8/2/2019 Common Core 1

1/7

EducationWEEkA Secia Reort on te Common Core State Standards>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport

>Mapping out the landscapeo academic content and instructionin the common-core era

COmmOnStandardS

&

A Supplement to the April 25, 2012, Issue

Vo. 31 No. 29

mh, Liecy,

TO

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721669:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721669:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

2/7

WA

MT

ID

OR

CA

NV

UT

AZ

WY

CO

NM

TX

O

KS

NE

SD

ND

By CAthErinE

GEwErtz

Success o Standards DependsOn Translation or Classroom

In less than three years, the CommonCore State Standards have vaulted overthree key hurdles, surprising more thana ew naysayers. In June 2009, governorsand education chies in 46 states pledgedtheir support or the idea. A year later,panels o experts unveiled the completedstandards. By last November, all but ourstates had ormally adopted them.

Now, the standards ace what expertssay is their biggest challenge yet: aithul transla-tion rom expectations on paper to instruction inclassrooms.

The implementation stage brims with possibili-ties both promising and threatening, depending

on ones perspective.To some critics, the standards carry the spec-ter o lock-step curriculum imposed by outsiders.To others, they represent a step down rom somestates top-notch standards, or an overemphasison skills at the expense o content. The standardsmost ardent backers see them as a brilliant distil-lation o what students urgently need to master tothrive in college and work, and as a door-openerto better teaching.

Whether opponents nightmares come true,or advocates hopes are borne out, will dependlargely on how the standards are put into prac-tice.

The biggest potential pothole, by ar, is ailedimplementation, said Chester E. Finn Jr., the

president o the Thomas B. Fordham Institute,a Washington think tank that has been trackingthe standards and counts itsel as an advocate.Its a huge, heavy lit i we are serious aboutteachers teaching it, kids learning it, curriculareecting it, tests aligned with it, and kids pass-ing those tests.

The common standards in math and English/language arts took shape in only a ew years, butthe sentiments that prompted them have longerroots.

Since 1983, when the reportA Nation at Riskwarned o U.S. educations growing mediocrity,attempts to create a shared set o academic ex-pectations have suraced and disintegrated. An

advisory panel under President George H.W.Bush recommended national standards andtests, but the idea collapsed in the atermatho controversy over history content. PresidentBill Clinton proposed national tests in 4th gradereading and 8th grade mathematics, but Con-gress demurred.

States crated their own standardsotenincorporating pieces o the voluntary nationalstandardsbut the results o the National As-sessment o Educational Progress and state testsadministered or the No Child Let Behind Actcalled the quality o many states standards intoquestion. Momentum built or better-quality ex-pectations applied to all children.

Its historic that in this country, with our better-than-two-century-old tradition o local control,state leaders would agree on common standards

like this, said Jack Jennings, the ounder o

the Center on Education Policy, a Wash-ington-based policy and research orga-

nization that has tracked common-

Overview

Avcae f ecmm ce yeak mpemeac ea vee

S6 | EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

3/7

WV

FL

LA

MN

IA

MO

AR

WIWI

MI

IL INOH

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

$360 onin federa grants as

gone to grous of

states deveoingcommon assessments.

standards implementation. Its a departure, butits not abrupt. Its a departure that builds on thelast 20 years o debate and experience.

That agreement hinged on a concept that waspivotal and deliberate, given previous politicalcontroversies: that the initiative was to be led bythe states. Panels o experts wrote the standardswith input rom states education departments,subject-matter organizations, teacher groups, andothers.

FEdErAl intrusion?

But critics contend that states didnt drive thecommon-standards eort as vigorously as did

oundations and Washington-based organizationsthat embraced the idea. The state-led descrip-tor came in or additional skepticism when theederal government began oering incentives toadopt the standards.

States, fscally battered by the recession, stooda better chance o winning a share o the Race tothe Top competitions $4 billion i they adopted thestandards by Aug. 2, 2010. As that date drew near,adoptions picked up speed. Thirty-our had adoptedby that day, including two on deadline day itsel.

Other moves by the ederal government in sup-port o the standards ueled the perception thatthey were an extension o the Democratic admin-istrations policy agenda. The U.S. Department oEducation awarded $360 million in grants to twogroups o states to develop tests or the new stan-dards. To participate in those consortia, states hadto have adopted the standards by the end o 2011.

Additionally, the governments oer this year towaive key requirements o the No Child Let Be-hind Act is easier to obtain or states that have

embraced the standards.Those moves sparked questions in some quar-

ters about whether the ederal government hadoverstepped legal restrictions on the role it canplay in local education decisions.

The message here seems to be that the ed-eral government has the money and can makeit available according to the conditions they set,said Kent Talbert, a Washington education law-yer who co-wrote a recent white paper concludingthat the ederal government has overstepped itsauthority in pressing or common standards andassessments. Once you agree to that, down theroad everyone will have to do the same thing, withonly a ew dierences here and there, because o

the way standards interact with curriculum andassessment.Common-core advocates argue that one shared

set o standards doesnt dictate content or peda-gogy, because content is not prescribed, and thereare many ways to teach the specifed skills. O-fcials who avor them, including U.S. Secretaryo Education Arne Duncan, have repeatedly saidthat states are ree to choose whether to embraceor reject common standards and tests.

But echoes o the questions about the ederalgovernments role have rippled through a ewstate legislatures, where lawmakers are just be-ginning to examine the ramifcations o adoptiondecisions made by their state boards o education.Such bills have called or repeal o the standardsadoptions, or or keeping a close watch on theirimplementation.

Few progressed very ar, but they sent up ares

or common-core advocates. Mr. Duncan himselresponded to South Carolinas attempt to roll backthe standards by accusing the state o lowering its

EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012| S7

TO

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

4/7

academic expectations. In Utah,where lawmakers had raisedquestions about ederal intrusioninto local education decisions,Mr. Duncan responded to a letterrom state schools Superinten-dent Larry Shumway by sayingthat nothing in ederal law or

in current or proposed policies othe U.S. Department o Educa-tion in any way contradicts Mr.Shumways insistence that Utahretains complete control o itsstandards and curriculum.A per sis tent perception that

the common core is ederallydriven, however, poses a poten-tial threat to its widespreadimplementation, its advocatessay. Mr. Finn, or instance, saidthat Mr. Duncan risks loving itto death by taking a high-profle

public stance on the commoncores behal.

Misgivings about the ederalgovernments role in the stan-dards is but one potential dangerzone lurking in their implemen-tation. Grappling with teachingthe skills demanded by the new

standards is no small challenge.

nEw VistAs

Math teachers ace having toteach skills to which theyre un-accustomed, since some conceptshave been moved to lower gradesin the new standards. Theyrealso being asked to ocus longerand more deeply on ewer con-cepts and to emphasize concep-tual understanding and practicalapplications o math. In manyplaces, such as Howard County,Md., that has resulted in a urryo activity as teachers brainstormabout how to design curriculum

and pedagogy that embody thestandards.The English/language arts stan-

dards present challenges o theirown. More than most states ownstandards, they insist on studentsbuilding content knowledge andreading skill rom independentlytackling inormational texts. Theydemand better analysis and ar-gumentation skills, and they in-volve teachers rom all subjectsin teaching the literacy skills otheir disciplines. Teachers in Ken-tucky, among other places, are ex-perimenting with new templatesthat attempt to capture these keyshits.

Without good instructional ma-

terials, the common standardscould be hamstrung, experts say.And the quality o the materialsproduced or the common core re-mains to be seen. Publishers largeand small have jumped into theray, oering an array o programsthey say are aligned to the com-mon core. States and districts areworking individually and togetherto drat their own. Those who ledthe writing o the standards arecrating explanatory documentsto guide teachers and publishers.Subject-matter groups are oer-ing resources, and the two groupso states working on tests arecreating, or planning, an array o

supports including online banks oteaching tools.Proessional development re-

mains a central area o concern asthe standards are implemented,

and many in the feld say the suc-cess o the initiative rests on it.

Teachers are not accustomedto teaching the way the standardsenvision, said Barbara A. Kapi-nus, who helped shape the stan-

dards as a senior policy analyst atthe National Education Associa-tion beore retiring this month.

We have a whole group o teach-ers out there who have come in inthe last 10 years, under No ChildLet Behind, who have been givenscripts to ollow and have marchedkids through those scripts andthrough sequences o little, teensyskills. What were talking aboutwith the [common] standards is acompletely dierent kind o teach-ing.

PrEPArinG tEAChErs

Reaching the nations more than

3 million teachers with good-qual-ity proessional development is nosmall task, especially or statesand districts whose coers are de-pleted ater several years o reces-

sion. And there is little sign thatteacher-preparation programs arerevamping their work to preparenewly minted educators or thenew standards.

Most current teachers haveread the standards or their gradelevel, think highly o them, and

are willing to teach them, but ewunderstand the proound changesin teaching that they will require,according to William H. Schmidt,a Michigan State University pro-essor widely known or his stud-ies o mathematics curricula. Heis currently conducting research,through the universitys Centeror the Study o Curriculum, ondistricts preparedness or the com-mon standards.

A majority o the teachers in-dicate that they think the newcommon-core standards are prettymuch the same as what they havebeen doing, Mr. Schmidt said inan email. The difculty I oresee

is that, in spite o this opennesstoward their implementation, thedata suggests that most teachersdo not recognize how difcult thatprocess will be.

Particular challenges lie aheador teachers o special educationstudents and those still learningEnglish as they try to build bridgesthat allow their students to re-spond to the new expectations.

The emphasis on mastery ocomplex texts and academicvocabulary, or instance, in ad-dition to the typical grammarand vocabulary, is uniquely chal-lenging or English-learners,advocates say. And experts saystudents with cognitive disabili-

ties, in particular, could strugglewith the standards. But the newguidelines also seem to be spread-ing techniques typically used orspecial education students, suchas Response to Intervention andUniversal Design or Learning, toa broader population.

Educators in big-city districtsare grappling with how best toteach the common standards,since many urban students comerom poverty and are academi-cally underprepared. Theyre try-ing to fgure out whether they canadapt the materials they have tothe new expectations or whetherthey must buy or produce new

materials, said Michael D. Cas-serly, the executive director o theCouncil o the Great City Schools,which represents the nations 67largest districts. At the same time,

SpeedyprOCeSS

Once te federa

government danged

benets for signing on

to te common core,

states quicky adoted

te standards in Engis/

anguage arts and

mathemacs. Its historic thatin this country,with our better-than-two-century-oldtradition of localcontrol, state

leaders could

agree oncommon

standards.

JACK JENNINGS

FounderCenter on Education Policy

FEbRUARY JUNE

171TOTAlSTATES

TOTAlSTATES

STANDARDSADOpTERSIN ThE YEAR

2010

State adoted standardsState as not adoted standards

State adoted standardsin ony one suject

WA

WV

FL

LA

MT

ID

CA

NV

UT

AZ

WY

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

WIWI

MI

IL INOH

KY

TN

M S A L GA

SC

NC

VA

PA

ME

AK

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

CT

DC

WV

LA

UT

AZ

WY

OK

NE

MO

MI

IL

OH

MS

NC

PA

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

RI

CT

DC

NY

OR

KY

WA

FL

LA

MT

ID

CA

NV

CO

NM

TX

KS

SD

ND

MN

IA

AR

WI

IN

TN

AL GA

SC

VA

PA

ME

AK

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

CT

DC

WV

LA

UT

AZ

WY

OK

NE

MO

MI

ILOH

MS

NC

PA

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

RI

CT

DC

NY

OR

KY

Sponsored by:

Deadline for nominations is June 30, 2012.

Does your school have:

H 3 or more years of data showing continuous improvement?

H 40% or more economically disadvantaged students?

Are you implementing school improvement strategies fromthe Breaking RanksFramework?

Your school could be aBreakthrough School and beawarded a $5,000 grant!

www.nassp.org/breakthrough

Is your school

improving achievement

for all students?

S8 | EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012

CliCk for more information about this advertiser

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721675:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

5/7

WA

FL

MT

ID

CA

NV

CO

NM

TX

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

AR

WI

IN

TN

AL GA

SC

VA

ME

AK

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

CT

DC

WV

LA

UT

AZ

WY

OK

NE

MO

MI

IL

OH

KY

MS

NC

PA

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

RI

CT

DC

NY

OR

heyre attending to other pieces oheir cities or states reorm agen-

das, such as teacher quality andchool turnaround work, all with

deep cutbacks in their budgets, heaid.Nonetheless, the stakes are high

o get the common standards right

n urban districts. Its importanthat we get implementation right

where there arent as many kidsn need, but its vital that we get itight in communities where lots otudents need extra help, Mr. Cas-erly said.

wAitinG For tEsts

One o the biggest questionshanging over common-standardsmplementation is what will be onhe tests designed or them. Someducators have reported reluctanceo move ahead with curriculum be-ause they dont yet know what the

assessments, scheduled to be ully

perational in 2014-15, will lookike. Others eel confdent enougho move ahead based on whathey can glean rom the standardshemselves.Educators judgments about

whether the tests truly relecthe standards will be crucial toustaining the standards over theong term, said Mr. Jennings o the

Center on Education Policy.The biggest potential obstacle

s the tests, he said. Because oheir experience with nclb, teach-rs want to know, what are theests going to require? Will theests back up what they are sup-

posed to do with the new stan-dards? I they dont, then the en-

ire eort is lost.The depth and breadth o the

ommon standards reach remainso be seen. Given the size o the im-

plementation challenge, even some the cores advocates anticipate

a bit o unraveling. Fordhams Mr.Finn gives the possibility o strongmplementation in all 46 common-tandards states a one in 100hance.Maybe two dozen [states], i

were lucky, will take it seriously,he said. That will be a dramatic,positive good or the country. Butnly hal the country.Mr. Jennings takes a more opti-

mistic view.

Nobody gets all the pieces right,ver, on anything, he said. Itswhether we get most o the piecesight or most kids and most teach-rs that will matter.n

JUlY/AUGUST

2011TOday

46pluS The diSTriCTOf COlumbia

37

TOTAlSTATES

TOTAlSTATES

WA

FL

MT

ID

CA

NV

CO

NM

TX

KS

SD

ND

MN

IA

AR

WI

IN

TN

AL GA

SC

VA

ME

AK

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

CT

DC

WV

LA

UT

AZ

WY

OK

NE

MO

MI

ILOH

MS

NC

PA

HI

NJ

MD

DE

VT

NH

MA

RI

CT

DC

NY

OR

KY

Genre StudyTeaching with Fiction and Nonfction Books

Fountas & Pinnell

ASSESSMENT TEACHINGINTERVENTIONMONITORINGPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ANNOUNCING

Available now

Entire Suite available Fall 2012

NEW from Fountas and Pinnell, a comprehensive suite of resources that

focuses onGenre Studythrough inquiry-based learning with an emphasison improving reading comprehension and supporting the craft of writing.

800.225.5800 I www.heinemann.com

Fountas and Pinnell2012 IRA Teaching Edge featured speakers

It is our hope to help students lay the groundwork for a lifetime

of literary exploration, and understanding of genre is a critical

part of that foundation. Irene C. Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell

CliCk for more information about this advertiser

EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012| S9

TO

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721676:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

6/7

6eNGliSh/laNGuaGe arTS/liTeraCy

KeyShifTS iNCOmmON

STaNdardS

1. Informaona TextBiding knowedge throgh

content-rich noncon and

informaona texts.

At te eementary eve, te standards ca

for a 50-50 balance between informaonal

texts and literature. They shi the

emphasis to 55 percent informaonal

y midde scoo, and 70 ercent y ig

scoo. Suc reading incudes content-ric

noncon in history/social studies, science,

and the arts. Informaonal text is seen

as a way for students to uid coerent

genera knowedge, as we as readingand wring skills.

2. Cing EvidenceReading and wring gronded

in evidence from text.

Te standards ace a remium on students

use of evidence from texts to resent

carefu anayses and we-defended caims.

Rather than asking students quesons

tey can answer soey from teir rior

knowedge or exerience, te standards

envision students answering quesons

tat deend on reading te text or texts

wit care. Te standards aso require te

culvaon of narrave wring throughout

te grades. Te reading standards focus onstudents aiity to read carefuy and gras

informaon, arguments, ideas, and details

ased on text evidence.

3. Compex TextRegar pracce with compex text

and its academic vocabar.

Te standards uid a staircase of

increasing text comexity to reare

students for te tyes of texts tey must

read to e ready for te demands of

coege and careers. Cosey reated to text

comexityand inextricay connected

to reading comreensionis a focus on

academic vocauary: words tat aear in

a variety of content areas (suc as ignite

and commit).

mileSTONeS iN The mOve TOward COmmON STaNdardS

1983A Naon at

Riskwarns of

U.S. educaons

mediocrity,

sarking a focuson academic

standards.

1989president George

h.W. bus and

the naons

governors agree

to set naonaleducaon goals.

1991president bus

unveis te

America 2000

Act, wic

roosesvountary

naonal

standards

and tests. It

fais to win

congressiona

suort, ut is

administraon

funds

deveoment

of vountary

naonal

standards.

1994president bi

Cinton signs

te Goas 2000:

Educate America

Act, wicrovides grants

to e states

deveo content

standards

and sets u

a standards-

cercaon

ane. Te

vountary

naonal

standards in

arts, civics,

geogray, socia

studies, Engis/

anguage arts,

istory, science,

and foreign

anguages are

reeased.

1994lynne V. Ceney,

te former ead

of the Naonal

Endowment for

the Humanies,

wic ad

susidized

te istory

standards,

aacks a dra,

arguing tat

it resents an

overly negave

icture of te

United States

and Western

civilizaon. The

U.S. Deartment

of Educaon

witdraws

funding for

te Engisstandards.

1995Te Senate

asses a

noninding

resoluon

denouncingte istory

standards.

1996Te Reuican-

ed Congress

eiminates te

standards-

cercaonane.

2002president George

W. bus signs

te No Cid

Le Behind Act,

wic requiresannua state

tesng in math

and reading in

grades 3-8 and

once during

ig scoo,

and mandates

states aign

teir tests wit

teir academic

standards.

2008The Naonal

Governors

Associaon,

te Counci

of Cief StateSchool Ocers,

and Acieve, in

consultaon with

state eaders,

reease a reort

advocang U.S.

standards e

equivaent to

the expectaons

of academicay

successfu

countries.

april2009Te CCSSO and

NGA aunc te

Common Core

State StandardsIniave. Two

monts ater, a

ut four states

ave edged

teir suort.

of K-12 public schoolstudents in the U.S.now live in states thathave adopted thecommon standards.

S10 | EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS>www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r

8/2/2019 Common Core 1

7/7

Smarter Baanced Assessment Consorm (26)

Partnership for Assessment of Readinessfor Coege and Careers (24 ps D.C.)

Both (5)

None (5)

maThemaTiCS

4. FocsFocs strong where the

standards focs.

Rater tan racing to cover toics in a mie-

wide, inch-deep curriculum, signicantly

narrow and deepen the way me and

energy are sent in te mat cassroom. Te

standards focus deey on te major work of

eac grade so tat students can gain strong

foundaons: solid conceptual understanding,

a high degree of procedural skill and uency,

and te aiity to ay te mat tey know

to sove roems inside and outside te mat

cassroom.

5. CoherenceThink across grades, and ink to

maor topics within grades.

Te standards are designed around coerent

rogressions from grade to grade. Carefuy

connect te earning across grades so tat

students can uid new understanding onto

foundaons built in previous years. Each

standard is not a new event, ut an extension

of revious earning. Instead of aowing

addional or supporng topics to detract

from te focus of te grade, tese toics can

serve te grade-eve focus.

Emasize concetua understanding of key

concepts, such as place value and raos.

Teacers suort students aiity to access

concepts from a number of perspecves so

tat students are ae to see mat as

more tan a set of mnemonics or discrete

rocedures.

he students uid seed and accuracy in

calculaon. Teachers structure class me

and/or homework me for students to

pracce core funcons, such as single-digit

mulplicaon, so that they have access to

more comex concets and rocedures.

Use math exibly for applicaons. Teachers

provide opportunies for students to apply

mat in context. Teacers in content areas

outside of math, parcularly science, ensure

tat students are using mat to make

meaning of and access content.

SOURCE:Adapted From Student Achievement Partners

July 2009Deveoment and

feedack grous

for career and

coege readiness

standardsteskis students

soud ave uon

graduaonare

announced.

SepT. 2009The dra

coege- and

career-readiness

standards are

made avaiae for

uic comment.

NOv. 2009Te deveoment

and feedack

grous for te

grade-y-grade

K-12 standardsare announced.

Unveied Race

to te To rues

say states can get

oints on teir

applicaons for

adopng the

standards y

Aug. 2, 2010.

FEB. 2,2010Kentucky

becomes the rst

state to adot

te standards,condionally, in

dra form.

marCh2010Dra K-12

grade-y-grade

standards are

made avaiae for

uic comment.

juNE 2,2010Fina common

standards are

issued.

july 14,2010haf te states

ave adoted te

standards.

april2010Te Deartment

of Educaon

invites

applicaons from

grous of states

to design tests

for te standards.

To eong to te

consora, states

ave to adot te

standards y te

end of 2011.

SepT. 2010The Educaon

Deartment

awards $330

miion to two

consora todeveo tests

for te common

standards. Four

monts ater,

te deartment

awards $30

miion more to

the two consora

to deveo

suementa

resources for te

standards.

SepT. 2011Te deartment

announces

guideines for

states wising

to ay forwaivers of key

requirements

of te No Cid

Le Behind Act.

To quaify, states

must adot

coege- and

career-ready

standards.

NOv. 2011A ut four states

ave adoted

te standards.

All but ve are

parcipangin one or ot

assessment

consora.

SOURCES: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium;

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College

and Careers

Wv

fl

la

Ca

aZnm

ok

ks

ne

sd

mn

ia

mo

ar

Wi

mi

il inoh

ky

tn

ms al Ga

nC

va

Pa

ny

me

ak

nJ

hi

md

de

vtnh

ma

ri

Ct

dC

Wa

tX

Wv

Ca

nv

Wy

Co

ndmt

id

or

ut

ks

sd

ia

mo

mi

sC

Pa

me

6. rgoIn maor topics, prse concepta nderstanding, procedra ski

and enc, and appicaon with eqa intensit.

aSSeSSmeNTCONSOrTiamemberShip

EDUCATION WEEK: COmmON STANDArDS >www.edweek.org/go/standardsreport AprIl 25, 2012 | S11

TO

http://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:rhttp://e-news.edweek.org/ct/15721679:18657937470:m:1:219370056:CE769A761B4E30EF31C924AF22DB97D1:r