- California English. Vol. 21.2. November 2015. page 27 -

manufactured by products that corporations wish to sell, he could

oleo have been discussing the school system. We promote dual

ideas of college and career tea&ness, and the Irony Is that creative

workers will have a compettm-e adva_nmge, but creartvltT takes vine

to develop--rune that is not beang spent on hm'rvmg, tune where

fca, of not being competmve enough for college admÿssmn isn't

hukmg m the synapses m the Medulla Oblotÿgata

\gÿhat we all need to teahye ts that oeatwÿty does not only come

from within. Such wolk does not happen m a xacuum, ÿt requnes

specific structures be m place that allow for it to flourish This is

where teachers come in, and lmghsh teachets ate some of dÿe best

people stated for the lob.

kill; it <an it h0uld b, taught, Thÿs sort of statement goes lofts against all that we've lea, ned

through populm' cttlture about cJeattvc gemus. But let me gwe you

an example My IS\e-year-old son was my*ted to a mandatoty

chddren's bnthdav party, whmh meant that I was turned as well. I

fimnd ÿt £ÿscmatlng how the chddien xvme interacting, as much of

then rune xxas spent on running around the house ÿmÿrmg songs

flora Dtsney's I'¢ozetl. It seemed that watching tbls film is a lite of

passage befoie matriculation to kmdetgalten is allowed Palents

came and went, but all exclaimed at how creative kids can be

x; hv>

From what I observed, the Pads were pta3ung with wands and

dresses, a pie-fabricated snow castle, and figurines all bought

dttecth, from Dÿsncv's !ÿ)'0ÿeÿl umverse. The people at Dlsncÿ &d all

the crcam'e work. What did the kids do> Eÿ e0 theu play Jeplÿtcated

scenes flora the movm; no child went oft smqÿt much at all The

k*ds were not creating anything new, they were recÿrculating

matetml they had absorbed passwely

Lucky" for them, the Hrozen casde was toppled by the onslaught

of so many \Vhat came next was enhghtenmg. I took out some

wooden blocks and asked the kids to design thmr own castles

Soon enough, castles gave way m pÿrate ships and space staoons

The world widened, and the Mds begmÿ to cÿeate tlaelt mÿm game,

but not automatically. They needed p, oddmg, a b,t of moddmg,

and consistent questioning of what they wine up to In ÿthcÿ

winds, they needed a teacher.

So how can we, as educators, teach creativity) How c'm we

pxovMe the supportive em'ÿzonment that it needs? \Ve have to

scaffold creanvlty like anything else we do, and such acmques ate

predicated on skill development Let's uke an obvumsb" mine ,ÿ

pmpos example of a lngh school level profile assignment where

students are asked to wa,tc an essay about a "tcaclmt who made a

difference" m thcu hfe.

EXAMPLE #1 (without scaffolds): Nits Clalk looked upset

when she came toward me had never seen her that angry before,

especially now that the was yelhng 1 had tom up my adnnssÿon's

letter to Stanford, which she had found, but I wasn't going She was

bÿeathang pretty hard and had lots of student papers to gxade.

EXAMPLE #2 (ÿxnth scaffolds) Hm voice eÿhocd m the

cotu tyaÿd near the smoking wall. "learn" McCarth).l Have you lost

all yore' wÿts?" She came to\ÿard me hkc a ram squall, flogDng the

torn pmces of my admission letter to Stanford m ÿme hand and a

tower of books and student papers in the other I thought her

huffing stud shaml)hng run mÿght cause her a heart attack, hut iXhs

Claÿk was going m save me even ff ÿt killed her It neatly did.

In both versions, the srudem has the seed of an ÿdea, but the

second example ÿs obviously be{ter. What dÿe student needed was

the skilled hand of an mstxuctm to scaffold natramc sttatcgl.cs to

help express heÿ cÿcamaty. Just a few sample aettxqttcs can bcgm the

process

Qtaÿk \\.me #1' Idea Stage Install ot your reachers 3outhouÿht

were great \X-by were they wonderful?

Quick Wnte #2 Coding Reread your qmck wine and cn cle dÿe

top dÿrÿe teachers that influenced gm

"lYy to find a pattu ular charaetcr,ÿuc

the) had or something they did that

Shown here; Water Grasses 1; 2.4 x 1 8 inches; 2.013; Acrylic and ink on paper

on board - California English ,Vd 21.2 ,November 2015 ,page 28 -

mÿpacted you.

Qumk Wute #3: Showvs. "Fell Aftet pinking one teadÿer, write

down as many dÿ mils as you can about

what (s)hcdld to help )ÿ)u

Fostenng good nattam'e sl-dlls and analysis Is an essential part

of suppo,ung c, eatlve cxpressmn So even if our would-be student

has a top,c picked out 0.e. sMÿ s. ClaI k sax mg the day), hmx catÿ that

be turned rata a stor)a Well, our work as msnuctots ÿs definitely

not done after a couple quick writes. We could ptmqde some

instruction about the Journey of the Hero (1.ran K),,tg anyone>).

D*d Mrs Clark have her own heroic lourney"ÿ Maybe she helped

save JenW ÿ\lcCatthy even whde she was dmgnosed with Stage 4

cancer We could read poruons o£ Stephen King's On Wtmng,

wh,ch is a great support for narrauve Some addmonal practice

with dialogue tÿltough watching sccncs flora movms nvght bc the

catalyst t:ol further stoÿy development, and what student doesn't

like watching moxtes? Accessing student pilot knowledge b)

tevmwmg the plot snuctme of "/}Se O0'ÿr0, to decode the patuat

frame nattauve and ¢/1 med:a/'eÿ techmque could sÿgnffmantly

trenÿghen plot development. The hst of scaft)}lds and flontloading

acuvlnes could span page after page, but that Is what will turn an

dea Into creanve expless,on.

Teachers and admamstrators have shied away from so-called

ercatwc work because tt Is hard to teach and even mine chfficttlt to

gJade. How do you ÿade mcatJvtty? You don't. You gJade all of

the sk,lls that you have taught along the way You grade the qmzTes

you have given about diffment natrauve structures You ask

studentÿ to write axmotated bthhographms or book reports for the

texts on wtmug craft fllat you asked them to read Last[}; you have

a clear lubnc that mmnty looks at the uÿc of &alogue, charactet-

tzauon of the ptomgomsts/antagonÿsts, sopNsttcauon of the plot,

and pÿopeÿ mcchamcs, btudcots grade sample model papel s bo that

they cleally understand the dlffmence among A, B, C, D teÿel

papers Thus, a "C" grade on such a short smtÿ; for instance, does

not mean that the student's ÿdea wasn't good it means that it wasn't

executed as well as it could be. We take ourselves out of the

busme% o£ gra&ng creativity xvNie sull fostering its devekÿpment.

Charles Reich was tight m his dram that perÿple have a deep-

seeded need to he creanve and active; howevm, out fast-paced

cultmc, the mwlad of media temptations, and the significant

woJkload wc all haÿ c affect om desu c to be creative. It's lust so cas}

to be passive aftra the day's efforts have chained us. Why shÿmld

this be dtffelent for studentsa Indeed,*t may seem hke an

oxymoron to attNe for the mdusum of creauve work within the

ftamewoik when throe Is already so much ume pressme on teachms

and students ahke. Howeve,, stotwtelhng and poetry speak to out

pxmÿal ancestors that are sull locked away m out DNA, and it may

well be th, ough creauve acuvtty that we perform out best work

awwa}:

The problem ts that ff educators do not foster and support

. ÿ ÿ .Sÿ . . . " q" "T

How Do You Talkto YoU

Students the

- Echoes and Reflections prepares.ed2uÿators:to teagh ab0ut'{he Holocaust

- in a Way that stm,ÿulates engageriienfaild criticaJ thlnl<ifig while .ÿ ".provldlng opporlflnÿfles for students ÿ see theÿrelevance 6f'th:s complex

The program'offers: " .... .-,-

Exceptional piolessional development ....... :.. . :

, Extensive primary and secondary source materials

. ,ÿ Visual testimonies from survivors, liberators, and Other wltnesses ofthe

Holocaust

- Modular, mterdÿsc=plinaÿ1# loSsOhs that use a mÿx of mstruct=onal strategies and technologies -

, fxpa,sive array of print arld digÿlal resources

Help your students understand what happened during the Holocaust, why it happened, and how it relates to the difficult social isstms they face today with Echoes and Reflections,

ECHOES and REFLECTIONS Leaders in Hotocaust Education

A joint program of the Antl-befamatlon League, USC Shoah Foundabon, and Yad Vashem

USCShoah oundation A vAs. M

creative expression, somethmg terribly mÿpottant in the human condmon

• ,vdl be lost If teachers stop writing, stop reading, and stop creatmg, then

how can they effecttvely teach thell students these sÿllsa If we fail to

educate out students m great storytelhng techruques, how can students

recognize these stragegies in file readings we assign them?

The m)th of a creative mdtmdual who is smÿpl) "'gifted" or "talented"

ts resulting. CJeatlve development requues many horns ,of deltbmate

plactlce m become "'talented" The problem ÿs that ÿf we me not cmel-uI,

eteauvlty may go the way o[" ealhgraphg relegated to the realm of the few

who know how to ptactme it (.)nly the loss will be nmch gteatetl

Welcome to CATE2016 from the Convention Chair

D* Lash Kelth Vance has taught developmental and mterme&ate w, mng

couLses m the Wrmng Program aÿ UC Riverside since 1996. Ite has been

the Dltccto, of Computet-Asslstcd Instrucuon for the program since

2004, atÿd Is curJ early xvorkmg xÿ,tth Inland AJ ca Xg5 mng PJ ojcct leadeJ sh,p

to deÿ elop a selms oF leading/writing connecnon workshops fen area high

school teachers.

I began to plan CATE 2016, I thought first about the voices I

wanted to bring to speak to us I grew up in a house with only five books

- three 0f them were Readers Digest condensed volumes, one was a

college text on nursing, and one was The Prophet, by Kahhl Gibran. And

that was it. l must have read those books dozens of times, along Nth anything else I could manage get my hands on. I read the morning edition of the Houston Post and the afternoon e&tion of the Houston Chronicle I read Archle comic books. Cereal boxes. And Ladles Home Journal, with a particular affinily for the column "Can This Marriage Be Saved?" I was that kid in English class that took the anthology home the first weekend of school and read it from cover to cover, marvehng at the

voices I found, and rereading my favorite selections. I grew up hungry to

read and in love wth the written word, wherever I could find it

We are in a tÿme of significant change in Cahfornla and across our nation. The focus on literacy in our schools is mowng beyond the novels

that we all love, and even beyond the walls of our Language Arts classrooms. Our focus is expanding to include all types of reading and writing that must take place across our campuses and m the world

around us. This is exciting to me We've added a new session strand this

year, "Rea&ng and ÿkitmg Across the Dlsclphnes", as schools across the

state are working to make reading and wrrtlng an expected practice in all

classrooms and content areas.

CAIE 2016's Super Sessions feature Kelly Gallagher, Nancy Frey, and Doug Fisher, leading hteracy experts and practitioners that will help us to become even better at developing and sharpening the literacy habits of our students. Addltionalg our five major speakers, Denms Lehane, Tom

Uchtenheld, EI nest Morl ell, MIrlam Pawel, and Hector Tobar, demonstrate

the unique ways that literacy permeates and impacts our world. The

voice of the novelist, blographer, television wnter, playwnght, journahst,

book crific, hlstonan, 111ustrator, medla producer, and academzc writer are

all represented in their collective bodies of work. l'm excited about

bringing these writers to CATE because their voices are just a samphng of those our students can embody when they leave our classrooms to take their places in the woÿId

Our 2016 convention theme ÿs Inspiring Literate loves. I can't think of anythlng more thrdhng or powerful that we do as teachers Pleasejoln us

in Costa Mesa this February as we come together to this end

Shown here: Dogwood Rising) 40 x 26-- inches', 2013; Acrylic and ink on paper

- California English .Vol. 21 2 ,November 2015 ,pclge 30 -

TME, vol. 11, no. 3, p.737

Common Sense About the Common Core

Alan H. Schoenfeldz

University of California, Berkeley

Is the Common Core the best thing since sliced bread, or the work of the devil? Is it brand new, or a rehash of old ideas? Is it anything more than a brand name, or is there substance? Can it work, given the implementation challenges in our political and school systems? Opinions about the Common Core are everywhere, but the op-eds I've seen are often short on facts, and equally short on common sense. A mathematician by training, I've worked for nearly 40 years as an education researcher, curriculum materials developer, test developer, standards writer, and teacher. What follows is a Q&A based on that experience. I focus on the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, known as CCSSM, but the issues apply to all standards (descriptions of what students should know and be able to do).

What's the CCSSM about?

Take a look for yourself- the Common Core documents are available at <http://www.Corestandards.org/>. If you read the first 8 pages of CCSSM and then sample the rest, you'll get a good sense of what's intended. In brief, CCSSM focuses on two deeply intertwined aspects of mathematics: the content people need to know, and the knowhow that makes for its successful use, called mathematical practices. You can think of the content as a set of tools - the things you do mathematics with. The practices emphasize problem solving, reasoning mathematically, and applying mathematical knowledge to solve real world problems. Without the practices, the tools in the content part of the CCSSM don't do much for you. It's like being taught to use a saw, hammer, screwdriver, lathe, and other woodworking tools without having any sense of what it means to make furniture.

At heart, the CCSSM are about thinking mathematically. Here are two visions of a third grade class, both taken from real classrooms. In one, students are practicing addition and subtraction, getting help where needed to make sure they get the right answers. In another, the students have noticed that every time they add two odd numbers, the sum is even. A student asks, "Will it always be true?" Another says "but the odd numbers go on forever, we can't test them all." Pretty smart for a third grader! But later, a student notices that every odd number is made up of a bunch of pairs, with one left over. When

1 http://gse.berkeley.edu/people/alan-h-schoen feld

The Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 737-744 2014© The Author(s) & Dept. of Mathematical Sciences-The University of Montana

Schoenfeld

you put two odd numbers together, you have all the pairs you had before, and the two left-overs make another pair - so the sum is even. And this will always be the case, no matter which odd numbers you start with. Now that's mathematical thinldng - and it's what the core should be about. Of course, kids should do their sums correctly, and, they should be able to think with the mathematics.

It's important to understand what the Common Core is not. Most importantly, the Common Core is not a curriculum. CCSSM provides an outline of the mathematics that students should learn - an outline endorsed by 43 states. Equally important, the common core does not prescribe a particular teaching style: effective teachers can have very different styles. To date - and despite what you read or hear - the desired reality of the Common Core has not made its way into even a small minority of American classrooms. What happens in classrooms will depend on the curricula that are developed and adopted, on the high stakes tests that shape instruction (for better or worse), on the capacity of teachers to create classrooms that really teach "to the Core," and on the coherence or incoherence of the whole effort.

What do powerful classrooms look like?

CCSSM describes what kids should be able to do mathematically, including problem solving, producing and critiquing mathematical arguments, and more. Students won't get good at these things unless they have an opportunity to practice them in the classroom, and get feedback on how they're doing. (Imagine a sports coach who lectured the team on how to play, and then told the team to practice a lot before the big match. You wouldn't bet on that coach's success.) So, classrooms that produce students who are powerful mathematical thinkers must provide meaningful opportunities for students to do mathematics. Just as there are many successful (and different) coaches and coaching styles, there are many ways to run a successful classroom. At the same time, there's consistent evidence that classrooms that produce powerful mathematical thinkers have these five properties:'

• High quality content andpractlees. Students have the opportunity to grapple with powerful ideas in meaningful ways, developing and refining skills, understandings, perseverance and other productive "habits of mind" as they do.

• Meaningful, carefully structured challenge. Solving complex problems takes perseverance; students should neither be spoon-fed nor lost. In powerful classrooms students are supported in "productive struggle," which helps them build their mathematical muscles.

Equitable opportunity We've all seen the classroom where the teacher moves things along by calling on the few kids who "get it," leaving the rest in the dust. It shouldn't be that way. In the kind of classroom that lives up to the standards, all students are productively engaged in the mathematics.

Students as' sense makers. In powerful classrooms students have the opportunity to "talk math," to exchange ideas, to work collaboratively, and build on each other's ideas (just as in productive workplaces). In contrast to classrooms where students

TME, vol. 11, no. 3, p.739

come to learn that they're not "math people," students in these classes come to see themselves as mathematical sense makers.

A focus on building and refining student thinking. In powerful classrooms the teachers know the mathematical terrain and how students come to understand that content so well that they can anticipate common difficulties, look for them, and challenge the students in ways that help them make progress, without simply spoon- feeding them.

We call this kind of powerful teaching "Teaching for Robust Understanding": see <http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html>. Our goal should be to provide such learning experiences for all students. It's very hard to do this well - which is why the issue of supporting teachers' professional growth is crucially important. There are no quick fixes. We should be thinking in terms of consistent, gradual improvement.

What's new in the CCSSM?

The ideas behind CCSSM are not new. We've known for some time that students need a well rounded diet of skills, conceptual understanding, and problem solving - rich mathematics content and the opportunities to develop strong mathematical practices." The "standards movement" began in 1989, when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued its Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. NCTM's (2000) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics represented an updating of the 1989 standards, based on what had been learned, and the fact that technology had changed so much over the 1990s. CCSSM can be seen as the next step in a progression.

So what's different? First, the organization is new. CCSSM offers grade-by-grade standards for grades K through 8, rather than the "grade band" standards of its predecessors. It represents a particular set of"trajectories" through subject matter, being very specific about what content should be addressed. Second and critically important, the Common Core has been adopted by the vast majority of states. Prior to the Common Core, each of the 50 states had its own standards and tests. Some of these were world class, with a focus on thinking mathematically; some were focused on low-level skills and rote memorization. Some states compared favorably with the best countries in the world, and some scored near the bottom of the international heap. Mathematics education across the US was totally incoherent; where you lived determined whether you got a decent education or not. That's no way to prepare students across the US for college and careers, or the nation's work force for the challenges of the decades to come. And it's inequitable when your zip code determines whether or not you have access to a good education. IF CCSSM are implemented with fidelity in the states that adopted them, we'll have something like nationwide consistency and opportunity instead of the crazy quilt patchwork that we've had.

What's wrong with CCSSMP

I can find lots of things to complain about - everyone can. Can you think of a class you took that was so perfect that you wouldn't change a thing? With under 100 pages to

Sehoenfeld

outline all of school mathematics, the authors made a series of choices. Those choices can be defended, but so could other choices. However, if schools and classrooms across the US make strides toward implementing the vision of the Common Core described above, we'd make real progress.

What IS wrong is our political system, and the fact that teachers and schools are not being provided adequate preparation and resources to implement the Common Core. This lack of support can destroy the vision, because real change is needed. Teaching the same old way, called "demonstrate and practice," just doesn't cut it. (How much of the math that you memorized in school do you remember, and actually use as part of your tool kit?) The math we want kids to get their heads around is deeper and richer. Kids need to work hard to make sense of it, and in order to provide powerful learning environments teachers need to learn how to support students in grappling with much more challenging mathematics. This isn't a matter of giving teachers a few days of "training" for teaching the Core; it's a matter of taking teaching seriously, and providing teachers with the kinds of sustained help they need to be able to create classrooms that produce students who are powerful mathematical thinkers. The REAL reason some nations consistently score well on international tests (pick your favorite: Finland, Japan, Singapore...) is that those nations take teaching seriously, providing ongoing support and professional development for teachers. When teachers have a deep understanding of the mathematics, and are supported in building the kinds of rich classroom environments described above, the students who emerge from those classrooms are powerful mathematical thinkers.

What do "Common Core Curricula" look like?

I could say, "Who knows?" It bears repeating that the Common Core is not a curriculum. What might be called Common Core curricula - widely accessible curricula intended to be consistent with the common core - don't really exist yet, although publishers are rushing to get them out. When those curricula do emerge, we'll have to see how faithful they are to the vision of problem solving, reasoning, and sense malting described here.

One thing is for sure: the vast majority of materials currently labeled "Common Core" don't come close to that standard. Here's a case in point: A student recently brought home a homework assignment with "Common Core Mathematics" prominently stamped at the top of the page. The bottom of the page said, "Copyright 1998." That's more than a decade before the CCSSM were written. Remember when supermarkets plastered the word "natural" on everything, because it seemed to promise healthy food? That's what's being done today with phony "Common Core" labels. To find out whether something is consistent with the values of the Common Core you have to look at it closely, and ask: are kids being asked to use their brains? Are they learning solid mathematics, engaging in problem solving, asked to reason, using the math to model real world problems? In short, are they learning to become mathematical sense makers? If not, the "Common Core" label is just plain baloney.

Now, there are materials that support real mathematical engagement. For one set of such materials, look at the Mathematics Assessment Project's "Classroom Challenges," at

TME, vol. 11, no. 3, p.741

<http://map.mathshell.org/materials/index.php>. But, such materials do not a curriculum make - and again, materials without support are not enough. What really counts is how the mathematics comes alive (or doesn't) in the classroom.

What about testing?

Do you know the phrase "What you test is what you get"? When the stakes are high, teachers will - for their and their students' survival! - teach to the test. If the tests require thinking, problem solving and reasoning, then teaching to the test can be a good thing. But if a high stakes test doesn't reflect the kinds of mathematical thinking you want kids to learn, you're in for trouble. I worked on the specs for one of the big testing consortia, to some good effect - the exams will produce separate scores for content, reasoning, problem solving and modeling - but I'm not very hopeful at this point. To really test for mathematical sense making, we need to offer extended "essay questions" that provide opportunities for students to grapple with complex mathematical situations, demonstrating what they know in the process. Unfortunately, it appears that test makers' desire for cheap, easy-to-grade, and legally bullet-proof tests may undermine the best of intentions. It takes time to grade essay questions, and time is money. The two main tests being developed to align with the CCSSMm barely scratch the surface of what we can do. That's an issue of political will (read: it costs money and will shake people up), and the people footing the bill for the tests don't seem to have it.

The best use of testing is to reveal what individual students know, to help them learn more. That is, the most important consumers of high quality tests should be teachers and students, who can learn from them. It IS possible to build tests that are tied to standards and provide such information; there are plenty of examples at all grade levels. In addition, scores from such tests can be used to tell schools, districts, and states where they're doing well and where they need to get better. It's a misuse of testing when test scores are used primarily to penalize "under-performing" students and schools, rather than to help them to improve. (Moreover, high stakes testing leads to cheating. How many testing scandals do we need to make the point?) Finally, it's just plain immoral to penalize students when they fail to meet standards they were never prepared for. Holding students accountable for test scores without providing meaningful opportunities to learn is abusive.

What's needed to fix things?

There's no shortage of "solutions." To mention one suggestion that's been bandied about, why not just adopt the curricular materials from high-performing countries? That would be nice, if it would work - but it won't. If conditions were the same in different countries - that is, if teachers here were provided the same levels of preparation, support, and ongoing opportunities for learning as in high-performing countries, then this approach could make sense. But the US is not Singapore (or Finland, or Japan), and what works in those countries won't work in the US, until teachers in the US are supported in the ways teachers in those countries are. Singaporean teachers are deeply versed in their curricula and have been prepared to get the most out of the problems in their texts. Japanese

Sehoenfeld

teachers are expected to take a decade to evolve into full-fledged professionals, and their work week contains regularly scheduled opportunities for continuous on-the-job training with experienced colleagues. Finnish teachers are carefully selected, have extensive preparation, and are given significant amounts of classroom autonomy.

In short, if importing good curricula would solve the problem, the problem would have been solved by now. It's been tried, and it failed. Of course, good curricular materials make life better - IF they're in a context where they can be well used. The same is true of any quick fix you can think of, for example the use of technology. Yes, the use of technology can make a big, positive difference - IF it's used in thoughtful ways, to enhance students' experience of the discipline. I started using computers for math instruction in 1981. With computers you can gather and analyze real data instead of using the "cooked" data in a textbook; you can play with and analyze graphs, because the computer can produce graphs easily; and so on. But in those cases, the technology is being used to in the service of mathematical reasoning and problem solving. You can get much deeper into the math if you use the technology well, but the presence of technology in the classroom doesn't guarantee anything. In particular, putting a curriculum on tablets is like putting a book on an e-reader: it may be lighter to carry, but it's the same words. The serious question is, how can the technology be used to deepen students' sense making, problem solving, and reasoning?

The best way to make effective use of technology is to make sure that the teachers who use it in their classrooms are well prepared to use it effectively. Fancy technology isn't going to make much of a difference in a world where half of the new teacher force each year will drop out within the next 5 years (within 3 years in urban school districts) - a world in which there are more teachers in their first year of teaching than at any other level of experience. In professions with a stable professional core, the number of newcomers is a much smaller percentage of the total population: there are more established professionals to mentor the newcomers, and a much smaller drop-out rate. The best educational investment, as the highest performing nations make clear, is in the professionalization of teachers - so that they can make powerful instruction live in the classroom. In nations where teachers are given consistent growth opportunities, the teachers continue to develop over time. And, they stay in the profession.

Living up to the vision of the Common Core requires focus and coherence. Curricula and technology need to be aligned with the vision, and implemented in ways true to the spirit of sense making described here - including equitable access to the mathematics for all students. Administrators need to understand what counts, and support it. Testing needs to focus on providing useful information to teachers and students. Most important, we need to provide steady support for the teaching profession, so that teachers can make that vision live in their classrooms. We owe this to our kids.

TME, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 743

' The quickest path to documentation is through the web site <ats.berkeley.edu>. The front page shows the big ideas; click on the "tools" page to see evidence about, and tools for, productive thinking. "There's a massive amount of research behind this statement. For one early summary, see Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002, January/February). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31 (1), 13-25. ,1 See the web sites of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, PARCC, at <http://www.parcconline.org/>, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, SBAC, at <http://www.smarterbalanced.org/>.