# data[].attributes.body
"Because  economic  progress  and  educational  achievement  go  hand in  hand, educating  every  American  student  to  graduate  prepared for  college  and  success  in  a  new  work  force  is  a  national  imperative.  Meeting  this  challenge  requires  that  state  standards  reflect  a level  of  teaching  and  learning  needed  for  students  to  graduate ready for success in college and careers."

Barack Obama

White House Statement

February 22, 2010

# data[].attributes.body
The Common Core State Standards have always been of interest to me, considering they were fully implemented and put into practice once I left high school and having heard differing opinions from teachers, colleagues and experts. I figured that these standards would define my teaching career and would be my guide through creating materials or curriculum. As I learned more and delved in deeper, it became clearer that teacher opinions, researchers and experts in education, curriculum developers, state governments, parents and advocates of education may have a bone to pick with the common core or standards-based education.

Prior to my research and findings, I had no real understanding of how these standards were born or how they formed within our government and over multiple administrations over the course of several years. I did not realize that particular organizations had full control over the creation of these standards. I also did not realize the motives behind why there was such a large push for standards reform within our country. The statistics and data tell quite an illuminating story of the Common Cores effects on student populations as well.

My questions going into this research were: How were these standards formed? Who implemented them? Why is there no solid, optimistic opinion of these standards? How do they affect student achievement? Do they affect achievement positively or negatively? What does the data tell us of their effectiveness? (If any at all?) Why are the standards considered controversial?  Where do we go from here, and can anybody in the research answer this question?

# data[].attributes.body
The Obama Blueprint document also asserts that common standards are important in achieving the equality

goal of having all children, regardless of circumstance, achieve at high levels. As noted  above,  aligning  these  standards  with  curriculum  and  assessments  is  also  a key part of the federal approach. In the Blueprint, the common standards are specifically required to be 'high' (all students must be career and college ready), as contrasted with 'low' standards  such  as  those  of  the  1970s,  which  only  required students to achieve minimum basic skills. President Obama‘s letter transmitting the Blueprint to Congress  says that 'we must raise the expectations for our students, for our schools and for ourselves' to prevent other nations from out-competing us. The National Governors Association  and  Council  of  Chief  State  School  Officers  also  assert  that  international  competitiveness  requires  common  core  standards.Think  tanks  and  business organizations routinely link standards to economic competitiveness.

The Equity Argument
The equity argument is made by, among others, the

Education Trust, which asserts that educational equity demands uniform, high-quality, standardsbased curricula for all. It points to the clear history in the United States of curricular stratification and disparate opportunities; if there are different paths for different students, poor children will be given the inferior path.This view is supported by Joan Richardson, editor of Phi Delta Kappan: "Standards are an essential step toward ensuring equity and high quality learning for all children everywhere.

In this view, 'common core' standards will

allow broad based sharing of what works within and across schools, districts and states.  Thus,  efficiency  will  be  increased.  Further,  with  a  common  curriculum,

children will be able to move from school to school across the nation and basically not have the continuity of their studies interrupted.

Mathis 2010

# data[].attributes.body
There  exists  no  research  on  the  actual  impact  of  common  national  standards in the United States. The reason is simple: there have never been such standards. There is, however, research evidence that bears on the likely impact of such a system. Other nations have national standards, and over the past two decades all states have  adopted  standards-based  education  policies.  These  efforts  can  illuminate the likely results of the common core standards policy. In  addition  to  research  evidence,  policymakers  and  others  may  consider policy and political concerns. As noted, for instance, the federal government‘s role  in  K-12  education  has  historically  been  limited,  with  states  charged  in  their individual constitutions with those responsibilities. Whether framed as a legal, political or policy matter, many Americans question whether the federal government should  make  such  a  strong  demand  on  states  to  adopt  common  standards.  There are also a variety of implementation issues and obstacles that may undermine the success  of  a  common  standards  effort.  Whether  such  a  system  can  be  implemented  with  valid  assessments  is  fundamental,  as  is  the  adequate  funding  of  the programs needed for children to reach these standards. (Mathis, p.3, 2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Online collaborators

At the moment, there are no other collaborators online

Double-click an entry to view an older version.

Older events are not shown here. To see the full history of changes click the button below.

This map has no version history, it may have been created as a copy of another map.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the moment, there are no other collaborators online Double-click an entry to view an older version. Older events are not shown here. To see the full history of changes click the button below. This map has no version history, it may have been created as a copy of another map.

# data[].attributes.headline
Our Current Standards Initiative and Reform

# data[].attributes.subject
Our Current Standards Initiative and Reform

# data[].attributes.body
Who founded, established and supported the Common Core?

In  April  2009,  representatives  from  41  states  met  with  CCSSO [Council Of Chief State School Officers] and NGA [National Governors Association] representatives in Chicago and agreed to draft a set of common standards for education. Achieve, a corporation founded by the NGA following the 1996 demise of he  national  standards effort,  was  commissioned  by  NGA/CCSSO  after  the  Chicago meeting to draft the new ―common core standards in reading and mathematics.

The  project  was  fast tracked:  Achieve  was  to  have  a  draft  by  summer 2009 and grade by grade standards by the end  of  the  year. Historically, the development  of  subject matter  standards  had  been  the  province  of  specialists  in those subjects working in universities and in schools. By contrast, Achieve work groups met in private

and the development work was  conducted by persons who

were  not,  with  apparently  only  a  single  exception,  K-12  educators.  The  work groups were staffed almost exclusively by employees of Achieve, testing companies (ACT and the College Board), and pro-account ability groups (e.g., America‘s Choice,  Student  Achievement  Partners,  the  Hoover  Institute).

Practitioners  and subject matter experts complained that they were excluded from the development process.

Of  the  more  than  65  people  involved  in  the  common  core design and review, only one was a classroom teacher and no school administrator is  listed  as  being  a  member  of  the  groups. In  addition  to  the  financial  support

from the federal government, the Gates Foundation is a significant contributor to the  common  core  standards  effort.

Mathis 2010

# data[].attributes.body
Aside from the federal funding, the Gates Foundation also contributed significantly to the effort to create new common core state standards for U.S. schools. The foundation not only bankrolled the development of the standards, but also built vital political support across the country, and persuaded state governments to make systemic and costly changes. The Gates Foundation essentially provided the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided col- lusion between states’ rights and national interests that had a tendency to undercut previous efforts (Layton, 2014). It provided financing across the political spectrum to teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association (NEA), and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Layton, 2014). Despite previous conflicts, these groups became vocal supporters of the standards. Further, financing was channeled to policy groups on both the left and right to scholars of varying political persuasions who advocated for common core state standards. For example, liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who often were on opposite ends of the policy spectrum accepted funds from the Gates Foundation and were on common ground with common core standards (Layton, 2014).

In assessing the foundation’s investment in creating, implementing and promoting common core state standards, it is clear that it essentially underestimated the basic level of resources and support necessary for America’s public education systems to be properly equipped to actually implement the standards (Strauss, 2016). Moreover, the foundation missed an early opportunity to engage teachers, parents, and communities so that the benefits of the standards could take affect from the beginning (Strauss, 2016).

Deas 2018

# data[].attributes.body
Aside from the difficulty that is clearly implied by the common core standards requirement that every American high school graduate be college and career ready, another challenge will be determining the difficulty of the required tests and where to actually set passing scores. These are critical decisions because they will most definitely affect the percentage of students, teachers, and schools labeled as proficient. This issue has the potential to become quite political because if the standards are unrealistically high, this could be detrimental to potentially low-scoring students, the national economy, and society (Warren & Grodsky, 2009)

Some scholars argue that common core state standards will inevitably lead to restrictive high-stakes, standardized testing similar to that associated with NCLB (Au, 2013). They hold the view that the authentic standards movement has been subverted by a high-stakes standardized test-based movement. Scholars in the field such as Wayne Au (2013) contend that these forms of standards and accountability have deviated from their original intent and have relied erroneously on the faulty measures provided by high-stakes, standardized tests. Moreover, Au (2013) and other scholars in the field note that socioeconomically disadvantaged children across race lines are seeing certain subjects such as art or physical education eliminated to focus on mathematics and literacy as well as test preparation.

A thorough assessment of common core state standards as an education policy reveals that despite being referred to as state standards, the common core state standards are really national standards (Mathis, 2010; Au, 2013). A careful evaluation of the policy reveals that these standards were originally developed with national standards as the primary goal (Au, 2013). In fact, the goal and referring to them as state standards was mainly a tactic or strategy to aid in negotiating the complicated politics of national standards and national curriculum (Au, 2013).

In fact, the support for common core state standards is comparable to that of NCLB with the exception of two critical aspects. With the common core state standards unlike NCLB, the support of civil rights organizations and discourse around racial achievement gaps and inequality are notably absent (Au, 2013). There are also similarities in terms of the opposition generated against both policies (Au, 2013). For example, opponents of both education policies cited the need for local control, concerns or fears of a federal overreach with a possible national curriculum, fiscal efficiency, and parents’ rights (Au, 2013). As was the case with NCLB, a close examination of the political landscape concerning the policy reveals that the common core has caused a division or split amongst some political conservatives (Au, 2013). For instance, right wing extremists, populist libertarians, states’ rights advocates, and Tea Party styled free market nationalists such as the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Washington Policy Center, and the Goldwater Institute have taken a stand against the common core state standards movement due to years of federal control and critique of big government spending (Au, 2013). In 2013, some 10 states backtracked on their support of the common core state standards with conservative Republicans in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Alabama leading the effort to block the implementation of the policy in their respective states (Au, 2013). While liberal Democrats tend to be supporters of the common core state standards as was the case with NCLB initially, the policy initiative has also caused some rifts amongst left progressives (Au, 2013).

Deas 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
The State of State Standards Post Common Core

# data[].attributes.subject
The State of State Standards Post Common Core

# data[].attributes.body
The Common Core States vs. Independent Standards of Particular States

# data[].attributes.headline
2018 Conclusions from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute 

# data[].attributes.subject
2018 Conclusions from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute 

# data[].attributes.headline
2019 Implementation Trends in Career Readiness that might answer "Is the Common Core Dead?"

# data[].attributes.subject
2019 Implementation Trends in Career Readiness that might answer "Is the Common Core Dead?"

# data[].attributes.body
For the full study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X19837239

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Outcomes with Common Core in California as of 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Outcomes with Common Core in California as of 2019

# data[].attributes.body
Common Core is thus a policy designed to address the at best very limited effectiveness of NCLB, which was itself was a policy to address the similarly weak results of the Improving America’s Schools Act and Goals 2000 in the 1990s. At each stage, increased centralization and nationalization of decisions on curriculum and testing have been adopted as a cure for what ails the previous round of reform, which also relied on increased centralization and nationalization of decisions on curriculum and testing. There was no reason to believe that another round of centralization of curriculum, in the form of Common Core, would raise student achievement. Unfortunately, the evidence today indicates pessimism was realism. (p. 7)

Contrary to the lofty initial promises and aspirations for Common Core, the national results after four years of full implementation have ranged from mediocre to outright poor, especially for lower-achieving students who are most in need of improvement. Far from moving American students toward internationally competitive student achievement, we have seen little improvement overall and some significant declines. Of course it is impossible to exclude other factors that could impact outcomes, but if the Core was so important that the federal government and many of its supporters believed it should form a single set of national curriculum standards, historic score declines are very disappointing. In U.S. math, there was no improvement at the 8th grade on the NAEP from 2009 to 2017, with the first statistically significant decline since the 1990 baseline occurring in the period between 2013 to 2017, the most intensive period of Common Core implementation.

In that span scores dropped from 285 to 283.39. Eighth grade results were uneven for different student populations. High-achieving students at the 90th percentile continued the long-term trend of small significant gains, increasing
between 2013 and 2017 from 331 to 333. However, average and lower performing students at the 50th, 25 th, and 10th percentiles saw their first statistically significant declines since the 1990 baseline, dropping between 2013 and 2017 from 286 to 283, from 261 to 256, and from 237 to 233
respectively. Black and Hispanic students also saw their first statistically significant declines since the 1990 baseline in the period between 2013 and 2017, dropping from 263 to 260 and from 272 to 269 respectively.

NAEP 4th grade math scores similarly showed no improve- ment from 2009 to 2017 and, during the most intensive period of implementation of Common Core from 2013 to 2017, we saw the first statistically significant decline, from 242 to 240, since the NAEP assessment baseline in 1990.40 These results were uneven for different student subpopulations, with students at top end of the scale (75th and 90th percentiles) continuing the long-term trend of small significant gains from 2009 to 2017; however, low to average performing students at 10th, 25th and 50th percentiles saw their first significant declines since the 1990 baseline between 2013 and 2017, from 203 to 198, from 222 to 219, and from 243 to 241, respectively.

There was no statistically significant change between 2013 and 2017 in the performance of Black and Hispanic students, but a small significant decline for White students from 250 to 248.41 NAEP 12th grade math scores are available only through 2015. Scores were unchanged between 2009 and 2013 at 153, but were statistically significantly lower at 152 in 2015. The change from 2013 to 2105 was uneven among student groups. There was no significant change for higher achieving students at the 90th and 75th percentiles, while lower achieving students at the 50th, 25th, and 10th percentiles saw statistically significant declines of 2, 3, and 4 percentile points respectively. White, Black, and Hispanic students were all reported to have dropped by 2 points between 2013 and 2015.

In U.S. reading at grade 8 on NAEP, there was a small statistically significant improvement from 264 in 2009 to 267 in 2017, but no significant improvement since full implementation of Common Core in 2013. The impact was uneven for different student subgroups. There was no significant change between 2013 and 2017 for high and average performing student groups (90th, 75th, and 50th percentiles) but there were statistically significant declines for students in lower performing groups at the 25th and 10th percentiles, including a decline of 1 point for students at the 25th percentile and a decline of 4 points for students at the 10th percentile. While there was a small statistically significant improvement between 2009 and 2017 for White, Black, and Hispanic students, there were no significant improvements between 2013 and 2017 for any of these student groups.

NAEP reading at grade 4 reported no statistically signifi- cant change from 2009 to 2017 and also no significant change from 2013 to 2017. Over the period of full Common Core implementation from 2013 to 2017, there were no significant changes for students at the 90th and 50th percentiles and improvement in line with long-term trends for students at the 75th percentile (increase of 2 points), but there were statistically significant declines for lower performing students at the 25th and 10th percentiles of 1 and 3 points respectively. There were no statistically significant changes between 2013 and 2017 for White, Black, or Hispanic students.

NAEP reading results at grade 12 are available only through 2015. Unfortunately, there has been no statistically significant improvement since 2002, including no significant change between 2013 and 2015.47 Similarly, there were no significant improvements for White, Black, or Hispanic students between 2013 and 2015. Attempting to zero in more precisely on the state-level impact of Common Core, one analysis of state declines on NAEP in 2015 found that states that moved to full implementation of Common Core experienced larger declines than states that had not yet done so, indicating the decline may be related to Common Core.

Rebarber 2020

# data[].attributes.body
My own analysis noted that despite the goal of matching the accelerated mathematics curriculum of high-performing countries, the main track in the final Common Core math standards remained two years behind our international com- petitors by the end of 8th grade—the same as before Common Core! Instead of accelerating the math curriculum, the design of the Common Core math standards assumed and promoted certain flawed progressive instructional assumptions and dog- mas. Since the math standards generally rejected the proven approach of high-achieving Asian countries, the final Com- mon Core standards no longer claimed to be “internationally benchmarked” and indicated instead that they were merely “internationally informed.” (p.9)

Rebarber 2020

# data[].attributes.body
It is informative to compare average annual improvement before Common Core and afterward. Figure 4 illustrates that gains averaged a little less than three quarters of a scale point per year at grades 8 and 4 before implementation of Common Core, while afterward we have seen average annual declines of half of a scale point at grade 8 and a little less than a quarter of a point at grade 4. At both grades, the total gain before Common Core was statistically significant and the total decline since Common Core was also statistically significant (both at 95 percent confidence level). (p.11)

Students who were not already top-performers before Common Core have fared less well since its implementation. Grade 8 math achievement for students at the 75th percentile, which was improving gradually before Common Core, has plateaued and remained at about the same level (yellow arrow indicates no statistically significant change since Common Core, at 95 per- cent confidence level). Students who were average (50th percentile) or below before Common Core have declined since its implementation, with the steepest declines experienced by students at the 25th and 10th percentiles, those already the furthest behind (red arrows indicate statis- tically significant declines since Common Core, at 95 percent confidence level). As discussed above in the Introduction, this pattern is what we would expect to see based on the design of Common Core and Jeanne S. Chall’s comprehensive review of the relevant research. (p.12)

Rebarber 2020

# data[].attributes.body
The typical excuse offered by Common Core defenders for the poor results that began appearing soon after its implementation in most classrooms is to claim inadequate funding. However, the U.S. spends more per student than nearly all developed countries in the world. According to a recent international comparison of K-12 education spending, the U.S. ranks second out of 27 OECD countries in annual per student expenditure and spends $3,300 above the average. Further, from the 2012/13 school year through the 2018/19 school year (which includes Common Core implementation, U.S. public school spending per student increased by approximately 10.5 percent in constant dollars, from $11,552 to $12,760 (not including capital expenditure) (p.16).

Other defenders of Common Core have attempted to develop more creative explanations for the poor results. The president of the strongly pro-Common Core Thomas B. Fordham Institute has hypothesized that lower student achievement since 2013 is a multi-year delayed effect of the 2009 economic recession, impacting test scores of students born during that period many years later when they are tested on NAEP at grade 4 (roughly 2019). Based on this
hypothesis, he predicted before the 2019 NAEP scores were released that scores at grade 4 would be worse but, “if we’re
lucky,” test scores might increase at grade 8.41 However, after the 2019 NAEP results were released and scores declined again at grade 8 as well as grade 4, he continued to blame the “lingering effects” of the recession that occurred ten years earlier. (p.16)

Another response from Common Core advocates has been to point to one or two (of very few) states that have managed to raise student achievement since the advent of Common Core and exclaim: see, it’s possible! But the criti- cism of Common Core is not that its negative effects will always, under any circumstances, outweigh all other factors impacting student achievement. The question is whether it is generally helpful in raising student achieve- ment or if it is generally harmful. (p.18)

Rebarber 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
What can be done? Where do we go from here?

# data[].attributes.subject
What can be done? Where do we go from here?

# data[].attributes.body
"When comparing these four learning goals to the framework and written standards of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which is used as the main curriculum for many schools across the nation, I find that the CCSS falls short by focusing exclusively on skill and knowledge development. While these two areas are important for growth and development, they also exclude students’ personal development. Nor do we find that these two goals are enough when considering the social unrest and urgent times that we live in." -Gholdy Muhammad (2020)

"....we must recast the CCSS to be more inclusive of identity and criticality so that these new standards, derived from history, become the pathway to improve education for all youth today. They also become a gauge to measure learning and teaching." -Gholdy Muhammad (2020)

To bounce off of Gholdy Muammad's perspective, the Common Core is built to have children and young adults have specific expertise in factual knowledge that is deemed as being necessary for them to learn in order to progress successfully through school. In reality, this limited mindset leaves no room for children to grow their own foundations of knowledge and find joy and meaning in what they are learning within the classroom. There needs to be a mutual goal, motive or understanding among educators using Common Core to connect the skill building and essential factual knowledge for children and who students are. How they can find joy and begin to think deeply about their school work when it is not correlated with their own lives? I think that if there was a shift in perspective amongst educators and curriculum creators to think about who these children are that we want to educate and learn these facts, then we may be able to be better educators and find flexibility in the rigidity that lies within the standards. We need to change our perspectives and begin to take the politics out of education and look closely at the theories of education. How can we marry rote knowledge, skills and the standards with who children are at their core? Where can we find joy and criticality? I think this would begin with taking the Common Core Standards and Framework and restructuring it within Gholdy Muhammad's Historically Responsive Literacy Framework that centers on Identity, Skills, Intellect, Criticality and Joy. I also think it would be worth advocating for her rewritten standards to go to policy makers for consideration considering that they are the ones creating standards for children they do not teach or try to understand.