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.

Reference Materials

With today's first Academic Standards Meeting, we'll begin by posting links to reference materials that will form the basis for discussion over the next few weeks. These include:

The Common Core Standards in Mathematics
http://corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

The Common Core Standards in English/Language Arts
http://corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

California's Legislation on Adopting Academic Standards:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx5_1_bill_20100107_chaptered.html

The Agenda for the June 17-18 Meeting of the Academic Standards Commission:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/acscagenda17jun2010.asp

California's dilemma over academic standards

The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article by Scott Hill regarding the issues surrounding California's potential adoption of national Common Core academic standards.

http://www.sia-us.com/news/ViewArticle.aspx?Category=0&FromHome=true&id=78