California is now a Common Core state

Well, the State Board of Education today voted unanimously (9-0) in support of the Common Core standards as supplemented by the Academic Content Standards Commission.

It was a job well done and many thanks are due all around. Two key points emerged from the discussion and action.

First, the State Board of Education correctly defined its task as to accept the academic content standards; doing so excluded some prefatory and supplemental materials as well as recommendations on the organization of the standards and support for English learners and students with disabilities. This important step will ensure that California has maximum flexibility as it moves towards implementation.

The second issue is, indeed, implementation. All the various steps and issues that now confront the state as it turns towards making the Common Core standards effective for all students in California are crucial: curriculum frameworks and instructional materials; assessments; accountability systems; and professional support for teachers and administrators.

As one who has participated in the state's standards-assessment-accountability system for 15 years, this is an important day for California. It will be known as a turning point and a day of promise for our students.

Progress!

With California's inclusion in the final 18 states for round 2 of Race to the Top, the adoption of the Common Core standards seems even more likely next week. With $3.4 billion to distribute to a projected 10-12 winners, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will have extensive latitude in making the final awards. Interestingly, all of the finalists scored at least 400 points, which means that California's district-driven application has already made significant improvement over the state-based one in January.

One blog reader called to ask if my post from yesterday was intended to predict where the State Board of Education might arrange, rearrange or redefine the Common Core standards recommended by the commission. My apologies for readers who thought this was where I was headed.

To be clear, one argument raised during the commission's deliberations was that the way the commission was identifying 8th grade standards would lead to those students enrolled in Algebra 1 with the burden of meeting, essentially, all the standards for Algebra 1 and, additionally, those standards for students not enrolled in Algebra 1. The commission debated this point extensively and made clear that it was intending two distinct pathways and standards within the 8th grade.

In their recent op-ed, Commissioners Evers and Wurman raised again this concern, but I should clarify that the commission communicated its clear intent to State Board of Education, concerns notwithstanding.

Finally, judging by the various communications I'm getting, the testimony before the State Board next week promises to be all-encompassing. There will be direct support for and against the Common Core standards as recommended by the Standards Commission. There will be picayune points made about specific standards. And there will be a lot of forecasting about the long-term system building required to make the standards available for all students.

Odds and Ends Before The SBE Meeting

So tomorrow Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will announce the finalists for the second round of Race to the Top. The timing is a bit delicate as it comes just days before the August 2 deadline for states to declare their adoption of the Common Core standards. While policymakers in California have signaled an intent to adopt the Common Core, it will be interesting to watch the reactions if the state is not identified as an RTTT finalist. . . .

I've been following the concerns raised by Academic Standards Commissioners Bill Evers and Ze'ev Wurman over the recommended math standards. They posted an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee over the weekend ( http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/24/2911462/proposed-math-standards-unteachable.html) raises a concern similar to that which I identified during the closing days of the commission's deliberations. Namely, the commission recommends that 8th grade students enrolled in Algebra 1 take the additional standards identified for Algebra 1 while also mastering the 8th grade standards for the rest of the Common Core. Is that too much? Should the State Board consider adopting the 8th grade standards as an entire range and worry about how they are organized later?

I'll have more to say later this week as we get closer to the State Board of Education meeting, including reactions to the RTTT announcement and a forecast of the SBE meeting.

Next Step for Common Core Standards

Following last week's work by the Academic Standards Commission to recommend the Common Core Standards (Plus) to the State Board of Education, questions are emerging as to how board members will understand and frame the discussion.

The post-mortem on the recommended standards will continue for a few days, especially as the final math standards are made available by the Sacramento County Office of Education (see this link for the completed English Language Arts standards:

http://scoe.net/castandards/agenda/2010/20100716_final_ela_recommendations.pdf

In the end, commissioners and staff performed near miracles to achieve what they did. Timing, politics, and complexity all were conspiring against them, yet they managed to put aside many of their differences to find common ground and to develop a strong set of standards. The Sacramento County Office of Education staff and Sue Stickel deserve great credit for their work on English Language Arts, which received a 20-0 vote. Math was, of course, far more complex, leading to a 14-2 vote for adoption. Commissioners Farrand, Callahan, Evers, and Wurman were leading advocates and presenters and all should be commended for their incredible work. Many commissioners performed incredibly important behind-the-scenes roles, and some of their work must remain unacknowledged publicly. But it should be understood that there were so many critical areas in which the standards could have fallen apart--and did not.

As the conversation turns to how the State Board of Education deals with the recommended standards, I believe there are two general issues and several more discrete issues that will define the discussion before the board. First, let's deal with the general issues.

California's take on the Common Core features a number of additional standards, Common Core standards being moved (down) grades, and, in the case of 8th grade math, an explicit recommendation on an Algebra 1 course and standards for that course. Many standards and curriculum experts will spend the next two weeks reviewing the standards for their coherence and alignment. They will look at the standards to determine how they lend themselves to use in curriculum frameworks, guiding assessment development, and writing instructional materials.

The second more general comment is to try and compare the proposed standards to the current California standards for their rigor. Though the general indications from the Governor's Office is that they are pleased with the recommended standards, no doubt other commentators will weigh on on whether Califoronis is taking a step forward or back.

But this latter issue is really a false one. It objectifies standards into discrete cognitive silos, as if each one can be measured and compared against another and from that measure, rigor (or lack of) emerges.

I foresee the State Board of Education--and the general public commentary--focusing instead on the following issues:

1. Given the rather ambiguous--some would say vacant--nature of California's current conversation on college readiness, do the proposed standards move that forward? It is clear that in terms of design, structure, and purpose, the Common Core standards reflect a lot of thinking towards college readiness. I would add that the same is true for career readiness, but here in California a lot of important work is being done by the Irvine Foundation and ConnectEd--among others--to inform our understanding of career readiness and how the Common Core standards assists that understanding.

2. Do the proposed standards provide a coherent, formative strategy for students and schools? Is that strategy clearer and more understood than what is now in place? Consider the absence of such strategies at the state level--e.g. increasing college and career readiness rates; preparing kids for Algebra II; clearly articulated course, assessment, and graduation requirements--and how the Common Core may advance these issues.

3. Do the proposed standards place California in an appropriate position to anticipate emerging issues and programs in assessment, instructional materials, accountability, and professional support for teachers and administrators?

It is my sense that these issues will define much of how the State Board of Education views the opportunities and challenges associated with the Common Core standards as proposed.

Late into the Night

The Academic Content Standards is working late into its final night to complete its task of recommending the Common Core standards to the State Board of Education.

Earlier in the day, the commission passed milestone votes to send English Language Arts standards as modified by the commission to include additional standards from California's existing standards.

The math discussion has been far-ranging and often confusing. With various proposals on the table, the commission has sought various approaches to its work yesterday and today. The most important action came late in the afternoon when the commission voted to establish for 8th grade Common Core standards (as modified with California standards) and to add a full complement of standards that constitute an Algebra 1 course. This was a critical step towards meeting the Governor's often-stated requirement that the Common Core standards "maintain the rigor" of California's current standards.

But as the day has worn on, the complexity of design and the scope of the various proposals has worn on the commissioners. At times the commission's deliberations have seemed to be a standoff between Commissioners Bill Evers and Ze'ev Wurman and the rest of the commissioners. At other times, enormous good will and sincere efforts for compromise and resolution have come from all commissioners.

With the Governor's Office in attendance as well, it is likely that the standards finally approved for the State Board's consideration will undergo a battery of analyses regarding their coherence, student preparation for Algebra 1, and the translation of the high school standards into projected courses.

As the final actions of the commission occur, Standards Watch will provide full analysis and then turn towards the fate of the Common Core standards in front of the State Board of Education on August 2.

ELA Standards Approved

The Academic Standards Commission is in its final hours and is working feverishly to reconcile various ideas in mathematics.

Earlier today, the Commission approved a Common Core-based standards document to send to the State Board of Education. That's big news.

A more thorough write up and evaluation of the work will follow in the next day or so as the complete action and standards from the commission are finalized and put together.

Decision Day Arrives

Over the past few days I've been engaged in conversations with a variety of policymakers close to the Academic Standards Commission. There are lots of earnest discussions underway, and, to their credit, lots of work by officials to find a middle ground on many issues.

So what's going to happen over the next two days? My predictions and commentary follow:

English Language Arts--The Common Core Standards as supplemented by commissioners and staff at last week's meeting are ready for distribution, discussion, and action. It is likely that the commission will deliberate on these standards right off; this is to both get them out of the way and to score an early win for everyone. The important result will be to send to the State Board of Education a transformative set of standards that will likely benefit all students in California for years to come. I hope that the commission will encourage the State Board of Education to tackle English Language Development standards to supplement the Common Core.

Mathematics--Far more complicated, commissioners will try to tackle math as quickly as possible, recognizing that the discussion and action will carry over to Thursday. Based on conversations with a number of officials involved in the commission's work (and representing all perspectives), my sense of where things will go:

It is likely that the K-7 Common Core standards will be supplemented and supported after both technical and substantive discussion. There is a very strong chance that the commission will come to consensus (meaning at least 11 votes) on K-7. Watch, however, to see if Commissioners Evers and Wurman introduce proposals that would shift Common Core standards amongst grade levels. If so, that would seem to contradict the integrity of the Common Core standards necessary in both the standards and assessment arenas. I would not be surprised if a majority of commissioners attempts to summarily dismiss any such effort.

There has been a fairly recent rumble as well that issues now exist in the high school strands. While there are undoubtedly substantive issues here, it's also the case that the Common Core effort has substantively hurt itself by not introducing early on a coherent and aligned document describing the suggested high school math courses for the Common Core. What did arrive--Achieve's pathway document--was late and not able to provide much comfort.

Finally, we arrive at Grade 8. The Governor's Office continues to beat the drum on the statutory intent language that Common Core standards must be "at least as rigorous" as current California standards. At least that's the public message. Other indications are that the Governor's Office may be ready to settle for an 8th grade Algebra 1 pathway and a clear statement that students not prepared for Algebra 1 in 8th grade would be in the Common Core pre-algebra track. If this is the case, that's a fairly major step away from where the Governor and State Board were two years ago on the Algebra 1 front.

Now, on the the commentary. I believe it's possible for the commission to complete its work in math, maintain its integrity around the Common Core, and send to the State Board of Education math standards that also meet the existing policy of getting all students to Algebra 1 in 8th grade. How?

The commission should adopt an extended set of Grade 8 math standards that include a coherent Algebra 1 component that is, essentially, based on an Algebra 1 course. The commission should then make a policy recommendation (it's important that this be a policy recommendation rather than the standards; the State Board of Education has latitude on policy recommendations but must vote up or down on the standards themselves) that the State Board divide Grade 8 into two potential assessment pools.

All students would take the Common Core Grade 8 math standards (plus whatever technical or supplemental standards the commission identifies) assessment. Students wishing to learn if they are on a college readiness track could be offered an assessment that is built on the full range of Grade 8 standards that includes Algebra 1. This option has the benefit of:

1. maintaining the crucially important policy that California is working to ensure that all students have an opportunity to prepare for college and demonstrate that preparation by enrolling and succeeding in Algebra 1 in 8th grade.

2. mimicking the current Early Assessment Program in 11th grade which offers an extended set of items designed to measure college readiness.

3. ensuring that during the short tenure of the commission, the longer term policy implications of setting the standards was elevated to the State Board of Education which can take a longer-term perspective.

4. Provide state policymakers with a framework from which an evolving and flexible program of standards and assessments can meet the needs of students now and into the future. Additionally, state policymakers can establish courses for 8th graders that may range across all the standards and/or focus on Algebra 1.

That's my two cents. I'll be watching with great interest where this all goes.

Who Will Lead?

Coming shortly from the Fordham Institute will be a helpful guide to understanding how and if the Common Core standards fit in with existing state standards and international benchmarks. A real question will be where in rank order the Common Core standards fit against these state and international benchmarks. If, for example, California's existing standards rank higher than Common Core, does that tell us anything? Does that change the mood for the State Board of Education?

All good questions, but let's move on to our current reality. After the Standards Commission meeting of earlier this week, it's clear that on August 2, the State Board of Education is going to have a really complex set of standards for consideration. It is highly likely that the English Language Arts standards will be Common Core plus an additional 15-30 standards from California and Massachusetts. It's also clear that California is not going to back away from the 8th grade Algebra 1 issue.

In the closing moments of this week's meeting, as the discussion turned to math, Commissioner Jim Lanich asked for clarification on what is meant by statutory language guiding the commission's work regarding academic rigor of the standards. Undersecretary of Education Kathy Gaither stepped forward to explain that, apropos Algebra 1, the intent was to ensure that the progress California has made in enrolling students in Algebra 1 in 8th grade must continue; that growth in student proficiency rates (substantial numerically, but still lagging against other CSTs) must continue; that the regard for California's academic standards must continue.

I found the exchange helpful for Lanich's attempt to try to bring some context and meaning to the discussion. The commissioners were facing a whirlwind of ideas, slides, handouts, and discussion. And my single greatest concern about the final meeting and about the decisions the commission needs to make regarding math is that someone--staff, commission leadership, appointing authorities--needs to step up and reign in the free-flow of ideas and put something in concrete.

It's going to be hard. It's not a stretch to imagine that commissioners will encounter another flurry of documents: staff recommendations on 15 percent; staff recommendations on how to deal with Algebra 1 and 8th grade; and Commissioners Evers and Wurman are certain to introduce their own proposals on math. Someone will need to lead.

I've stated previously my confidence that as long as the Commission begins its work from the Common Core Standards and brings forward recommendations that build from them, California's students will almost certainly benefit in the long-term. Yes, there are opportunities to confuse and make opaque. Yes, there are ways to add so many standards to the Common Core that new questions about assessment, instructional materials, and coherence become critical again.

So here's what I'll be looking for at the final meeting:

1. A clear statement on English Language Arts that shows the Common Core standards and the proposed additional standards from California and Massachusetts that the Commission recommends for adoption.

2. A clear statement on Math that California is adopting the Common Core standards and clarifying that:

• the K-7 Common Core standards lead to preparation for California's students to take Algebra 1 in 8th grade
• additional standards in K-7 that ensure preparation for Algebra 1 in 8th grade
• recommendations by the commission to the State Board of Education on the policy that California's standards prepare students for Algebra 1 in 8th grade
• a clear statement regarding the need for all students to be continuously enrolled in math throughout high school
• a clear statement on mathematics skills and knowledge that constitute college and career readiness

Finally, it is my hope that staff will acknowledge on behalf of the commission that the standards being recommended will need to be analyzed and understood in terms of their coherence and alignment. That understanding will be critical for participating in the Common Core assessments, for any stand-alone assessments California must develop, for instructions to publishers, and for teacher/administrator support.

I'm looking for leadership, awareness, and understanding. Who will step up?

Making Standards Sausage

At the close of yesterday's meeting (two days) of the Academic Standards Commission, Commissioner and Chair Greg Geeting thanked his colleagues for work well done. To my thinking these acknowledgments were warranted. Tough work all around.

Despite its incredibly short tenure, the commission found itself at this meeting in an awkward place. Seemingly it had lurched through its first meeting to the point of recognizing that its primary job was to adopt the Common Core Standards and focus energy on adding up to 15 percent additional standards to make the final product recommended to the State Board of Education "California-esque." Work done by the staff--Sue Stickel and her colleagues at the Sacramento County Office of Education--and back channel discussions over the past few weeks indicated that the commission has been headed in this direction.

Indeed, the commission' agenda for the past two days seemed to focus on a taking the important next steps of:

• Confirming the Common Core Standards as the basis for California's academic content standards
• Staff presenting recommendations on an additional standards that fill in gaps (yes, it's subjective) between Common Core and current standards.
• Commissioners moving the ball by closing down on English Language Arts and the focusing the final meeting next week on math.

So how'd they do?

Well, it's possible to see through quite a few twists and turns the progress commissioners made. But it was an interesting ride and distinctly non-linear in that progression.

Commissioner Bill Evers presented a number of recommended additions to the English Language Arts Common Core Standards, thus giving his colleagues two sets of additions to consider (staff also presented additions). Additionally, Evers invited Sandra Stotsky, an influential commentator on academic standards and member of the Massachusetts Board of Education) to provide comments via a phone conference with the commission. Stotsky has criticized the Common Core Standards.

Commissioners were obviously left somewhat dizzy. Any attempt to close out English Language Arts went by the way side as it was apparent that commissioners will need to see a final document that incorporates all of the additions they discussed. Lots of very specific content, very little context, and no time.

And the same thing happened yesterday with math. At the very end of the day, staff presented recommendations for revision. Evers and fellow commissioner Ze'ev Wurman had requested that Professor Jim Milgrim, a key writer on California's standards and a reviewer of the Common Core, present to the commission. Like Stotsky, Milgrim raised a number of concerns about the Common Core Standards. And there the meeting ended, with a fairly obvious sense that next week's focus on math will be crushing in its complexity.

So how could I leave the meeting feeling somewhat optimistic that this is all going in the right direction? Is it possible that the commission and its staff will be able to pull together this seemingly impossible task of voting next week to close down and send off Common Core Standards with a California imprint on them to the State Board of Education?

I think so. Here's why:

1. Commissioners and staff are working from the assumption that their job is to adopt the Common Core Standards for use in California.

2. There seems to be far more agreement than disagreement that maintaining the quality of California's standards efforts is worth both discussion and formal review.

3. The messiness in the process to date is built on putting a lot of information in front of commissioners and trusting them to see their way through that to the promised land.

To get there, commissioners and staff will need to be disciplined and focused next week, especially in the flow of their discussion and action. It will be incumbent on Chair Geeting and staff director Stickel to impose this order.

Tomorrow, we'll look at a few specific issues that will be coming up next week, as well as reflecting on some of the comments from this past meeting that will give a sense of structure to the math debate that's sure to happen.

Next Week's Standards Commission Meeting

Education Week is reporting today that 20 states have now approved the Common Core standards. Those numbers are a little loosey-goosey as some states have done "preliminary" approvals; some are still adjusting their 15 percent of added items, etc. But it's still a substantial number.

California may move one step closer to joining that list next week. The Academic Standards Commission is scheduled to meet on July 6-7. Commissioners will tackle an amazing array of complex issues, leading up to potential action on both English Language Arts and Math.

To contextualize their work, commissioners will receive a number of briefings, including one on college and career readiness, one on benchmarking both sets of standards against international student expectations, and another on assessments. All are critical areas for commissioners to understand as they drive both the objectives behind the (new) system and also serve to constrain the system by what is possible to be assessed.

I don't think the commission will be able to act on the Math standards. Too many complex issues remain. But there's a decent chance for action on ELA.

As I understand the proceedings, commissioners will review at least one proposal for adopting the Common Core ELA standards with additional California-centric standards. Recall that at the first commission meeting, a side-by-side chart was shared by staff that identified areas of commonality amongst the standards and, as well, gaps. I'm guessing that staff and commissioners will want to deliberate more specifically on the gaps and determine if there is a need to shore up the Common Core ELA standards to reflect priorities for California.

During the math conversation, the 8th grade Algebra I issue will dominate. It is certain that proposals will emerge to reinforce 8th grade and perhaps one or two of the lower grades.

Standards Watch will cover the Academic Standards Commission meeting next week. Look for the next entry on July 7.

Common Core Math Standards: All about Algebra 1

When I attended the public schools in Davis, college-track students took Algebra I in 9th grade. Today, as was the case back then, the A-G requirements for UC and CSU require at least 3 years of high school level mathematics. Very few students took Algebra I in 8th grade; as I recall there were three classes of Algebra I for the 9th graders and one small class of Algebra I for 8th grade.

Today, of course, a very different reality faces our students. Because the State Board of Education created an accountability motivation for schools to enroll their students in Algebra I in 8th grade, remarkable growth occurred. Today, well over half of 8th graders in California enroll in Algebra I. At the same time, some of the most sobering statistics in public education paint a reality about the state's experience with Algebra I across the grades that most of us would not wish on anyone. Consider:

• The "typical" entering freshman at the University of California has completed 4.6 years of high school math; this means that for these students 8th grade Algebra 1 would be their default course
• Those students who enter the University of California having completed the bare minimum of three years of high school math (through Algebra II) constitutes between 3-4 percent
• The California Department of Education and State Board of Education administer about 60 California Standards Tests each year. Of these, the Algebra I CST has the lowest percentage of proficient students of all the CSTs.
• According to a 2008 EdSource report, California's Algebra I student performance looks like this:

Of students who took Algebra I in 2006–07, 38% of 8th graders scored advanced or proficient on the CST, compared with 17% of 9th graders and 8% of 10th graders.

Proficiency on Algebra I CST by grade level, 2006-07

Data: California Department of Education (CDE)
EdSource 2/08

• According to a Riverside County Office of Education presentation in September 2008 on the State Board of Education's decision to require all 8th graders to enroll in Algebra 1 beginning in 2011-12, California's incoming 7th graders would, as a class, need to make 4.5 years of progress between their 6th and 7th grade years to be on grade level entering Algebra I.

Enough already. This is not fun stuff. As I see it, we have a reality of extreme contrasts:

1. Students intending to enroll in a 4-year university should target 8th grade Algebra I

2. Students who do not intend to enroll in a 4-year university may experience a reality-bender by enrolling in Algebra I in 8th grade and waiting until their senior year in high school to take a general mathematics course. This absurdity satisfies the state's mathematics courses graduation requirements (though districts can set higher requirements).

3. California has succeeded wildly in expanding enrollment in 8th grade Algebra I, but overall Algebra I proficiency rates remain very low.

So where does this put the Common Core Math standards? There's plenty for the commissioners to consider when they meet next week. To me, it's clear that the commission (and the State Board of Education) should ensure that those students who are prepared for Algebra I by 8th grade have the opportunity to take that course. Beyond that, there are a ton of really crucial policy decisions that will need to be decided.

I hope these policy decisions are informed by the presentation that Professor Hung-Hsi Wu of UC Berkeley made to a gathering of policymakers last month. Wu, who worked on both California's 1997 math standards and the Common Core, provided a memorable lesson on mathematics and content standards. His presentation slides can be viewed here:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pace/PODCASTS/slideshows/2010_6_10_WU.pdf

Among his thoughts:

1. The Common Core Math Standards do not require all students to complete a full Algebra I course in Grade 8. Wu asserts that the Common Core, like Japan, introduces about half of the full course in Grade 8.

2. The two most compelling mathematics issues for student preparation to succeed in Algebra 1 are complete (and deep) preparation in fractions and similar triangles (We provides in-depth analysis of this).

3. The current California Math Standards have a fatal flaw--a developmental gap--in these areas, as identified in the 2006 California Math Framework (p. 181):

An additional comment about Standard 7.0 is that, although it singles out the

point-slope formula, it is understood that students also have to know how to

write the equation of a line when two of its points are given. However, the fact

that the slope of a line is the same regardless of which pair of points on the line

are used for its definition depends on the considerations of similar triangles.

(This fact is first mentioned in Algebra and Functions Standard 3.3 for grade

seven.) This small gap in the logical development should be made clear to

students, with the added assurance that they will learn the concept in geometry.

The same comment applies also to the fact that two nonvertical lines are

perpendicular if and only if the product of their slopes is −1 (Standard 8.0).

Wu goes on to explain that the key grades for mathematics development are 5-7.

At the first Academic Standards Commission meeting, Professor Jason Zimbra represented the Common Core Math Standards and he made many similar points. But he also encouraged commissioners to address squarely how the state's authority to add an additional 15 percent of standards was meant to ensure that California could maintain fidelity to its policies and practice.

It is my sense that these are extraordinarily challenging issues and items with high stakes (for students) attached. I don't see how the Academic Standards Commission or State Board of Education can ignore the data that tells us Algebra I for a significant number of California's students is necessary for their ability to compete for 4-year university slots. At the same time, these two institutions have more and better data in front of them cautioning them to fully reflect what students must master before exposing them to Algebra I.

The Common Core English Language Arts Standards

As I began writing up today's entry, I returned to a recent presentation on the Common Core English Language Arts standards by a friend, Sue Pimentel. Sue deserves an introduction. She is the nation's foremost developer and consultant on academic standards having been the lead writer for both California's 1997 Reading/Language Arts standards and the 2010 Common Core.

Sue recently presented an overview of the Common Core and a comparison of those standards to California's 1997 content standards. I want to highlight some of her presentation, but also want to provide a link to the PowerPoint presentation she gave. It's truly a shortcut to understanding the Common Core standards for English Language Arts.

Here's the link to her slides (and audio of her presentation can be found at the http://pace.berkeley.edu web site):

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pace/PODCASTS/slideshows/2010_6_10_PIMENTEL.pdf

The genius of the Common Core standards is that they face squarely and address really pragmatic issues. How should teachers manage instructional time? What texts are important to read? How should schools translate the focus on early reading into critical thinking?

Common Core begins with a simple notion: the complexity of text materials really is a reflection of the quality and rigor of the text itself. That is, students must master reading increasingly complex texts. Common Core--both from its perspective of college and career readiness as the "end game" and in scaffolding the standards grade over grade--reflect contemporary research and understanding on text complexity. What I appreciate about Common Core's approach is that it advances our understanding of how to organize standards and to reveal a sense of priority. Presenting standards as a series of sub-standards, domains, or strands, can also lead to isolating the skills and knowledge students need to develop. Common Core reflects a greater emphasis on the end game of reading: understanding increasingly complex texts.

The Common Core also create a new progression in reading emphasis. By creating an explicit sharing of emphasis in the early grades (K-5) on reading literature and reading informational texts across the curriculum, the Common Core addresses a pragmatic reality for most schools: the shortchanging of instruction in history-social science and science. As students transition from elementary to secondary years, the standards focus increasingly on informational texts and foundational reading selections in American government; in a post-secondary world, the split for adults between informational texts and literature shifts to 80/20. The standards support and anticipate that shift.

Finally, the Common Core standards revive writing as an expectation and reflection of critical thinking skills. Writing is deeply integrated as a partner with reading in student skill development. Further, and this is a truly important contribution, the Common Core standards offer annotated examples of student writing through the grades to guide expectations and to establish performance patterns.

In a rapidly changing world, we accustom ourselves to new solutions--think of smart phones and hybrid cars--and the differences they make in our lives. It's more challenging for academic standards to make such a difference; implementation is often a years-long prospect. But the Common Core English Language Arts standards have the same capacity for taking students several steps forward in their development of skills and knowledge and preparation for their futures.

To Preserve, Protect, and Defend . . .

"(Common Core) standards alone don’t make for better education. (California, for example, has had impressive academic standards for years, and yet its student performance remains weak.) Standards just describe a desirable destination. Getting there demands good schools, too, with competent teachers, hard-working students, attentive parents, and a solid curriculum."

Checker Finn

President, Thomas Fordham Institute

California's current academic standards long have been admired; they have influenced many other states, and Achieve used California's standards to establish its own when developing its academic benchmarks for the American Diploma Project.

Yet, as Checker Finn so aptly point out, strong standards do not (automatically) produce strong academic results. It's an important point and question as the state deliberates of the Common Core standards. One hopes that policymakers consider carefully the strengths of California's current standards-based system as well as areas in need of improvement. Today, we focus on a specific area of communications and transparency.

One specific area worthy of consideration is the relationship between California's standards-based assessment system and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The federal No Child Left Behind (the 2002 version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) legislation called for more transparency in reporting student, school, district, and state academic achievement. That's good. But the execution left much to be desired.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has succinctly explained the problem: NCLB had things backward; it provided a narrow approach to learning and achievement for states that could then measure their progress against their self-defined target. There was no comparability. Conversely, what schools need is flexibility in working towards a commonly understood academic target.

Against this backdrop, researchers have increasingly looked at NAEP as the most useable measuring stick to tie together performance across states. Of course, there are many caveats to doing so; California long has tested a more diverse population than other states, especially with its English learners. But there is also no denying that California's overall achievement on NAEP---particularly in 4th grade Reading and Math and 4th grade Math (California does not have a uniform 8th grade math curriculum so the state's students do not take the NAEP 8th grade Math test)--is low.

Let's focus on the 2009 Reading test as an example. Here's how California measured up against the national average and against Massachusetts, the highest performing state:

California National Average Massachusetts

4th 210 220 232

8th 253 262 274

To provide some context, the scale scores indicate that California's students are performing somewhere between one and two grade levels below students in Massachusetts. That's not okay.

But the situation in comparing our state's efforts to NAEP is, in practice, far more complex. So let's now turn for a moment to comparing California's stated learning objective all students--Proficiency as measured by the student's performance on the California Standards Test--against NAEP.

To return to the shortcomings of NCLB, strong evidence that states were truly establishing 50 different performance targets is revealed by comparing each state's proficiency target (as translated into a NAEP scale score) to the NAEP proficiency target. Ideally, one would see a strong correlation between the two so that each state's internal dialog on student learning and achievement matches that of the Nation's Report Card.

Here's what recent NAEP studies reveal. Now, recall this is a reflection not of student performance but rather:

When states’ standards are placed onto the NAEP reading or mathematics scales, the

level of achievement required for proficient performance in one state can then be compared with

the level of achievement required in another state. This allows one to compare the standards for

proficiency across states.

Check out this link (see pages 17 and 20) to see how California ranks under these conditions:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2010456.pdf

Now, the rigor of California's system puts the state in the top ten, and even higher in mathematics.

The point is this: there is a lot that's wrong in California public schools, and adopting the Common Core is a fresh start and commitment to ensuring that each student is afforded a chance for success in higher education and careers. But thought must go into preserving what's been successful as well. Thanks to the work of many in this state--the Public School Accountability Act Committee, California Department of Education leadership and staff, the State Board of Education, and governors and the Legislature--institutionalizing rigorous performance expectations has, and will continue to, serve the state well.

This is truly a transparency and communications issue. NAEP performance does not lie; but it's not a complete picture. The missing link is that California has established some important benchmarks for student learning and achievement that are reasonably aligned to those in NAEP. Consequently, unlike some states that report dramatically high levels of proficiency on their state assessments and dramatically low performance on NAEP, California's is far more consistent (but unfortunately, consistently low). It is highly likely that an assessment system built from the Common Core can continue this strong statement by the state.

Tomorrow, and leading up to next week's meeting of the Academic Standards Commission, we begin in-depth explorations of the Common Core English/Language Arts and Mathematics standards.

Push vs. Pull: How Standards will Define California's Future Education System

At last week's Academic Standards Commission meeting, a few commissioners raised concerns about moving to a different set of standards, given the time, effort, resources, and "buy-in" that exists around the state's current standards-based system. Many would agree that a great deal of sweat equity and state resources were combined to make the system as credible as it could be. The core argument raised by the commissioners is that a change in the standards would destroy the equilibrium and momentum in the current system.

But the system itself is in a fragile state these days, and, I would suggest, there will never be a better time for California to revise its standards. In fact, the equilibrium and momentum have already been cast aside. How so? Let's explore.

As we've established, standards-based systems include: standards, assessments, accountability indicators, instructional materials, and professional support/training for teachers and administrators. Additionally, California's State Board of Education has a constitutional requirement to adopt (and distribute for use without charge) textbooks (instructional materials).

The economic challenges facing the state have resulted in a quasi-dismantling of the standards-based system. Consider that in the past two years, the following actions have been taken:

• The state suspended the 4th grade writing assessment of the California Standards Test in English/Language Arts
• The state suspended the development and adoption of revised curriculum frameworks
• The state included the categorical funds for instructional materials in a broad shift of those funds for general purpose use.
• The state suspended the requirement that local education agencies adopt new standards-based materials within 24 months of their approval by the State Board of Education

The fall out from these actions is widespread. For example, textbook publishers--many of which had spent tens of millions of dollars developing materials for approval in California--saw a half-billion dollar annual industry disappear, along with their investment. The decisions also caused widespread confusion and inconsistent messages as the State Board of Education directed school districts with federal program improvement status to "adopt a new curriculum."

So let's assume for a moment that the Common Core standards never happened, and that California's wrestling with its own budget demons is resolved over the next few years. Could the state simply go back to the future? Could it reinstate all of the programs and activities currently suspended and just get back to the business of its prior standards-based system? I think not. Here are four broad reasons why:

1. Education reformers are aggressively pursuing open source curriculum resources. With the universe of knowledge available on the internet, sites such Curriki (http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome) and CK-12 (http://www.ck12.org/flexr/) are redefining access to instructional content. And they are doing so based on a "bottom-up" approach in which teachers, teams, sites, and districts are driving the development of standards-based materials in their classroom. These sites integrate social and professional networking with academic content to make powerful curriculum available and understood.

2. The Common Core Assessment initiative on its own accord will bring dramatic change to standards-based assessments. On a practical basis, shared costs for development, technology, and administration will usher in a new era of state testing. Broader questions--expanded use of technology in testing, integration of formative, summative, and state assessments--may shift the landscape as well.

3. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--probably in 2011--will almost certainly bring significant changes in accountability structures and indicators as well as new demands on state date systems related to student academic growth, attendance, and graduation rates. Combined, standards-based systems will see shifts in purpose, priority, and substance.

4. Finally, having been burned by the policy shifts in the state, it is likely that the major education publishers will be cautious about any return to "normal" in California. Many of these publishers are aggressively pursuing multiple strategies for the future, including new media, and curriculum management.

These realities suggest that California cannot return to what once was. Regardless of whether the state adopts the Common Core standards or rejects them, the standards-based system of support for the standards will never be the same.

Consequently, two conclusions are clear. First, the Common Core standards arrive at a natural time for revising and rebuilding the system that supports the standards. Second, events and activities external to California are hurling all states into the future at a pace not currently understood. The state must commit itself to working towards it's future standards-based system rather than seeking a return to its old one.

National Update on Common Core

Today a break for a few news updates.

As reported by Education Week, 14 states have now adopted the Common Core standards:

June 24, 2010

Common Standards Adoption Watch: It's 14 Now

With adoption today by the Illinois board of education, the common standards have now been adopted in 14 states.

We've already told you about the other 13; if you were napping, you can catch uphere.

And the Thomas Fordham Institute tackles some of the most critical issues facing the Common Core standards for the long haul, including governance across the states, and relating the standards to assessments. The Fordham Institute's entry and resource papers are here:

Common Education Standards: Tackling the Long-Term Questions

June 23, 2010

The "common core" state standards for grades K-12 have been released. Some states have already adopted them. Others are considering this step. Much will need to happen if these standards and related assessments are to get traction in American education over the next few years. But we at the Fordham Institute are looking even further ahead: we’re considering the issues that will determine the long-termviability of this endeavor. Simply stated: in 2020, who will be in charge of the common standards-and-testing effort? How will this work? Who will pay for it?

To spur discussion and smart thinking about these crucial issues, we commissioned a set of background papers from authoritative observers and analysts. Read on to find out what they have to say.

The Oversight of State Standards and Assessment Programs: Perspectives from a Former State Assessment Director
Pasquale J. DeVito, Ph.D.
Director, Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAS)
Measured Progress

Networked Governance in Three Policy Areas with Implications for the Common Core State Standards Initiative
Paul Manna
Associate Professor, Department of Government
Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
College of William and Mary

E Pluribus Unum in Education? Governance Models for National Standards and Assessments: Looking Beyond the World of K-12 Schooling
Patrick McGuinn
Associate Professor, Departments of Political Science and Education
Drew University

What Can the Common Core State Standards Initiative Learn from the National Assessment Governing Board?
Mark Musick
James H. Quillen Chair of Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Clemmer College of Education, East Tennessee State University
Former President, Southern Regional Education Board
Former Chairman, National Assessment Governing Board

How will the Common Core Initiative Impact the Testing Industry?
Thomas Toch
Executive Director, Association of Independent Schools of Greater Washington; and
Founder, Education Sector

Peg Tyre
Spencer Fellow at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism; and
Author, The Trouble with Boys

These are all resources worth looking through.

The Standards Debate and Robles-Wong

Last month, students, school districts, and various trade organizations (CSBA, ACSA, and the state PTA) filed a lawsuit. In the suit, Robles-Wong vs. the State of California, the plaintiffs carefully construct a theory of insufficient state support for schools built on the premise that the state's academic standards define the academic program that all schools must offer students.

Rather than approaching the case as a traditional funding adequacy complaint, the plaintiffs built the following argument:

1. The state is constitutionally required to operate a system of schools.
2. Since the late 1990s, the state's system of schools has been defined as one that is standards-based; as we've discussed previously, that includes assessments, instructional materials, support for teachers, accountability, and coherent policies.
3. The state's system of financial support for schools--driven by the voter-approved Proposition 98 (1988) is not rationally or reasonably related to supporting the standards but is instead a financial formula designed to respond to state economic conditions
4. Evidence--ranging from research reports from the Governor's Committe on Education Excellence to Getting Down to Facts--conclude that the state has failed to rationally align resources required for schools to offer the standards-based curriculum and for students to achieve the standards.
5. Student achievement results demonstrate the failure of the entire system.

The state finds itself, therefore, in an interesting position. The strange coincidence of the lawsuit with the Common Core standards legislation (SBX5 1) and Race to the Top is forcing the state to consider changes to the standards. Yet doing so may affect pretty dramatically the lawsuit. There are at least three perspectives that the state may consider as it views the lawsuit through the lens of standards revision. Let's explore these three.

First, the State could take an absolutist position and defend the current system ggressively. The state might argue:

• The current standards are more desirable than any alternative
• The current standards are supported by an adequate system that is rationally related to the student learning and achievement sought by the state
• Altering the state's standards-based system would raise doubts about the state's belief in the current standards and the system now supporting them.

Interestingly, this position might well be the state's default and the most secure place for it to land. As Secretary of Education Bonnie Reiss said in responding to the lawsuit, " The governor will oppose this lawsuit and believes the state will prevail. The funding of public education in California has long been and continues to be a top priority of California, even in bad economic and budget times."

The second option is for the state--through the recommendations of the Academic Standards Commission and the State Board of Education--to decide that the current California standards are more desirable than the Common Core, but the system supporting the standards needs to be improved. With this option, the state might declare its support for the current standards but also its intent to improve graduation and/or course requirements or define college and career readiness, or provide additional support for students and schools.

Appropos Robles-Wong, this is the worst option for the State. It is, essentially, a stipulation to the lawsuit that the current standards-based system is not sufficiently supported--in programs, finance, or policy. Arguing that the state's education program is sound but that its support network needs to be revised would be a tough sell to the superior court.

Finally, the state can abandon the current system and adopt the Common Core standards, with presumably at least 85 percent of the state's new standards comprised of the Common Core. From the perspective of the state's positioning on the lawsuit, adopting the Common Core has both strong advantages and disadvantages. If the state were to adopt the Common Core, it could argue to the plaintiffs and the court that the state's standards--the basis for the system of schools--have changed and the state will now require time to figure out the attendant fiscal questions of support. This would likely buy the state at least a few years.

Conversely, it is doubtful that the plaintiffs would let the opportunity to require the state to align its financial support with its learning expectations to go by. Consequently, this option is a balancing act between buying time and a likely push for alignment and transparency between the state's investment in schools and the standards.

I, for one, will be watching the state's action with all of this in mind. Is the state in a bind? Are there other options?

Alliance for Excellent Education

The Alliance for Excellent Education has posted an informative page on why California should adopt the Common Core standards. Check it out at:

http://www.all4ed.org/files/California_cs.pdf

Can California's Standards-based System be Fixed?

We begin an examination of California's standards-based system. Over the next two or three days, I will make the case that even if the State Board of Education were inclined to keep the current academic standards, the system that has been built to support the standards is insufficient.

We already have identified ways in which the Common Core standards were written to specifically address college and career readiness. To do so, they include:

• Vertically-scaled standards; these are standards are built so that students' skills and knowledge can be assessed year over year monitored longitudinally.
• Backward-mapping from the end objective of college and career readiness through grade-by-grade development of the standards.
• Benchmarking against the best state standards (including California) and international expectations as those standards have emerged over the past fifteen years.
• Specific skills and knowledge embedded in the standards such as informational texts and text exemplars.
• A focus on students learning material in depth rather than covering a broad expanse of materials.

For good standards to become a good standards-based system, two conditions are required. First, Academic standards require a system of support; this includes instructional materials, professional support and development for teachers, assessments, and accountability structures. Second, standards require policy structures that create and align K-12, higher education, and industry/business to a coherent whole. Such policies include high school graduation requirements, course requirements, exit examinations, and aligned assessments.

California spent the better part of five years developing the various support structures for its standards. And much of this was done well. The curriculum frameworks and instructional materials were, increasingly, tightly developed. The assessment system evolved into one that reflected well the standards. The state's accountability system emerged as well.

But each of the conditions noted above--ranging from vertical scale to contemporary benchmarking--is not a part of the California standards, resulting in serious shortcomings.

Key policy decisions--fueled by concerns over state costs, state vs. local control, and the simple limitations of what was known about standards during this time frame--left the standards in California gasping. The system is incomplete. A few examples:

• The California High School Exit Examination is built on grades 6-8 math standards and grades 9-10 language arts standards
• High school graduation requirements do not include four years of math, language arts, science, and/or history-social science.
• Repeated calls for reform and increased requirements--see the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence, Getting Down to Facts, and the Superintendent's P-16 Council reports--have gone nowhere.

While the Academic Standards Commission and the State Board of Education could use the evaluation of the Common Core to call for retaining and revising the current standards system, it is highly unlikely that state officials will do so. And it's not clear that a better result would emerge from such a decision.

With the inherent shortcomings to the standards and the lack of a policy foundation on which to base fixes to the standards, it is difficult to argue that the current standards system is capable of being fixed.

Tomorrow: Academic Standards and Robles-Wong vs. State of California

The Common Core: True College and Career Readiness

California’s standards from the late 1990s were developed at a time when notions of college and career readiness were far less understood, let alone measurable or coherent amongst K-12, higher education, and industry.

To be certain, California’s Academic Standards Commission of the late 90’s featured members from higher education and from industry, and there was a tacit nod in the standards to acknowledging the state’s A-G requirements for admission to UC/CSU.

But the reality is that the California’s standards were not designed—a term used in analyzing the current California standards during a discussion last week of the new Academic Standards Commission. Why is this distinction relevant or important?

It’s because the Common Core standards—which by nature of the Governor signing SBX5 1 in January and committing twice in the state’s Race to the Top applications are the state’s new default content standards—were purposefully designed to reflect college and career expectations.

The Common Core standards reflect this design in several key ways. The standards themselves were built by defining college and career readiness first. Standards writers examined international benchmarks and the best standards from across the United States. They analyzed college and career expectations—including preparation that would help students avoid remedial work in higher education settings and lessen general skill training time in employment settings. They examined how and where standards should reflect the development of skill and knowledge that students will need for college and career readiness. Finally, the Common Core standards have an attitude about readiness that is fundamentally more aggressive:

It is the mission of the Common Core standards to force students, teachers, and school systems to focus on college and career readiness

Evidence of this change in attitude, tone, and approach can be seen in both language arts and mathematics Common Core standards. In language arts, the California standards of the 1990s responded to a reading crisis in the state by focusing student skills and knowledge on reading—lots of it. Literary analysis was the foundation on which students would build their skills to reflect on and evaluate texts. But here’s the problem. In the real world that students will live and work in, eighty percent of the texts they will read—for work, study, and pleasure—are informational texts, such as non-fiction and government documents. The Common Core standards reflect this reality by asking students to read informational texts and analyze them throughout the K-12 years.

In mathematics, the conversation about college and career readiness is complicated by trying to “draw a line,” that reflects what all students—including those intending to enter the workforce directly from K-12—should know and do. To give a sense of how California currently addresses this issue, consider:

Students in California must complete at least two years of high school math, only one of which—Algebra 1—is specified. Currently over 50 percent of California’s students take Algebra 1 before high school.

California's students must pass the High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to graduate. CAHSEE reflects math standards from grades 6, 7, and Algebra 1, establishing, therefore, a low bar.

The Common Core Math standards shift the expectations on mathematics for all students to a much higher playing field. All students would be expected to complete math studies throughout high school, and college readiness would focus on students completing at least Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra II. Career readiness includes additional work in data, probability, and statistics.

There is little doubt that the Common Core standards would raise the bar for all students in California regarding college and career readiness. They truly are designed to do so.

Standards Blitz--Day One

The Standards Blitz: Some Background

Day 1

Writing standards for public education is somewhat akin to writing a constitution. The standards are, themselves, little more than words on a page. But the power of academic standards to create a vision, establish expectations for all parties to a system of education, and to coalesce society’s expectations for skills and knowledge are incredibly powerful.

Academic standards bring something to the party for all students, adults, and schools. For those students not well served by existing schools, standards reset the bar; they serve as a civil rights barometer; they identify the academic program all students must be afforded. Standards can identify a pathway through the K-12 system for college and career readiness. For adults, standards become the foundation of their work. For schools, standards are the basis for accountability systems.

California has gone through this experience once, in the late 1990s, and this week embarks on another try. This time, it’s as a member of an effort organized by the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Collectively, 48 states and the District of Columbia engaged in the development of Common Core Standards (Common Core).

This blog is going to report on, analyze, and reflect on California’s work over the next several weeks in considering the Common Core.

As brief background, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SBX5 1 in January 2010. He also signed two Race to the Top applications (in January and June 2010). Each of these commitments led California to the work that begins with the Academic Standards Commission’s consideration of the Common Core. The task in front of the Academic Standards Commission is:

d) The commission shall develop academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. The standards shall be internationally benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. Unless otherwise allowed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education, at least 85 percent of these standards shall be the common core academic standards developed by the consortium or interstate collaboration set
forth in Section 60605.7.

(e) Pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Act, Article 9 (commencing with Sec. 11120) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, all meetings and hearings of the commission shall be open and available to the public.

(f) On or before July 15, 2010, the commission shall present its recommended academic content standards to the state board.

(g) On or before August 2, 2010, the state board shall do either of the following:

(1) Adopt the academic content standards as proposed by the commission.

(2) Reject the academic content standards as proposed by the commission. If the state board rejects the standards it shall provide a specific written explanation to the Superintendent, the Governor, and the Legislature of the reasons why the proposed standards were rejected.

While this seems like a straightforward assignment, it is likely to be highly complex. Issues—ranging from state’s rights, the superiority of California’s current standards, cost, and implementation—will affect the overall development and design of the standards the commission submits to the State Board of Education by July 15.

Standards Watch is intended to be a reflection on the standards, their development, their potential, and, ultimately, the decision by the State Board of Education.