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.