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.