SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx

SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core
State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[
standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and
the sources

used in its development. These inctude cortege and career
readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards,
and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[
systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship
between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this
report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the
information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other
interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State

Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about the standards and the evidence base used to
create and validate them. Next is a high level summary
of the standards at the college and career ready Level,
which indicates the targets toward which the educational
system should be pointing from preschool onward. This is
followed by a discussion of the implications for teaching
and learmng generally and for early chldhood educators
particularly. The brief concludes with tips on how educa-
tors can be successful implementing the Common Core,
policy implications and recommendations, and sites where

readers can go for Common Core-related resources.
Why Common Standards?
Educational standards are not new. They have been
around since the early 1990s. Every state has had
grade-level educational standards for at [east a decade,
and most for much Longer than that. They express the
knowledge and skills students need to master at each
grade level and in specified courses or subject areas to
be successful. Standards by their very nature leave the
choice of the curriculum and teaching methods to local
educators. Educational standards are well established in
schools throughout the nation. They are widely accepted
as the reference point for decisions about curriculum and
instruction at the schoot district and school Level
Educational standards are important in the US be-
cause of its long tradition of local governance of schools.
Educational standards can help ensure that students in
every school have the opportunity to acquire the knowl-
edge and skills critical to success in college, career, and
life. Standards serve as a frame of reference for local
school boards as they make critical decisions about cur-
ricu[um, textbooks, teachers, course offerings, and other
aspects of district instructional programs. When devel-
oped and implemented properly, they help ensure all
students have access to an education that addresses the
knowledge and skills they will need to be successful
In the past, vast differences in educational expec-
tations existed across states. However, this variation had
fewer consequences in part because formal education

was not as important to all students, many of whom were
able to obtain stable, well-paying employment in their
focal community without high revels of education. The
Soc=aÿ Policy Repolt V28 #2 3 ConlmOFI
Oole
situation is much different today. The U.S. economy has
transformed over the past 40 years (Carnevale, t991).
Local economies in many parts of the country have seen
radical transformation. Fewer jobs provide career-tong
security. To retain their jobs, workers more often need to
acquire new, more complex skills (Carnevale, Gainer,
Me[zer, 1990). An educational system that is based on the
assumption that people will hve in one community doing
one job their whole Uves is no longer as rea[isUc. Neither
is a system that enables some students to be lifelong,
adaptive learners while leaving many others with only
minima[ knowledge and skills. The role of educational
standards is to ensure that all students have access to an
education that enables them to be successful in a rapidly
changing economy and society. Success is going to require
the strong knowledge foun-
dation that high, consistent
academic standards provide.
The need for improved
college and career readiness
has been made elsewhere in

greater detail (Carnevale,
Jayasundera, Iÿ Cheah,
2012; Con[ey, 2014). How-
ever, several staUstics help
it[us[rate the need for stu-
dents to be prepared better
for college. ACT annually
publishes a report on the
number of students taking
its test who meet its col-
lege readiness benchmarks.
In 2012, 52 percent of all
high school graduates took the ACT, and 25 percent of
test takers reached the college readiness level in all
four areas tested (English, reading, mathematics, and
science) (ACT, 2012). The Institute for Education Sci-
ences reported that 20 percent of students in 2007-2008
indicated that they took remedial courses in college
(Sparks ÿ Malkus, 2013). The rate was higher for two-
year institutions and open-enroUment cot[eges.
The Common Core State Standards are a potentially
important component in any comprehensive strategy to
make more students fully ready for cotlege and careers.
Evidence suggests they are aUgned with the demands of
college and careers (Con[ey eta[., 2011a, 2011b). They
can be used to create a common language that identi-
fies what students need to learn to be college and career
ready. Building upon previous experience with U.S. and
international standards, Common Core State Standards
are a focused and challenging set of [earmng expecta-
tions that educators can interpret and implement locally
through the curriculum, programs, and teaching methods
they decide are best stated to their students.

How They Were Developed
The Common Core State Standards came into being in
response to the challenges of the new U.S. economy and
the desire of states to ensure their standards were suf-
ficient to meet those challenges. They were designed to
ensure that students have the opportumty to [earn core
knowledge and develop critical skirls and to eqmp stu-
dents to be successful lifelong [earners who can adapt to
new challenges and take advantage of new opportumtles.
They hop educators create
consistency of expectations,
equity of opportunity, clar-
ity of [earmng targets, and
economies of scale as they
make decisions about their
cumculum and instructional
practTces.
Evidence Used in the
Development of the
Common Core State
Standards
The development process
for the Common Core State
Standards drew upon over a
decade's worth of ewdence
describing what ]t takes to
be ready to succeed in postsecondary career-training
or generabeducatlon courses. The evidence base that
underUes the standards contains much of what has been
learned about college and career readiness standards
over the past decade and includes studies of the content

of entry-level co[tege courses, focus groups of instructors
in those courses, readiness standards developed from
expert judgment processes, vaUdatlon studies of these
standards, and instructor surveys of the ma)or topics
taught in genera[ education courses.
In 2003, Standards for Success (Conley, 2003) re-
teased the first comprehensive set of college readiness
standards based on research conducted at over a dozen
universities around the country, all members of the As-
sociation of American Universities. The American Diploma
Project (Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, ÿ Thomas
Social Policy Repot1 V28 #2 4 Common OOlO
B. Fordham Foundation, 2004) quickly followed suit with
standards that also addressed community college and
workplace readiness. Both ACT and the College Board
released their versions of co[(ege readiness standards, as
did the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, soon
thereafter (ACT, 2011; The ColLege Board, 2006; Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board 8t Educational Pohcy
Improvement Center, 2009). National testing orgamzation
ACT in 2009 conducted a nationwide curriculum survey
that collected information about college instructor per-
ceptions of the skills students need to succeed in their
courses (ACT, 2009). The College Board administered a
similar survey that included high school teachers along
with college instructors (Kim, Wiley, & Packman, 2009).
All of these documents provided important reference
points for the Common Core State Standards. They helped

ensure they were derived from standards that were devel-
oped with significant educator input and previously tested
in the field and validated (ConLey, McGaughy, Cadigan,
Ftynn, et at., 2009; ConLey, McGaughy, Cadigan, Forbes,
a Young, 2009). Content area standards from prestigious
groups such as the National Assessment Governing Board
and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics also
served as important reference points (National Assess-
ment Governing Board, 2008; National Cound[ of Teachers
of Mathematics, 2003). In addition, state standards were
referenced. Most notably, Massachusetts and Catiforma
standards were valuable sources, and both have been
identified as being of high quality by independent studies
of state standards (KLein et al., 2005; Stotsky, 2005).
The standards are longitudinal in scope, designed
down from the goal of college and career readiness.
This is a departure from most previous standards, which
tended to be designed independently at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels. The standards sought to
follow a developmentally appropriate sequence across
grade levels leading to cotteÿe and career readiness by
the end of high school WhiLe the standards do repre-
sent a challenge, they are based on expectations that
students in the US and elsewhere have proven capable
of meeting. Achieving them will require changes in
educational practice though, and examples of which are
discussed tater.
In addition, the experience of other countries with
high educational expectations helped identify knowledge
and skills that are universally important (Schmidt et at.,
2001). These international comparisons helped ensure
the standards were set at the right Level of challenge.
For example, the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS) yielded detmted profiles of the
subject matter taught at each grade [eve[ in numerous
countries, which assisted in identifying the most effec-
tive sequencing of mathematics topics (Schmidt et a[.,
2001). Additional research conducted on TIMSS data and
the results from the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) along with observations about high
performing nations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ko-
rea helped to identify the mathematics skills that are ex-
pected in other countries and the types of texts and [eve[
of complexity found in other nations (Ginsburg, Cooke,
Leinwand, Noell, ÿ Pollock, 2005; G]nsburg, Lelnwand,
Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; Ginsburg, Leinwand, ÿ Decker,
2009). A study by the American Institutes of Research
demonstrated the wide range of challenge levels pres-
ent in U.S. state standards when they were benchmarked
against TIMSS (Phillips, 2010).
Development and Review Process
The initial drafts of the Common Core State Standards
were w|dety reviewed and commented upon by educa-
tors, state education department staffers, subject-area
orgamzat]ons, and a wide range of interested parties
in the genera[ public. The results generated from the
review process were incorporated into the final version,
which was presented to states in June 2010. Forty-four
states have now adopted the Enghsh language arts (ELA)
Common Core State Standards, and 43 have adopted the
math standards. Figure 1 presents an overwew of the
timehne for the development process for the Common
Core State Standards.
The evidence base underlying the Common Core
State Standards and the process used to develop the
standards was reviewed fn detaff by a Vahdatlon Commit-

tee appointed by the sponsors, the Council of Chief State
School Officers and the National Governors Association
(Council of Chief State School Officers Ft National Gover-
nors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). After
five months of review that included group meetings and
individual critiques and comments, the committee voted
overwhelmingly to endorse the standards. It indicated
that standards contained the core knowledge students
need to be college and career ready, was informed by re-
search, had been developed appropriately, was dear and
challenging, and was comparable to expectations that
other leading nations have of their students.
Social Policy_Report V28//2 -5 Common Coÿe
i+gUÿ ÿmmÿn/Cotedege!opment process timeline
@
+
/
J
• [ ÿ+ t
D Mid 1990s-2010 Tÿcnty :,ears of standards based ¢ducattorÿ
.. • States develop conlent standards "ÿolunlanl) and
opolattonally
*No Olld Lÿtl Behind (2001) mandates steps to adopt standards
• Considerable vartatlon across states m terms of subject matter
taught and chaUenge ]es el at whicker is taught, sÿquenced, and
requÿd

• 1996 group of nathan's go,.emorx e stahlBhed Achieve,
devoted Io improving educal:onat quahty across states and
develop mg of
of the Dst sets ofeolkÿgo rÿadmÿss standards, the American
Diploma Pÿojv ct
. Adequate )earl) progress (AÿP) data, requtred byNtlB, along
ÿ,vlth othernational dala sources such as those Iÿom the
National
% " ÿ Assessment ofEducattorml Pÿogress
(NAIÿ. alhw compamon of student pezformanc¢ across states
i O P0ase 1 2009+2010 Standardÿ Dovebpment, cosponsored b)
the Counoÿ of GatofState School Oltÿers (CCSSO) and Iho
Hatmnal Go..emDrÿ ASSO.ÿ atÿan Cÿnt¢ r for ÿLst practices
(NGA O¢nt¢ 0
.. +ÿ"ÿ ÿ+ÿ++ 1 .StandardsDo,¢lopmentWot].group State
lÿdÿffarLmade upofparents, teach ...... hoolad ........... p ......
d state
"ÿ " " leaders through membarshlp m
the CCSSO and the NGA Center
i 4 ÿ I IaPhaso 2 FÿedbaekGcoup
Multiplo[oundsoffeedbackgarnoÿd from slates, teachors,
researehÿrs, htghcredueation, and thegeneral pubbo
Paase 3 Vaitdatton Committee hldependent, natlonaleducatton
experts nomalalÿd bystatesand nattonatorÿanÿattons roxlswthe
(x:z,s to ensure the) meet dose!opmont cntam
JUnÿ 20t0 Final CCSS released m.hne 2010
E 2010-2011 Approxhnat¢ly fort) states adopLCCSS
2012-20t3 Forty.O.e states have adopted tba CC:SS

From Conleÿ D. T. 12014a). Gettm9 ready for college, careers,
and the common core: What every educa
- tor needs to know. San Franmsco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Repnnted wÿth permlsmon.
Evidence of the
Quality of the Common Core State Standards
Once the standards were devetoped and reteased a num-
ber of analyses were conducted to ascertain the quahty of
the standards. Almost every state compared its standards
to the Common Core State Standards to identify common-
a[ities, differences, and omissions. National orgamzat]ons
undertook simitar anatyses. The authors of a 2010 study
sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation con-
ctuded that the Common Core State Standards are clearer
and more rigorous than the vast major]ty of existing state
standards (Carm]chae[, Martino, Porter-Magee, Ft Wilson,
2010). A separate study pubtished in 2012 used statistica[
techniques to conctude that states with standards more
like the Common Core math standards had, on aver-
age, higher NAEP scores than did states whose standards
atigned less with the Common Core (Schmidt ÿt Houang,
2012). These studies strengthen the conc[umon that the
Common Core State Standards represent an improvement
on the standards currentty in place in most states•
Two other studies spec]fica[ty examined the reta-
tionship between the Common Core State Standards and
college and career readiness• The first study, Lininÿ Up,
compared the Common Core to five sets of high qua[-
ity standards (Con[ey eta[., 2011b). One was Standards
for Success, described previously. Two of the five were

exemplary state K-12 standards (Cahfornm and Mas-
sachusetts). One was the Texas postsecondary system's
co[{ege and career readiness standards, and one was the
Internat]ona[ Baccalaureate, an international orgamza-
tion with a long history of preparing students for the
most demand]ng postsecondary institutions in the wor[d.
The study found a high degree of ahgnment between the
Common Core State Standards and these exemplary stan-
dards geared to co[[ege and career readiness.
A second study, Reachÿnÿ the Goal, queried nearly
2,000 instructors from a cross-section of U.S. postsecond-
ary institutions to determine ]f the Common Core State
Standards were app[icabte and important to entry-[eve[
courses ÿn 25 different subject areas (Con[ey eta[.,
2011a). These included subjects necessary for a bacca-
laureate degree atong with those associated w]th career
preparation. The results of the study indicated that
instructors found nearty a[[ of the Common Core State
Standards to be appticabte and important to the success
of students in their courses.
A study of curricular coherence exptored the reta-
tionshÿp of the Common Core State Standards in math-
emat]cs to student achievement internat]ona[ty (Schm+dt
t Houang, 2012). It found a very high degree of mm][ar-
r---ÿ --
Social Pohcy Report V28 #2 O01-nlTlOFI O0le'

ity between the Common Core mathemat]cs standards
and the standards of the hlghest-ach]ev]ng nations that
partldpated in the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) in 1995. A subsequent analysis
revealed wide variation in the degree of alignment of the
math standards of state standards in effect ]n 2009 and
those ]n Mgh-achlevlng nations.
Looking at the ELA standards, Ach]eve, Inc. com-
pared high-achieving educat]onal systems in Alberta,
Canada and New South Wales, Australia with the Common
Core State Standards (Achieve, Inc., 2010). They found
that, while the specific language of grade-level expecta-
tions may differ, standards across all three systems are
comparable in rigor and share a s]mllar orgamz]ng struc-
ture (i.e., by outcomes, by strand, by [ever) and a com-
mon focus on the most important student knowledge and
skills in English language arts.
These studies support the conctusion that the Com-
mon Core State Standards are dearer in emphasis and at
a higher level of cogmtlve chatlenge than many previous
state standards. These analyses also illustrate the fact
that the Common Core State Standards are consistent
with the national and international consensus about stu-
dent performance important to post-high school success.
While additional efforts to validate, refine, and improve
the Common Core State Standards will be necessary, the
standards in their current form represent a solid starting
point toward the goat of ensuring consistent, high, and
appropriate expectations for U.S. students.
Figure 2. Readmg College and Career Readiness

Anchor Standards
Key Ideas and Details
• Read ctosely to determine what the text says exphcitly.
• Read ctosely to make togica[ inferences from it.
• Cite specific textural evidence when wnting or speaking to
support conclusion drawn from the text.
• Determine central, ideas or themes of a text and anatyze their
development
• Summarize the key supporting detaits and ideas.
• Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop
and
interact over the course of a text.
Craft and Structure
• Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, mctud-
mg determ|mng technicat, connotative, and figurative mean-
lngs.
• Analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.
• Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentenc-
es, paragraphs, and l.arger portions of the text (e.g., a section,
chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.
• Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and
style of a text.
Summary of the Common Core State Standards
The major elements of the Common Core State Standards
can be accessed online. Below is a summary of several

important areas covered by the standards with an example
of their structure. The summaries include the college and
career readiness anchor standards in reading and writing
and the Standards for Mathematical Practice to provide
a better sense of what students are supposed to know in
these areas. Understanding the larger picture of [earn-
ing outcomes helps in the process of setting appropriate
expectations at each grade level reading to college and
career readiness. This is different from the more com-
mon practice of designing scope and sequence based on
grade-level preferences or traditions and not necessarily on
learning progressions tied to student developmental capa-
bilities and the goal of college and career ready students.
'Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
• Integrate and eval.uate content presented in diverse media
and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in
words.
• Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in
a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the
relevance and sufficiency of the ewdence.
• Analyze how two or more text address s]milar themes or
topics
in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the
authors take.
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity
• Read and comprehend complex Literary and information texts
independently and proficientty.

From Conleyj O. T. (2014a). 6ettinÿ reody for college, careers,
and the common
core: What every educator needs to know. San Frans|sco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Repnnted
th permission. The standards are Copyright 2010. National
Governors Assocla.
bon Center for Best Practices and Counal of Chief State School
Officers. AU rights
reserved,
S&clal Policy Repolt V28 #2 7 Common Coÿe'
I
i Figure 3 Writing College and Career Readiness
i Anchor ÿandards
Figure 4 Standards for Mathemahcal Practice
s
!F ÿ - ................. ,'I Text Types and Purpose - -
• Wdte arguments to support da]ms m an analysis of substan-
twe topics or texts.
• ÿ Use valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence, ii
I " wi;ite informatlve/explanatory text to examine and convey ii
! complex ideas and information dearly and accurately ,:
I thr0ughtheqffect]ve.se{bction, organlzafilon, and analysis ÿf
!l, ; t: , Ii
! • :Write naÿtratiÿies to develop:real or imagihed experiences
or

II events.
'! • Use effective technique, welbchosen details, and weft- (ÿ
structured event sequences,
I Produobon andDisinbuhon of Writing i.
i • Produce clear and coherent writing in which the develop. '
i mentÿgrganizati°nÿand style are appropnate to task, il
IllIÿ purpoSe;;ÿDdaudieilce, , , . ,
!ÿ,, QqYÿlop{ÿdÿstmngthenÿ.Wdt.mg as needed by p{anning,
revls- i'
i/ iiÿ, edltillÿ, l:ewHting, at:trying a new approach.
• Use technology, including the lnternet, to produce and pub- I
fish wnUng and to interact and collaborate with others.
h
Research to BUild and Present Knowledge
• Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects ÿ
• based On:fgcusedÿqUÿsti°Ds'L DemonÿnClerst'aÿd!ÿgof the
subject under
• Ga!heÿ" ÿetevant information from mutUpte print and
digita[ sources.
, • Assess the credibility and accuracy of each source.
• Integrate the information while avoiding ptaglarism.
• Draw evIdence from literary or informational, texts to
suppoÿ.ana[ysis, reflection, and research.
i, I. -Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
ii 2. Reason abstractly and quanUtativety.

3. Construct viabte arguments and cntique the reasoning of
: others.
i 4, Mode[ with mathematics,
Use appropriate tools stratesEaffy.
,,I 6, Attend to precision.
!i 7. Look for and make use of structure,
,i 8, Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
enÿ Over extended time fra:ÿSe ,time for r:s" sÿarcliyÿ
"fle(ÿti0n,.anÿ;reVislon) ndsh r r time fram (a
singl,e sitUnÿ 9ra day or two) fora range of tasks, purposes,
and audiences.
From Contey, O. Tÿ (2014a), 6ettlng ready for college, careers,
and the com.
. mO)iCOÿe, Whaÿeveryeducatofneedstoknow. SanFransisco,
CN. Jossey.Bass,
' . Re#dnted ÿth QeÿIsslgn. Thestandards are Copynght 2010,
National Governors
i Assodalioo Center.for Best Practices and Counc [ of Chief
State School Officers All
From Conley, D, T, (2014a). Oettlnÿ ready for college, careers,
and the common core:
What every educator needs to know. San Fransÿsco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Repnnted with
permission. The standards are Copynÿht 2010. National
GovernorsAssodat]on Center
for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers
All nÿhts reserved.
Figure 5 Example of the Structure of
Common Core State Sÿandards Fourth Grade Math

Uildef$ Landilÿg
and praperhes 1
of o£eratloi,; 5taridÿrd
to perforrn
nlL'ÿtldlÿit ÿ .... +/
ariÿtirletlc
Standard
From Conley, D. T. (2014a). Gettmÿ ready,or colleÿe, careers,
and the common core:
What every educator needs to know. San Franslsco, CA: Jossey
Bass. Reprinted with
permission.
Social Policy Report V28 #2 8 Common Coie
Practices Emphasized by the
Common Core State Standards
White much of what is in the Common Core State Stan-
dards is currently taught in schools that already success-
fully prepare students for college and careers, at[ schools
wilt need to review their practices to ensure their cur-
ricutum and instructional program addresses the content
and Learning processes contained in the standards (Con-
tey, 2014a). Student Achievement Partners (2014) has
identified practices that support successful implementa-
tion of the Common Core State Standards ("Florida Board
of Education", 2014). These examptes focus on math-
ematics and hteracy.

contexts. In content areas outside of math, particularly
science, students are given the opportunity to use math
to make meaning of and access content.
Mathematms
Greater focus on fewer toptcs The Common Core State
Standards call for greater focus in mathematics. Rather
than racing to cover numerous topics that are then not
retained, the Standards deepen student engagement with
key mathematical content. The standards focus deeply
on the major work of each grade so that students can
gain strong foundations, sohd conceptual understanding,
a high degree of procedural skit[ and fluency, and the
ability to apply math to solve problems inside and outside
the math classroom.
Stronger hnkage among topics and thinking across
grades. The Common Core State Standards are designed
around coherent progressions from grade to grade. Learn-
ing is carefully connected across grades so that students
can build new understanding onto foundations built in
previous years. Each standard is not a new event, but an
extension of previous learning. Additional or supporting
topics are designed to serve the grade [eve[ focus, not
to detract from it. For example, instead of data displays
as an end in themselves, they are an opportunity to do
grade-leveL word problems.
More emphasÿs on conceptual understandtng,
procedural skdls and/kuency, and appltcatlon The stan-
dards call for conceptual understanding of key concepts,
such as place value and ratios. Students must be able to
access concepts from a number of perspectives so that

they are able to see math as more than a set of mnemon-
ics or discrete procedures. In addition, they cart for speed
and accuracy in calculation. Students are given opportu-
reties to practice core functions such as s]ngte-dlglt mul-
tiplication so that they have access to more complex con-
cepts and procedures. The standards also expect students
to use math flexibly for applications in problem-solving
English language arts/Literacy
Regular practice wtth complex texts and their academtc
language Rather than focusing solely on the skirts of
reading and writing, the Common Core State Standards
highlight the growing complexity of the texts students
must read to be ready for the demands of college and
careers. They build a staircase of text complexity so that
at[ students are ready for the demands of cortege- and
career-level reading by the time they leave high school.
Closely related to text complexity-and inextricably con-
nected to readinÿ comprehension-Is a focus on academic
vocabulary: words that appear in a variety of content
areas and have different meanings in different academic
contexts.
Reading, wrlhng and speaking grounded en ew-
dence from texts, both literary and informattonal
The Common Core State Standards place a premmm on
students writing to sources (i.e., using ev]dence from
texts to present careful analyses, welt-defended claims,
and dear information). Rather than asking students ques-
tions they can answer solely from their prior knowledge

or experience, the Common Core State Standards expect
students to answer questions that depend on their hawng
read a text or texts with care. The Common Core State
Standards also require the cultivation of narrative writing
throughout the grades. In tater grades a command of se-
quence and detail wilt be essential for effective argumen-
tative and informational writing. The reading standards
also focus on students' ablhty to read carefully and grasp
reformation, arguments, ideas, and details based on text
evidence. Students should be able to answer a range of
text-dependent questions, questions in which the answers
require inferences based on careful attention to the text.
Bulldtng knowledge through content-rich non/kc-
tton The Common Core State Standards represent a new
balance between content rich non-fiction and literary
texts. In K-5, fulfilling the standards requires a 50-50
balance between informational and hterary reading.
Informational reading primarily includes content rich
non-fiction in history/social studies, science, and the
arts; the K-5 Standards strongly recommend that students
build coherent genera[ knowledge both within each year
and across years. In 6-12, ELA classes place much greater
attention to a specific category of informational text-lit-
erary nonfiction-than has been the case previously. In
Social Policy Repolt V28 1t2 Common Cote
grades 6-12, the Standards for Literacy in history/sociaL

studies, science, and technical subjects ensure that
students can independently build knowledge in these
disdphnes through reading and writing. It is worth not-
ing that the Common Core State Standards do require
substantial attention to Literature throughout K-12. HaLf
of the required reading in K-5 and the core of the reading
in 6-12 is assumed to be hterature.
Another area where young children can begin deveL-
oping capabilities that wl[[ support success in mastenng
the Common Core is the acquisition of key [earning skirts
(Figure 7). In other words, children can begin developing
techniques and dispositions from a very early age that
enable them to be [earners who are in charge of their
Implications for Early Childhood Educators
White the Common Core State Standards were not neces-
sarily designed with early childhood education specifi-
caLLy m mind, it is crystal dear that the Common Core
cannot succeed fuLLy without the involvement and contri-
buUons of early childhood educators. What are some of
the things they can do?
First and foremost, early childhood educators can
help students develop the academic vocabulary critical
to academic success. Words such as argument or explain
are used in muLtipLe academic contexts in sometimes
radicaLLy different ways, and helping young children
understand how these important words mean different
things in different contexts in school is an important
foundational skit[.
Figure 6 contains examples of some academic
words that students wltt encounter throughout their

schooling. Most of these are not necessarily appropriate
for preschool children without extensive scaffolding and
support, but the idea that some words are associated
with academic [earning and that their meanings might
be somewhat different in school than they are outside of
school can be developed by preschool educators.
Figure 6 Sample Verbs of the Common Core
AnaLyze Extract Modify Refer
Annotate Foreshadow Note Rephrase
AnUclpate Frame OutLine Review
Compare Generate Persuade Show
CompiLe Hypothesize Portray Specify
Define Incorporate Prectucle Suggest
Oenve Integrate Presume Vatidate
Discern Locate Prove Verify
Excerpt Model Recall
own [earning.
Strategies and
techniques such
as goat setting,
self- monitoring,
attention to de-
taft, time man-
agement and sus-
tained task focus,
and persistence
are examples of

toots that writ be
increasingly criti-
cal as students
progress through
the grades and
are given as-
signments that
require increased
seLf-direction
and the ability to
engage in tearmng
more deepty.
The Four
Keys to Cortege
and Career Readi-
ness is an em-
pinca[ty vatidated
modet that con-
tams 42 compo-
nents associated
Figure 7
Key Learning Skills and Techniques
Key Learning Skills
& Techniques
Ownership of Learnmg
• Goat Setting

• Persistence
• Seff-awarenes
From Conley, D. T. (20|4a). Getting ready/or college, careers,
and the common
core. What every educator needs to know San Franslsco, CA:
Jossey-gass.
Repnnted ÿth permission.
MohvaUon
• Hetp-seeking
• Progress Momtoring
• Serf-efficacy
Learning Techmques
• ]']me Management
• Test Taking SklUs
• Note Taking Skirts
• Memorization/recaLL
• Strategic Reading
• CottaboraUve Learning
• TechnoLogy
From CoNey, 1), £ (2014a), 6etting readyfor college,
careers, and the common core: What every educa-
tor needs to know. San Franslsco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Repnnted vath permission.
with success in postsecondary studies (Contey, 2014a).
The four Keys are Key Cognitive Strategies, Key Content
KnowLedge, Key Learning Skirts and Techniques, and Key
Transition KnowLedge and Skffts. White early childhood ed-
ucators can address aLL four Keys in different ways, they
may be able to add the greatest value to student [earning
success by teaching children the specific strategies and
techniques needed to do welt in academic settings. Many

of these skirts also generalize to tile success as welt.
This Key is dwided into Ownership of Learning and
Learning Techniques. Students can be taught to take
greater responsibility for and control over their [earning
Social Pohcy Report V28 #2 10 Common Coÿe'
by setting goals for themselves, reflecting on which Learn-
ing techniques are working weU and which are not, and by
persisting with challenging and difficult tasks, not giving
up. They can also begin to master specific techmques such
as Learning to remember things efficiently, working with
others to learn, making decisions about how they manage
their time, and being exposed to technology as a Learning
too[. These are all important capabihties that wit[ help
them subsequently in school and will begin to prepare
them for postsecondary success while not restricting their
ability to learn as young children by expionng, experi-
menting, and experiencing the sheer joy of discovery.
FlnaUy, early childhood educators can begin helping
children set high aspirations for themselves and be aware
of the wide range of futures available to them. Although
anything Like career exploration is too much to ask,
young children can be made aware of a range of oppor-
tunities beyond the stereotypical occupations that young
children often cite when asked, "What do you want to be
when you grow up?" The goal here is only to suggest pos-
sibilities and, in the process, establish a mindset that pre-
disposes chffdren to academic engagement, goat setting,
and the cu[twation of high but achievable aspirations.

One other important implication of the Common
Core for early childhood educators is the need to align
programs better with the PreK-3 education. This can be
done a variety of ways including the increasingly popular
PreschooL-Grade 3 approach (PreK-Thlrd Grade National
Work Group, 2014). The Common Core creates a frame-
work for alignment between high school and college,
middle school and high school, elementary school and
middle schoo[, and also between preschoo[ and the pri-
mary grades. While informal atignment may exist focally
m some places, the Common Core State Standards create
both the need and the means to increase atignment.
Educators can identify the knowledge, ski[is, and Learn-
ing dispositions that students will need to determine the
[earmng experiences needed in the PreK-3rd grade years
to ensure that they are achieving the foundationa[ skills
necessary to progress through the Common Core se-
quence successfully (National Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children, 2012).
an awareness of the relationship between current stan-
dards and the Common Core State Standards by examin-
ing gap analyses that show which areas are covered by
both sets of standards and which are addressed on[y by
one set or the other (Achieve3000, 2014). Then educators
can decide which content to add or remove from their
curriculum. This process lets teachers decide how best to
organize their curricula.
It wi[[ also be beneficial for educators to gauge and
understand the cognitive level of the standards. While
a gap analysis often focuses on the nouns (i.e., content
covered), cognitive challenge is gauged by [ooklng at the

verbs (i.e., the cognitive processes students are expected
to use when [earmng the content). Doing so helps teach-
ers see that although the Common Core State Standards
often contain familiar content, they may need to teach
the material at a different, higher cognitive level than
current[y. Knowing where the standards expect more cog-
nitive engagement is important as curriculum developers,
teachers, and others begin to translate the standards into
practice. This knowledge helps achieve the fundamental
goal of the Common Core State Standards, which is to
develop deeper understanding of a core set of content
and skills by all students, and to do so ÿn a way that Leads
to readiness for college, career, and [fie (Con[ey, 2014).
Myths and Truths about the
A great deal has been written and said about the Com-
mon Core State Standards. Several of the most commonly
raised questions about the Common Core State Standards
are addressed here.
How Educators Can Be Successful with the
Educators who are making the transition from their cur-
rent state standards to the Common Core State Standards
Likely do so m severat steps. They may want to begin with
Were Developed by the Federal Government
The standards were not developed by the federal govern-
ment. As noted, they resulted from a process that was
mÿtiated entTre[y outside of government by the nation's
governors and educatIon commissioners. They were sub-

jected to careful and rigorous scrutiny by content-area ex-
perts, state education department staff, teachers, school
district administrators, members of community groups,
parents, and many other individuals. The federal Race to
the Top competition provided points to states that adopted
a set of college and career readiness standards, and many
states, but not all, chose to adopt the Common Core State
Standards around the time of this competition. In a 2010
survey, state education Leaders cited educational quabty
Social Policy Repod. V28 if2 11 Conlmol-ÿ Oole'
issues more so than Race to the Top (RttT) as important
factors in their states' decision to adopt the Common Core
State Standards (Kober Et Rentner, 2011),
Require a Common Assessment
The Common Core State Standards are owned and man-
aged entirely independently and separately from the
two assessments be]ng developed by states to measure
the standards. The Council of Ch]ef State School Officers
(CCSSO) and the Nat]ona[ Governors Association (NGA),
both voluntary non-profit orgamzatlons composed of
state leaders, hold the copyright for the Common Core
State Standards. Ent]rety separately from the sponsoring
agencies, two consortia of states are being funded by the
U.S. Department of Education to create assessments of
the Common Core State Standards. The Partnership for

Read]ness for ColLege and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) consist of voLun-
tary groups of states that have banded together to create
high quality assessments to measure student progress
toward learning key sM[ls identified in the Common Core
State Standards in English language arts and mathemat-
]cs. States can choose to participate in either, both, or
neither of these assessment consortia, and a number of
states never signed up in the first place, changed alle-
giances, or dropped out attogether and are now develop-
ing their own tests of the Common Core State Standards
(Gewertz, 2013).
scratch and redes]ÿIn all that they do. They are organized
and sequenced in ways that lead toward all students being
college and career ready, and they do so by focusing on
key content and higher cognitive challenge. This is consis-
tent with current knowledge about [earmng theory {Brans-
ford, Brown, ÿ Cocking, 2000; Donovan, Bransford, &
Pellegnno, 1999; PelIegnno & Hffton, 2012). In this sense,
the Common Core State Standards encourage best prac-
tices ]n teachmÿl and learning. Educators build on their
current effectwe methods to implement the Common Core
State Standards in ways that make the most sense for the
students in their classroom.
Implications for Policy and Implementation
Implementing the Common Core State Standards with
fidehty creates the potential for substantial and pos]twe
changes and improvements in the ways in which students
learn. Current curriculum and instructional methods large-
[y favor compbance-based [earmng where chffdren follow

directions to complete tasks without engaging deeply In
what they are learning. The key changes contained in
the Common Core all suggest greater student ownership
of [earning and more cognitwe processing of content by
students, who will need to be able to use and apply what
they are learning, not just repeat it, Imphcat]ons for
policy and ]mptementation may be based on several key
features.
Common Core State Standards Specify the Instructional
Methods and Curricula That Teachers Must Follow
The standards identify outcomes that are Important for
students; they do not specify the instructional methods or
curriculum teachers choose to address the broad frame-
work estabhshed by the Common Core State Standards.
The outcomes students Wl[[ ultimately achieve are varied
and include readiness for hundreds of potent]a[ college
majors and literally thousands of potentla[ careers. The
Common Core State Standards expect teachers to pick cur-
nculum and use instructional methods best suited to their
students and that result ]n their students hawng choices
avaitabIe to them when they complete high school.
The Common Core State Standards Require
Schools to Start from Scratch to Redesign Their System
The Common Core State Standards are not such a radi-
cal departure that they require educators to start from
Professional Development
Adoption of the standards wffl be a major undertaking
in most school systems. Most teachers will need time
and training to modify their current approaches in ways
that reflect the focus and depth of the Common Core.
For example, many teachers may find it challenging to
expect students to use evidence to support their asser-

tions, to read informational texts, to think more deepty
and systematicatly, to demonstrate a better command
of language, and to use core mathematical concepts to
solve more complex problems that may have more than
one possible correct answer. As noted, schoo[ systems wilt
not be starting from scratch when adopting Common Core
State Standards, but they will be changing from "business
as usual" to a new way of thinking about learning, and
such change does not happen without a consistent and
well planned professional devetopment effort.
Social Policy Repolt V28 li2 12 ConllllOn COle
Nature and Form of Assessment
A revised assessment process may be necessary to cap-
ture this type of [earning and outcomes promoted by the
Common Core State Standards. While Smarter Balanced
and PARCC wff[ create useful tools that measure many
aspects of the standards, those tests will by no means
assess all the standards. Nor will one-time summative as-
sessments of this nature get at student development over
time in areas such as complex problem solving, writTng in
multiple genres, or interpreting complex texts. If teach-
ing and [earmng becomes focused primarily or exc[uswely
on performing we[[ on one of the consortia assessments,
much of the promise of the Common Core State Stan-
dards will be lost. The ultimate success of the standards

will hinge to some degree on the ability of educators to
develop and use a range of formatwe assessments that
let students demonstrate the more complex thinking the
standards are designed to ehc]t.
level The Common Core ]s organized in a way that facih-
tates ski[[ development across grade levels. Educators,
used to operating in isolation from one another, will need
to plan and work together in much more systematic and
dehberate ways if students are to encounter these more
complex cogmtwe capabitities from year to year, leading
to mastery before they exit high school
Postsecondary Education
Third is the issue of postsecondary education and its
wllhngness to use and even to demand the more com-
plex and meaningful information on student readiness
for college that the Common Core State Standards,
implemented with fidehty and measured with appropri-
ately sophisticated assessments, will generate. Without
a demand by colleges for more information on complex
student performance and deeper mastery of key content,
it is less hkely students and teachers will expend the
energy necessary to make this happen. Alternatives to
traditional transcripts will be necessary. A digital profile
that captures information across multiple dimensions of
student knowledge, skills, dispositions, and metacogni-
twe [earning skills is one way to approach this challenge
(Conley, 2014b). Additionally, admission officers will need
to communicate the value of such information and their
willingness to use it in a range of declsions, not all neces-
sarily high stakes.
Student Aspirations

The Common Core creates a demanding set of learmng
expectations. Currently, while schools and educators may
hope their students strwe for challenging futures, they
do httle systematically or programmatlcally to help raise
student aspirations. Students will need far more oppor-
tunities to understand the academic and career options
available to them if they take ownership of their [earn-
lng and pursue the high standards of the Common Core
State Standards. They will need to aspire to postsecond-
ary education from a very early age because the [earmng
progressions of the standards take time to master. They
will need to have experiences that allow them to [earn
more about themselves, their interests, how they [earn
best, and what skills they will need to pursue the future
of their choice.
Scope, Sequence, and Learning Progressions
Learning progressions identify the development of key
knowledge and skills across grade levels. Preschool and
elementary teachers will need to make many more stra-
tegic decisions about the cumculum and instructional
activities they select to enable students to develop the
skills in the [earning progressions, many of which will
require practice over multiple years with increasing so-
phistication and reduced scaffolding at each subsequent
Conclusion
The Common Core State Standards represent a new way
of thinking about education in the US. The practical ef-
fects of implementing a set of standards that attempts to
raise expectations in all U.S. schools to levels currently
found only in the best U.S. schools and around the world
in the educational systems of high performing countries
are yet to be fully understood. And while the goals of
Common Core advocates are clearly we[[ intentloned, It

may also be worth restating that the goal is not stan-
dardization, but higher ach]evement. This needs to occur
while simultaneously preserwng and even energizing the
local diversity and creatwity that Is the hallmark of the
best of the U.S. educational system and what makes it
unique in the world, n
Social Policy Repott V28 If2 13 Oonlmoll OOle
References
Achieve, Inc. (2010). Achieÿqng the common core: Comparing
the common core state standards for English
language arts and hteracy in hlstorylsoclal studles, sclence and
technical subjects and the standards of
Alberta, Canada and New South Wales, Austraha. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from
Achieve, Inc., The Education Trust, & Thomas B. Fordham
Foundatlon. (2004). The American diploma project:
Ready or not: Creating a hlgh school dlploma that counts.
Washington, DC: Ach]eve, Inc
Achieve3000. (2014). 10 steps for mlgratmg your cumculum to
the Common Core Retrieved July 3, 2014
from http: llwww ach]eve3000.comlresourceslwh]te-
paperslgated131
ACT. (2011). ACT College Readiness Standards. Retrieved
November 23, 2011 from
http: llwww act.orglstandardl

ACT. (2009). ACT national curriculum survey® 2009. Iowa
City, Iowa. Author.
ACT. (2012). The condltlon of college ¢z career readiness 2012.
Iowa City, Iowa: Author.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000).
Howpeople learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: Natlonat
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
CommTssion on Behavtorat and Social Sciences and Education,
U.S. Department of Education.
Carmlchae% S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson,
W. S. (2010). The state of state standards-and
the Common Core-in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.
Carnevate, A. R (1991). America and the new economy: How
new competltive standards are radically
changing American workplaces. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Carnevate, A. P, Garner, L. J , & Meltzer, A. S. (1990).
Workplace basics: The skills employers want.
Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training and
Development, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration.
Carnevate, A. R, Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The
college advantage: Weathering the economic
storm. Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Pobcy Institute,
Center on Education and the Workforce.
The College Board. (2006). Standards for college success New
York, NY: Author.

Conley, D. T. (2014). The Common Core State Standards:
Insight into their development and purpose
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Con[ey, D. T. (2014a) Getting ready for college, careers, and
the Common Core: What every educator needs
to know. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wfley.
Contey, D. T. (2014b). New conceptions of college and career
ready: A prone approach to admission. The
Journal of College Admisslon (223).
Contey, D. 1". (2003). Understanding umversity success. A
report from Standards for Success. Eugene, OR.
Center for Educational Pohcy Research.
Contey, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom,
J., & Stout, O. (2011a). Lmm9 up' The relation-
ship between the Common Core State Standards and Ave sets of
comparison standards Eugene, OR'
Educational Pohcy Improvement Center.
Contey, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzatez, A., Rooseboom,
J., & Stout, O. (2011b). Reachinÿ the ÿoah
The applicability and importance of the Common Core State
Standards to college and career readiness
Eugene, OR: Educational Pohcy Improvement Center.
Contey, D. T., McGaughy, C., Cad]ganÿ K., F[ynn, K., Forbes,
J., & Veach, D. (2009). Alignment of the Texas
College and Career Readiness Standards wRh entry-level
general education courses at Texas postsecond-
ary institutlons. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement
Center.

Contey, D., McGaughy, C., Cadigan, K, Forbes, J., & Young, B.
(2009). Texas College and Career Readiness Im-
ttatwe: Texas career and techmcal education phase I alignment
analysls report. Eugene, OR: Educational
Policy Improvement Center.
Counclt of Chief State School Officers, & Natlonat Governors
Association Center for Best Pract]ces. (2010).
Reaching higher: The Common Core State Standards validation
committee. Washington, DC: Author
Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pel[egrino, J. W. (Eds.).
(1999). Howpeople learn: Bndginÿ research and
practlce. Washington, DC' National Academy Press.
Social PohcyRepor[ V28 #2 14 Oommon Oole
Fior]da Board of EducaUon approves Common Core changes.
(2014, February 18) Retrieved from redeAnED
webs]te" http ÿwww.redeÿnedÿnhne.ÿrgÿ2ÿ14ÿ2ÿnda-bÿard-
educat1ÿn-approves-cÿmmÿn-cÿre-changesÿ
Gewertz, C (2013) Assessment consortla. Who's m and who's
out.2 Educat]on Week. Retneved from Curriculum Mat-
ters webs]te' http: I Ibiogs edweek
orgledweeklcurncu[uml20131101m]ssoun_chooses vendor for
20.htmL
G]nsburg, A, Cooke, G., Le]nwand, S., Noel[, J , & Pollock, E.
(2005). Reassesslng U.S. international math-
emat iÿ performance New Andlngs from t he 2003 TIMS8 and
PISA Washington, DC: Amerlcan InsUtutes
for Research.

Glnsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pottock, E (2005).
What the United States can learn from Sin-
gapore's world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore
can learn from the United States): An
exploratory study. Washngton, DC' American Institutes for
Research.
G]nsburg, A., Lemwand, S., & Decker, K (2009). Informmg
grades 1-6 standards development: What can be
learned from hlgh-performmg Hong Kong, Korea, and
Singapore? Washington, DC: American Institutes for
Research.
Klm, Y., Wiley, A., ÿ Packman, S. (2009). Natlonal curriculum
survey on English and mathematlcs New York,
NY: College Board.
Klein, D., Braams, B. J., Parker, T., Quirk, W., Schmid, W, &
Wilson, W. S. (2005). The state of state math
standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B Fordham Foundation.
Kober, N, & Rentner, D. S. (2011). States' progress and
challenges in implementing common core state
standards. Washington, DC: Center on Education Pohcy
National Assessment Governing Board (2008). Mathematms
framework for the 2009 national assessment of
educational progress. Washington, DC: Author.
Natlona[ AssoclaUon for the EducaUon of Young Children.
(2012). The Common Core State Standards:
Caution and opportunity for early childhood education.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/fl[es/naeyc/11_CommonCore1 2A rv2.pdf

National Counclt of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). A
research compamon to Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics Reston, VA: Author.
Pel[egrtno, J., ff H]tton, M. (Eds.). (2012). Education for hfe
and work Developing transferable knowledge
and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC' NaUona[
Academy Press.
PhiUips, G. W. (20t0). International benchmarking. State
education performance standards. Washlnston, DC'
American Institutes for Research.
PreK-Thlrd Grade National Work Group. (2014). Reduÿng the
achievement gap by 4th grade The PreK-3rd ap-
proach m action. Retrieved from http: / /prek-
3rdgradenatlonalworkgroup.org/node/1
Schmldt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curncu[ar coherence
and the Common Core State Standards for math-
ematlcs. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294-308
doi:10.3102/O013189X12464517
Schmldt, W. H., McKnlght, C. C., Houand, R. T., Hslng Ch, W.,
Wiley, D., Cogan, L. S., 8: Wolfe, R. G. (2001).
Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum
and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Sparks, D., 6t Ma[kus, N. (2013). Fi rst-year undergraduate
remedial course t akl ng 1999-2000. 2003-04,
2007-08. Washington, DC: InsUtute for Education Sciences,
National Center on Educational Statlstlcs.
Stotsky, S. (2005). The state of state English standards.
Washington, DC: Thomas B Fordham Foundation.

Student Achievement Partners. (2014). Retrieved January 31,
2014 from
http: //achlevethecore org/search?q=shlfts
Texas Higher EducaUon Coordinating Board, & Educational
Pohcy Improvement Center. (2009). Texas College
and Career Readiness Standards. Austin, TX: Authors.
Social Policy Repoll V28 #2 15 Common Cole,
GIFTED CHILD TODAY
January 2015
COLUMNS [
Arguments for and
State Standards
Against the Common Core
Joyce VanTasseI-Baska, KdDÿ
Abstract: This alticle ldentihes the algtunents for and
tlgainst the common core state standalds m English languqge
alia and mathematics Although the standalds need to be
dliterentiated iot gitted students, the attthor suggests that
these standards may offer a way to transform education in
tile classroom, so that all students ate able to fulfill the,r
learning potenttal.
Keywords: common core stttte standards, gifted education

with them iheir own assessments honlcally, the mlpetus fol tile
new common core standards was boll1 of tile disÿausfaction
ruth the results of these state-based effolts that employed lowel
and uneven st'mdalds couplecl with even lowel assessments in
maW states The decision to tr,' to estaNish "t set of national
standards with eontlacted assessments that addressed them
appeared to be on the toad to success, given past htstory
Would it nol make sense to have all states requinng similal
things of students in an age of nadon,d and international
competttlon, in an age of economic concerns tbÿ job skills that
match the needs of employment mmkets?
CCSS
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS AND
MATHEMATICS PRESEN'F
A DAUNTING CHAId£F, NGE
TO OUR SCHOOLS . . .
he COllcerns about tile new common cote standards ale
so politicized that both sides ot
the pohttcal spectrum• are
butlding alguments against their use as
well as chfletent stakehoklels wtthin
the educational famil); ,ÿpecitically,
paents, tea&ers, and admmlstmto, s
To suggesl that the criticisms ae
misplaced is somewhat heletlcal
Howeveq I do think it is hnpomlnt to
clarify ceÿtam points regadmg the

standards that shoukt suppolt theil
continued use in schools,
"File new corllnlon cole standalds
,eptesent the second attempt m this
countD' to laise standards tor all students. Irt the late 19808,
thele was a SlmiM attempt, appma( bed diffemntl} [tom a
pohtical perspective, to do a similar thing--provide standalds
that focu,ÿed moJ e on Ingher level skills wltlnn tile snblect
areas.
plovide a pathway to hÿgllel conceptual learning, and elm, ate
the discourse around insu uctional apploaches that emphasized
inqu,, y including ploblem-based lem ning and question-asking
Authentic assessment was also stressed at that Ume as an
apptoptmte way to assess thÿs higher level learning. These
standmds were deleated as a national movement by Ihe desire
o[ mdMdual states to estabhsh their own standards and ahmg
2,
3
Arguments in Favor of the
Standards
"Iqÿese arguments have been stated
elsewhele m gdted education
pubhcattons but the following
teplesents a sy,lthesis of what Ideas
have been developed to .ÿuppott tile
use ot the gnghsh language sits (FLA)
and math standards in schools
1. The conunon cole state standmds
(CCSS) provide a lramewoÿk lot
h,ghet level skill devdopment

than has been the case wÿth eahel
state standards
The CCSS locus on the use el instlUCtJonal tedmlques
that me more open-ended and htghet level.
"[lae C(,SS iequim students to produce evidence el
learning through pÿoducts that emphasize the use of
higher level skdlÿ.
Both eotmactual agemes [el assessnlent dm-dopment,
working across states, have dewsed and tested
pel foHnance-based assessments that have many higher
level exempla
DOI, 10 1 !7-[/10762175!4556535, From ÿCollege oT %lllam &
Mary, Address correspondence, 1o Jeyce VanTasseI-Baska,
EdD, Oenter Ior Talent Development, College of Wÿltlam &
Mary,
6829 Derby Run Way, 6alnÿsvJlle, VA 20155, USA, e/nal
[email protected],vr&eau
For fepnnts and permissions queees, please vlat 8AG[-'s Web
site at Nip/Awcw sagepub comiioumalsPerml%ions nay
[email protected] © 2015 [he Aulilor(s)
60
voL 38 [] no 1
GIFTED CHILD TODAY
These arguments me strong ones foÿ gaining tile support of
the Jted communiiT, As we have shown in om lecent teacher
guides (see Hughes, Ketfler, Shaughnessy, & VanTassel-Baska,
2014; Johnsen, Ryser, 8: Assoultne, 2014), file standards are
sufficiently stlong to build differentiated cuniculum for the
gÿfted learner. At the same tune, the standards can he used to

flame strong curriculum for mum typical learners as well
Assessment approaches being emplo)ed mutot the approaches
found to be dfective with gitted learners
etthel ELA or math. Many schools have not ÿesponded m a
ptoactive way to otgamzmg ongoing ptofesstonal development
to meet the challenge.
m
2lÿe,v also are many arguments about CCSS tlÿat ate liL4
and math ,7ÿeÿ![tc. hÿ k'LA, aome gtoups ate co,ceÿ ned
that ÿlltdettlÿ will be leas egÿo.sed to gp eat lileÿ atw e
became of the emphasis o, noÿHwtÿon ,eadng. Other
gÿoups worry lhat studenls twll not Iearlÿ .sÿgflclenth, the
opela/iona of malbemaliG t&ile ÿcuÿhtg too muclo
attention ou theprocesses that undeJgnd ptoblem solving
These last three m guments aÿe mum general, yet important
considerations for gifted learnels its well. Because thele is so
lmmh that students need m know and be able to do, the use of
well-oÿganized and sequenced standalds that pt ovkte pathways
to advanced learning ale needed.
2, There zs peal conceJ n that teacbep s and schools lack the
capaÿ iOÿ to implement these new slandaMs efJÿclive[y
The gear-up toward nnplementatlon of the CCSS has been
slow, uneven across and wtthm states, and fiaught with the
realihes of what schools me ready m do. Many teachers ate not
uamed m the practices leqtumd to teach h,gher level sMlts m
Aldaough it is tree tlÿat the CCSS attempts to standmdtze what
needs to be learned by Amencan students at given ,',tages of
development m these cote sublect aaeas, tt does not repaesent an
attempt to dictate to sdtools ol teachers as to hmv to go about
ensunng that learning has occmmd (Council of Chlef State

School
Officers [¢CSSOI, 2011). Smndmds ale only the broad
flamewoÿk
within which cuuiculum and instruction ate developed.
Conselvatives have attacked the standards because of the ';uong
emphasis on standatdtzatlon that might be petce,ved as tedeml
conttol. Liberals, however, have also attacked the CGSS, using
the
same standardÿzahon mgument, but on the basks that it may
contribute to less it:<ltvlduat attention for students. Them ts
always a need to be concerned about the level at which
standmdtzahon gives way to individual adaptatÿ(ms
'I he stance of the gifted conmmmty has been to use the
standmds and adapt for individual differences at the level of
classroom activities and pmjeds
Arguments Against the Standards
1 "lÿe standalds lepreÿent a [edeJal takeovep ofeducatton
that u,ill lead to a ha.dual cun'lcuhtm that is totally
standardized
Arguments about the nature of the content and the processes
oJ- the new standards ate healthy if they ale geared towald
improvement at the implementanon stage The development of
these standards was woven through existing evidence to suggest
the substance of what the standards should contain and do take
new dnections to pmvtde gleater balance m teaching [iteÿatme,
for example, between the use of hcuon and tmn-flctk)n and m
math, moving more toward nonÿdgorthmÿc problem solvmg.
These charÿges ate still open to the inteÿpÿetatton of school'ÿ
and
teachers at ditlemnt stages of development. The standards do
not confine, rather they provkte a k)cus for instruction.

4 7be new assessments aÿe too d{/ftc.ll, do notfoctts on
..porlanl content, and ÿw.ire lhe use qf te&noloÿw in
t&ic'h ,slltdeiIts are ilol proficienl
Although most educators would adcnowledge that 50
sepalate state assessments 1'3 an meftlcient way to assess the
learning level of American students, them is leas agreement on
a
vmble alternative The nero. CCSS asse.ssments clearly
represent a
step in the &tecuon of mum perfomÿance-based types o1 items
that me mote open-ended and mquile greater effort on the pint
of the student to complete. However, it ÿs unclear how U.S.
students will perform undel these new testing folmats and
onhne platform.',. One oi- the assessment agencies PARCC
(Paltnetshtp for Assessment o{ Readiness tor College and
Careers) hits been pmacttve m provtdmg altemam es fol schools
in tile use of technology lot accessing the new
assessments.Most states ale concerned about the performance
level o! students. Pÿehmmary ev,dence from New York, foÿ
example, suggests that students ale petfotmilag at loweÿ levels
on the new assessments. This ÿtesult ÿs to be expected The
level
of peÿfonnance ÿequired is much hÿghe, than what eadÿe! state
standards have. Perhaps as the stand'trds ate new, teachers need
time to adjust mshu( tion
5. ht a recc, nt essaB Scbroede,-l)ama (2014) atgues that the
new ÿtandardÿ weÿ e not &,.sgned wtth g!fled students tn
mind and fall,sbort qf pt ot,iditÿgJor the .ldwtduahzation,
collaboration, and letM oj'cttn tcuhtÿt that these students
equilÿ; thtts i.qaegh.g lkelrptogtess 11l schools
Although the 8chroeder-Daws essay praises the work o[ the
National Association of Gifted Chikhen (NAGC) guides m

providing assist'race 1ol teachers m translating the new
Other leasons for using the new
standards include the following:
1 The CCSS conelate well wÿth 21st-centmy ÿequirements
for world learning and testing
2. The CCSS emphas, ze the knowledge imd ,',kills necessary
foÿ working m high-powered careers.
3 The CCSS provide a common base fo, leanring at the
national level.
61
GIFTED CHILD TODAY
January 2015
standards mto dlffemntiatton acttvities and prelects, his
cttttcÿsm
of the standards themselves lemams. He then proposes his own
model for dlffetenttatmg cuniculum, addmg to those we aheady
have in the field The underlying message of the essay is that
teachers should retain total control over the cunicuhlm foÿ the
gifted, diflerentmtmg according to criteria and translating those
cnteria into indmduahzed oppommÿties while not being
influenced by outside standalds. Although I have empathy M
this viewpoint of total diffemntiatton, it seems less than
pragmatic in the face of the cuuent general education
envHonment that calls for unitorm accountability through a
standalds-based and assessment approach. Adaptation of the
existing standmds seems a morn practmal way to ensure flint

diffeÿentlation may occur, given that professtonal development
elated to common core cumculum standmds ts ongoing. It
seems more hkely that we will get "air ume" with teachers
where a structure fol protessional development (PD) already
exists latheÿ than going it alone. The arttcle lightly asse!ts that
them me no gumantees of unitoÿm differentiation tmdel any
model of cumculal otgamzatum, Connecting to the existing
CCSS eumcular flamewolks, however, may be om best optton.
Conflict of Interest
The attthoffs) declared no potential conflicts of mterest wtth
respect to the lesemdl, autholship, and/oÿ publication el this
atticle
Funding
The author(s) lecelved no financial support re1 the research,
authorship, and/el publication of this article
Conclusion
The CCSS m ELA and mathematics present a daunting
challenge to om schools at a time when they may be least
prepared to take it on, especially given lack of funding fol
teacher sataues, deehning morale, and computing agendas Yet,
it also otters the best hope for cohment high-level schooling for
American students. The gifted communtty must join this effort
and transk)ma om wotk to demonstrate to all that high-level
standat& need high-level translations in the classroom if all
students ate m fulfill their learning potentml Foÿ gifted
learners,
that teqtmes diffelentiation o1" the CCSS in a comprehensive
al ticu tared wa}:
References

Common core standards now have cntÿs on the left, (2014,
Febmm7 I6)
)be New gcak Times
Council of Chtef State School Officma. (2011) htTASC ntodel
coÿe teal hmg
slandatd¢. A resomce for atate dlalogue Retueved tmm http'/i
www ccsso orgkesou,(es/pmgmms/,nteraate
teacher_assessment_
consortium %28mtasc%29 html
Hughes, C Kettler, T, ShmlghaessT, E. & VanTassel-Baska, J
(2014)
A gatde to dtJJetenttatton (ftloe CCSS EL4 ,Slandaÿ&lo,
a&ÿattced
leameÿa (Vol [1) Wa(o, "IX, Pmfiock Pm',s
lennlM, L (2014, Febmaq 27) A lesson on the common cote,
flJe?¢ew
Yolk 7trees
Johnsen 8 K, RDer, O R, & kssoutine, S G. t2014) A
tea&eÿ'sgmde to
using the Commott Cote State Standat& will) malhemattcalli,
gÿed and
advancedlearneJx. Waco, TX Pruhock Press
8chmedm-Daws, S J. (2014) k cuw fol the common core Gifted
Fdttcatton Ptwa Quarteth,, 28(,4), 2.-10
Bio
/oyce Vcm7?tsqeI-Baska, f'dl), is tbe Smtlh PtoJcÿ.sor Emertta
at
the College oJ" Wÿlliam N 34a(y m Vilgittia where ÿbe
developed a

graduate proglam and a reseaÿ ch and development center m
gifted e&lcaliom Formed); .she tmtiated and d#ecled the Q, ntel
/el Tale, tl Development at No, lhu.,estetvt Unh.,e,attÿ,
62
feature
NO COMMON OPINION
OI T
CORE
Also
• TEACHER GRADES,
. SCHOOL CHOICES,
• AND OTHER FINDINGS
FROM THE 2014 EDNEXT POLL
ON MOST POLICY QUESTIONS, public opinion changes
slowly, if at all.
But when new msues arise, impmtant shifts can occur
before opinion sorts itself into settled patterns. And, on
occasion, critical events can jar opinion from settled patterns
into a new equilibrium,
These generalizations apply as much to education policy as
to opmion in othm areas of public life. During the eight years
(2007 to 20!4) that the Education Next (EdNexO poll has been
administered to a representative sample of American adults

(and, in most of these years, m a representative sample of public
school teachers), we have seen only minimal changes fi'om one
year to the next on such important issues as charter schools,
merit pay, teacher tenure, teachers unions, and tax cÿedits that
fund private-school scholarships That pattern persists into 2014,
despite heated public disputes concerning many of these topics.
Sometimes sharp changes in opinion do occm; For example,
the share of the punic that say it favors the Common Core
State Standards slipped noticeably between 2013 and 2014.
Establishing a common set of standards across states is a new
policy proposal that emerged as a public issue only in 2011, and
it appears as if many citizens have yet to decide where they
stand
on the mattm. Also, in 2009 we observed a steep drop in public
support for higher school expenditures and higher teacher
sNaries in the wake of the financial crisis and the economic
recession, We now find that even by 2014 support for expen-
ditures and salary increases has not returned to 2008 levels, at
least among respondents told current per-pupil expenditures
and teacher salm7 levels. A new, lower equihbrium has been
established, perhaps because of the wallet tightening required
by the slow, uneven economic recover):
These are among the many findings to emerge from this
installment of the EdNext Survey, administered to some 5,000
respondents in May and June of 2014 (see methodology
by MICHAEL B. HENDERSON, PAUL E. PETERSON, AND
MARTIN R. WEST
educatmnnext org WINTER 2025 ! EDUCATION NEXT
9

sidebat). Among other key findings are the fbllowing.
1) While Americans asked to evaluate the quality of teachers'
work think, on average, that about half of the teachers in their
local schools deserve a gÿade of A or B, they think that more
than one-f'ffth deserve a D or F; even teachms give these low
marks to mote than 1 m 10 of their peers, on average.
2) More than one-fourth of all families with school-age chil-
dlen have educated a child in a setting othm than a traditional
public school.
3) The public thinks less moneyshould be spent on class-size
reduction relative to the amount spent on teacher salaries or
new books and technologies, if they are told the relative price
ot each intervention.
We discuss these and other topics m this review of the 2014
EdNext poll, the complete results of which are available on the
Education Next website.
Public debate ovm a nationwide effm t to set common edu-
cation standards has been tagmg m many states over the past
year. Encouraged by the federal Race to the Top initiative, 45
of the public continues to support the standards set by CCSSI,
and supportms outnumber opponents by a two-to-one margin,
trend lines show serious erosmn in suppmt. In 2013, no less
than 65% of the general public favored the standards, but
that portion is now just 53% (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, the
opposition has doubled from 13% to 26%. (The share talcing
no position on the issue has remained essentially unchanged,
at 21% in 2014.)

The debate has had a polarizing effect as well. In 2013,
CCSSI gathered backers fl*om across the political spectrum.
Since then, support among Republicans has fallen from
57% to 43%, while support among Democrats has remained
nearly unchanged (64% in 2013 and 63% in 2014). Opposition
among Republicans jmnped from 16% in 2013 to 37% in 2014.
Opposition grew among Democrats as well, but to a much
smaller degree; only 17% of Democrats express opposition
now, up from 10% in 2013.
The staunchest opposition comes from the conservative
wing of the Republican Patty. The Common Core has the
support of a majority of self-described "moderate" Repubhcans
(57%) and a pluralitT of "slightly conservative" Republicans
(45%). It drops off considerably among Repubhcans who
Although a majority of the public continues to support the
Common Core, trend lines show erosion in support.
states had by 2011 quietly adopted benchmarks that detail what
students should learn at each glade level, set by the Common
Cme State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), an entity formed by
the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief
State School Officers. Yet the undertaking has become increas-
ingly controversial as the standards have been implemented
and appropriate tests devised. While most states remain com-
mitted to the standards, oppositmn has been vmced both by
conservative groups who fear expanded federal control and by
teadÿers unions worried about the consequences for teacher
evaluatmn. Five states under the leadership of conservative
govmnors--Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
and South Carolina--have rather repealed the standards or
initiated a process to review them. From a qmte different
place on the pohtical spectrum, the New York affiliate of the
National Education Assocmtion has withdrawn ÿts support

for the Common Core as implemented in that state, and the
American Federation of Teachers is calling tbt a moratorium
on all consequences attached to student test results while
the standards are being implemented, a policy that has been
affmned in California,
Declining, potal izilÿg public support. The controversy has
had a striking impact on pubhc opmion. Although a majority
describe themselves as "conservative" (38%) or "extremely
conservative" (23%),
Declining teacher support. Teachels, too, have soured on
the Common Core (see Figure 1), Just a year ago, 76% of
teachers backed the Common Core, but the pot tion in favor
has now plummeted to 46%. Meanwhile, teacher opposi-
tion has more than tripled, from 12% to 40%. (The per-
centage without a positron on the issue remains essentially
unchanged ) Once again, sÿgns of polarization are evident,
with positive views expressed by Repubhcan teachers fall-
ing by 34 points, from 69% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, while
among D emoct atlc teachers the pet centage has slipped only
15 points, from 69% to 54%.
Especially intriguing is the flip in the opinion gap between
teachers and the public as a whole, hÿ 2013, teachers were more
positive m their views of the Common Core than the pubhc
(76% compmed to 65%), but today teachers are less positive
(46%
compared to 53%). A year ago, only 12% of the teaching fmce
expressed opposition--virtually the same as the public. Today,
teachel opposition is nearly twice as high as opposition among
the public (40% compared to just 26%).
A Tainted Bt and? The words "Common Cm e" elicit greater
antagomsm than does the concept of common standards itself.

10 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N r E R 2015
educatÿonne×t, or9
feature
2014 POLl, HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST
While Common Core Support
Slipped, a Majority of the Public
Remains Favorable (Figure 1)
We discovered this by askmg one landomly chosen half
of our respondents the same question as was posed to the
other half, except that we dropped any specific mention of
the Common Core. The difference in the questions posed
to the two groups is in brackets below:
Opposition is glowing among Republicans and
among teachers
Public
2013 2014
(Percent)
As you may know, m the last few years states have
been deciding whether or not to use [the Connnon
Core, which are] standards for reading and math
that are the same across the states. In the states that
have these standards, they will be used to hold public
schools accountable for their performance Do you
support or oppose the use of these [the Common
Gore] standards in your state?

Republicans
Democrats
Teachers
Question: As you may know, in the last few years states
have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core,
which are standards for reading and math that are the same
across the states, In the states that have these standards,
they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their
performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Com-
mon Core standards in your state?
SOURCE: "the 20t.1 FdPle¢t Survey
t>ÿ Support {.ÿ2., Neither JU Oppose
When the Common Core label is dropped from the
question, support for the concept among the general
public leaps from 53% to 68%. &gnificantly, the pro-
nounced partisan polarization evoked by the phrase
Common Core disappears when the questmn does not
include those seemingly toxic words. The level of sup-
port among Republicans is 68%, vntually identical to
the Democratic level of support. In other words, a broad
consensus remains with respect to national standards,
despite the fact that public debate over the Common Core
has begun to polarize the public along partisan lines.
Perceptions versus CCSSI Stated Principles. When
people oppose a label but not the basic concept to which
it is attached, it may mean they have heard the label but
understand it to refer to something else, possibly stone-
thing more fad-reaching CCSSI emphasizes that state

pm tmlpation remains voluntary, that local educators will
retain control over instructional materials, and that the
federal government will not gain access to information
on indMdual students. As of now; each of these claims is
factually correct.
Critics note, however, that the federal government has
encouraged states to adopt the Common Core through the
Race to the ÿIbp competitive grant program and a stieam-
hned path to waivers from the prmdsmns of No Chdd
Left Behind. They warn that adoptmn of the Common
Cme wil! inevitably lead to greater federal control over
instructional materials and monitoring of individual
students' perfm mance.
Who is winning the battle of pubhc perception of
Common Core design? 'lb find out, we first asked indi-
viduals whether or not they had heald of the standards
(we asked this question before gauging support) Only
43% of the public--but 89% of teacher s--says it had heard
of the Common Core before the survey, indicating that
the debate over the Common Core has yet to register in
the minds of many Americans.
educatmnnext.org
WINTER 2015 / EDUCATION NEXT 11
The public, on average, thinks about one-fifth of teachers
in the local schools are unsatisfactory (13% D and 9% F).
We then asked fl:ose respondents who said they had heard
the phlase to identify three statements as true or fÿse or to
say they do not know. In no case &d a majority of the respon-

dents give an answer that corresponded with CCSSI's stated
principles, In two instances only a small minority understood
the principles in the same way as CCSSI itself (see Figure 2).
Teacher perceptions were much more consistent with
CCSSI's stated view, however. Although a majority of teachers
perceived two of the three statements in Figure 2 in a way that
is
consistent with ccssrs position, only a minol ity of the public
petceived any of these statements in the same way that CCSSI
does. This may indicate that opposition to the Common Col e
is driven, in part, by misconceptions.
Yet among the public, supporters and opponents of the
Common Core differ significantly in the:r assessment of only
the last of these statements. Supporters are more likely than
opponents to say that the Common Core allows local school
districts to decide which textbooks and materials to use m then
schools (64% compared to 30%). Apptu'ently, CCSSI needs to
reassure the public that the new standards allow local districts
to make key cumcular decisions.
Evaluating Teachers
Teacher-tenm e laws leaped on to thc fi'ont page of the nat:onal
media in 2014 when a Cahfb:ma judge responded favorably to
Misperceptions z)
Teachers have a more accumteperceptmn of CCSSI's stated
prindples than does the
generalpublic.
False
In states using the Common Core

standards, the federal government will
receive detailed data on individual
students' test performance.
False
Under the common Core standards,
states and local school districts can
declde whlch textbooks and educational
materials to use in their schools,
True
Public and Teacher Percephons
% saying false
64
% saying false
% saying true
0% 20% 40% 60%
[] Public :ÿ' , Teachers
74
80%
*Respondents asked to "indicate if you think the following
statements about the
Common Core standards are true or false." These questions

were asked only of those
respondents who indicated that they had previously heard of the
Common Core,
Source: The 2014 EdNÿ,'¢t Survey
The federal government
requires all states to
use the Common
Core standards.
Consistent with
CCSSJ Stated
Survey Statement* Principles?
a plaintiff's argument that the
state's teacher-tenure laws vio-
late its state constitution. While
defenders of tenure clamÿ that
:t merely plotects teachers
from arNtrary &snnssal, crit-
ics contend that tenme now
makes it extremely difficult
to remove poorly perfbrming
teachers from the classroom.
Where do Amelicans come
down on the issue of teacher
tenure? Just how many of
America's teachms do they
think are ineftÿcuveÿ
We explored these issues
by asking respondents to

grade teachers on the same
A-to-F scale haditionally
used to evaluate student per-
formance. Specifically, we
asked them what percent-
age of teachers in the local
schools deserved each letter
grade The average membel
of the public says that 50% of
teachers at the local schools
deserve an A or a B, If we use
the traditional definitmn of
a C grade as "satisfactory;'
then the public, on average,
thinks about one-fifth of
teachers in the local schools
12 EDUCATION NEXTtWINTER 2015 e¢tucattonne×t,orq
feature
2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST
are unsahsfactory (13% D and
9% F) (see Figure 3).
Teachers, though mote posi-
tive towald their peers, do not
enurely disagree with the public's
judgment. The average teacher
thinks 69% of his or her col-
leagues in local schools deserve
an A or a B. Even teachers say
5% of their colleagues in local

schools are ratlines deserving an
E with another 8% performing at
no better than the D level.
Perhaps because the public is
concerned about the performance
of some teachers, 50% of those
interviewed oppose "giving
tenure to teachers" altogether.
Only 32% favor the idea (and
another 18% take no position),
We followed this quemon with
another as!ong whether teachers
should demonstrate that their
students are making adequate
progress on state tests in otdel
to receive tenure. Overall, 60%
of the pubhc liked the idea. Even
65% of respondents who favor
tenure say it should be based on
student performance. Only 9% of
Americans favor "gwmg teachers
tenure" and oppose using student
performance on state tests to
determine tenure.
Teachers unions, of course,
remam steadfast in their defense
Evaluating Teachers (Figure 3)
The public, on average, gives about half
the teachers at local schools a grade of
A orB, but it also gives one-fÿh of these
teachers a D or an E

A
Public
F
D
A
Teachers
F
D
(Percent)
B
25
Question: Suppose you had to grade each
teacher in your local schools for the qual-
ity of their work using the grades A, B, C,
D, and F. What percent of teachers in your
local schools would you give each grade?
Your answers should add to 100%.
Source: The 2014 BdN¢ÿ.t %trey
just 41% of teachers both favor
tenure and oppose using infor-
mation from state tests when

awarding it. In short, when ÿt
comes to the teacher-tenure laws
in most states, less than half of
teachers and fewer than 1 in 10
Americans prefer the status quo.
It is no surprise then, that
a plurahty of the public (41%)
says that teachms umons have
a "negative effect" on the local
schools and iust 34% says they
have a "positive effect." Both
numbers remain essentially
unchanged since last year
Teachers, meanwhile, are far
more generous in their assess-
ment of their umons' influence
and appear to have become less
critical of the umons over the
past year. Fifty-rune percent of
teachers now report that teach-
ers unions have a posltwe effect
on schools. The share of teach-
ers saying that teachers unions
have a negatwe effect fell from
31% to 23% between 2013 and
2014, wtdenmg the gap between
the pubhc as a whole and teach-
ers over the role of unions m
American pubhc educatmn.
Teachers and the public also
remain shalply divided on the
issue of merit pay. Fifty-seven
percent of the public supports

of teacher tenure. D enms Van Roekel, the outgoing president
of the National Educatmn Association, described the
Califorma lawsuit as "yet anothei attempt by millionaires
and corporate special interests to undernÿne the teaching
professxon and push their own ÿdeological agenda on public
schools;' American Federation of Teachers president Randi
Wemgarten assured her members that "this [decision] will
not be the last word"
But, surprisingly, a majority of teacheis do not favor
the status quo of most states, under which most teach-
ers receive tenure as a matter of course without explicit
consideration of student-achievement data. It is true that
teachers endorse tenure by a two-to-one margin: 60% in
favor, with 32% opposed. Furthermore, only 31% of teachers
like the idea of basing tenure on student test performance.
But when responses to the two questions are combined,
"basing part of the salaries of teachers on how much their
students learn;' while 31% opposes tins idea Among teach-
ers, however, just 21% support merit pay and fully 73% are
opposed. This 36-point gap in support between teachers and
the public is the largest observed for any ÿtem on our survey.
Beyond Traditional Public Schools
The practice of school choice has now spread to such an
extent that more than one-fourth of all American families
have a school-age child who has been educated elsewhere
than m a traditmnal pubhc school. Many American families
are ignoring the bright lines routinely drawn between tl a&-
tional public schools on the one hand and charter schools,
private schools, and home schooling on the other. We asked
respondents who live with children aged 6 to 17 to report

educattonnext org WINTER 201 5 / EDUCATION NEXT
13
School choice is no longer an abstract concept. It is part and
parcel of the American educational fabric, directly affecting
26% of all Americans living with school-age children.
whether those children have ever attended a traditional
public school, a charter school, or a private school, as well
as whether they have been home schooled. No fewer than
26% percent of respondents hvmg with school-age children
have used an alternative to traditional pubhc schools at some
point in those children's education, About 16% of them have
combined multiple types of schooling.
The vast majority oflespondents with school-age children
in the home (87%) have experience wÿth tra&tlonal pubhc
schools, and most rely on them exclusively (see Figure 4).
Still, 14% have used private schools, and 9% have enrolled
Alternatives to Traditional Public Schools (Fig.re 4)
More than a quarter of those with school-age children have
previously used or
currently use an alternative to the traditional public school.
children in charter schools. Charters attract a larger share of
African Americans hying with school-age chddren (15%).
Even home schooling has a broad conmtuency. Eight percent
of respondents living with school-age children said that at
least one of the children has been home schooled.
Teachers make just as much use of these alternatives as
the public at large. About 28% of teachers living with school-

age children have used or currently use prwate schools,
charter schools, or home schooling alongside or m heu of
traditmnal pubhc schools. The most heavily used alterna-
tive for teachers is private school (19%), but 8% and 7% use
charter schools and home school-
ing, respectively. School choice is
no longer an abstract concept. It
is part and parcel of the American
educational fabric, directly affect-
mg 26% of all Americans hying
with school-age children.
District public school
Alternative to district public school
Private school
Charter school
Home school
26
..... :':,, 28
4
NN9
WNa
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
m Public ÿ. I Teachers

Question: Thinking about the school-age children who currently
live with you,
what kinds of schools have they attended?
NOTEÿ Atternatwes to d,strÿct public school are private school,
charter school, and home scrmot
Percentage does not add to 100%, as households may have
utilized more than one type of school.
Percentage attending schools other than traditional school Is not
the total o[ each type displayed,
as those utilizing alternatives may be using more than one
ophon
Source: "l he 2014 LdNext Stlrvel,
School Choice
Given that Americans use the
school-choice optmns available
to them, it is worth asking, Do
Americans support the expansion
of choice, especiallywhen it is tat-
geted to disadvantaged students?
The answer, it seems, depends on
how the program is structured.
Charter schools. Public discus-
sion of charter schools recently
escalated with the election of
Mayor Bill de Blasio, who prom-
ised to limit charter school access
to school-district facflÿtles m New
York City. When charter school
supporters marched in the city's
streets and rallied at the state

capitol in Albany, they won enthu-
siastic support flora Governor
Andrew Cuomo and favmable
action in the state legislature.
Similar battles between charter
detractors and supporters have
14 EDUCATION NEXT/WINTIÿ:R 2015 educahonnext org
feature
2014 POLL HENDERSON, PETERSON & WEST
taken place in Chicago, Los Angeles, and many other
parts of the country.
Despite all the public disputation, public opinion on
charters remains essentially unchanged. R is true that a
higher percentage of the public is now wflhng to take a
position on the issue, one way or another. The pelcent-
age of those surveyed who say they "neither support nor
oppose" chatters dedmed 5 percentage points (from 23%
to 18%) over the past ),ear. But chatter proponents con-
tinue to hold a near two-to-one advantage over opponents.
Support increased shghtly from 51% to 54%, while oppo-
sition hcked up from 26% to 28%. It appears as though
the controversies have only convinced citizens that their
original opinions were correct all along (see Figure 5).
School vouchers and tax credits, School-voucher and
tax-credit programs that enable more families to choose
a private school are also becoming a more familim part
of the U S education system. Half of the states now have a
school-voucher or true-credit program of some kind, accord-

ing to the Fliedm,-m Foundation, a teadmg orgamzation
promoting private school choice. Most common is a tax-
cledit program that allows businesses or individuals to
contribute to organizations that distribute private-school
scholarships to low-income families, The pubhc remains
f:avorably disposed towmd this policy Sixty percent favors
the idea, with just 26% opposed, a margin of support that
exceeds that observed not only tbr charter schools, but also
for school voucher programs benefiting the same popula-
tion of students.
When it comes to school vouchers, modest shifts appear
to be occm ring m opposite directions (see Figure 5) The
public is somewhat less inclined to favor vouchers for
low-income t;amilies hx 2014 than it was a year ago, but it
is a bit more willing to lend support to universal vouchers
for all fhmilies. (In both cases, the changes over the past
yeal fall just stay of statistical significance.)
[b gauge suppmt for vouchers directed toward poor
tamilies, we asked respondents whether they favol ed "a
proposal...that would use government funds to pay the
tuition o flow-income students who choose to attend pri-
vate schools? Opposition to the Mea shifted upward flora
45% in 2013 to 51% this year, while support slipped flora
41% to 37%. On the other hand, support for umversal
vouchers went up a bit. Respondents were asked whether
they favored "a proposal..that wou]d give families with
children m pubhc schools a wider choice, by allowing
them to emoll their children in plivate schools instead,
with government helping to pay the tuition" To that
question, 50% of those surveyed iesponded positively, an
uptick of 5 percentage points since 2013.
if the public resists vouchers made available only to
low-income families, that hardly means it is opposed to

Assessing School Choice (Fig. 51
Pubhc suppot tJbr the expansion of school chotce
depends on how the program is structured,
Tax credits
Universal vouchers
Source," 'lhe 2014 L'dNÿt Survey
educahonnext org W1NTER 2015 / EDUCATION NEXT
15
For question wording, see questions 22, 23, 24a, 24b, and
24c in the complete results from the 2014 EdNexf survey
at www, educationnext.oro/edfacts.
Support ÿ2 Neither [] Oppose
Vouchers for low-
income families
Vouchers for those in
falling public schools
Formation of
charter schools
(Percent)
Accurate information influences the public's view on how

best to allocate education dollars.
helping the disadvantaged. If a voucher proposal is directed
toward families with students attending failing schools, 51%
of the public favors the idea; just 35% is opposed.
Blended learning. The public has yet to be sold on the idea
of blended learning, a recent innovation that gives students
oppoltumties to learn online within the tradinonal school
day. When respondents wine asked whether they favoled
"students spending more of their time at school recewing
instruction independently through or on a computer;' opm-
mn was evenly divided. While 42% responded positively,
41% gave a negative response.
How Much to Spend and How to Spend It
The public underestimates public school expendltme
levels by a wide margin. When we asked respondents to
estimate how much was spent per pupil m theil local school
district, the average response was short of $6,490, just over
half the actual per-pupil expenditure levels of $12,400 in the
districts reported for the school yea ending m 201 [ by the
U.S. Department of Education. Simdarly, the public grossly
underestimates levels of teacher compensation, Members
of the public estimate teacher salaries in their own state,
on average, to be less than $38,900, barely two-thirds of the
When Told Expenditure and Teacher Salary Levels,
Percentage Favoring an Increase Drops (rig.ÿ 6)
Among those giveÿz reformation, support temains below the
pre-recession high.
Percentage who favor increasing,..

70%- I1
'x
-- '% € % ÿ' "60
5 0% ___ÿ_._L'ÿ.. ..............................
4oo/o ....... ÿ;-ÿ" =o.,ÿ.-ÿ ..........................
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
----'leacher salaries (uninformed) ..... ,-,Teacher salaries
(Informed)
---,--Per-pupil spending (uninformed) ............ Per-pupil
spending (informed)
2014
30%.
For question wording, see questions 2ta, 21b, 31a, and 31b in
the complete results from
the 2014 EdNext survey at www.educationnextorg/edfacts.
SOURCE: I he ZOIJ EILNcÿ.I Survey
$57,000 average reported for
2012 by the U.S. Department
of Education for the states in
which lespondents lived.
Given this misperceptmn of
expenditme and salay levels,
receiving additlona] informa-

SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx

SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx

Similar to SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx (20)

More from edgar6wallace88877

More from edgar6wallace88877 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docx