Running Head: COMMON CORE 1. An Analysis of the Common Core State Standards. OL ED 638 Curriculum Development. Kevin Suiter. Bob Jones University

Transcription

1 Running Head: COMMON CORE 1 An Analysis of the Common Core State Standards OL ED 638 Curriculum Development Kevin Suiter Bob Jones University June 29, 2013

2 COMMON CORE 2 An Analysis of the Common Core State Standards Introduced by state governors in 2008, the Common Core State Standards Initiative is now making news in educational and political circles across the country. This paper will review the history of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), examine the English language arts standards, explain plans for their assessment, explore what others are reporting about them, and outline their potential impact on Christian education. History and Development To understand the history and development of CCSS, it is important to begin with an introduction to the purpose for the project, why it was conceived, as well as what it is intended to accomplish. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2010) explains: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school. Several groups played an integral role in the CCSS project. Governors and education commissioners from participating states provided initial leadership and coordination via their representative organizations: the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Additional contributors included the College Board, ACT, and Achieve, Inc. The result of their work was the initial College and Career Ready (CCR)

3 COMMON CORE 3 standards upon which the entire project was built. Thereafter, comments and concerns about the CCR standards were gathered from many teacher groups, including NEA, AFT, IRA, NCTM, and NCTE, resulting in a more refined product ("Common core state standards: A tool for improving education," n.d.). Assembling of the K-12 standards 1 involved a consortium of input groups: a Development Group, who drafted and/or revised the best of the standards from participating states; a Feedback Group, who offered input and guidance to those who were writing; and a Validation Committee, whose purpose was to authenticate research and evidence-based writing ("CCSS: A tool for improving ed.," n.d.). Along the way, representatives of the following educational organizations served as a fourth Educational Organizations Review group which also offered input:...the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Hunt Institute, the National Parent Teacher Association, the State Higher Education Executive Officers, the American Association of School Administrators, and the Business Roundtable (NGA Center for Best Practices, 2010). Implementation in Indiana The state of Indiana was the first to adopt the CCSS by a legislative vote in August 2010 after a unanimous recommendation from the State Board of Education under the leadership of Dr. Tony Bennett, former Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction. This vote took place well before the standards were available for review. During the spring 2013 legislative session, controversy arose as a bill was proposed which would require Indiana to withdraw support for the CCSS. The bill was ultimately scaled back, resulting in a pause in the implementation of the 1 The curriculum model that may have most influenced the participants is the backward design model devised by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe and documented in their important 2005 work, Understanding by Design. As an aid for teachers of the CCSS, the authors wrote a series of five informative articles in December 2012 entitled Common Core Big Idea Series which is available at

4 COMMON CORE 4 new standards, pending a review by a legislative study committee by November 1, 2013, and a final decision by the State Board of Education by July 1, In the meantime, CCSS is already in place for kindergarten and grade one, and had been slated for adoption in grade two this fall. Second grade teachers have been asked by the State Board to continue teaching the former Indiana state standards alongside CCSS so that students will be prepared to take the state s ISTEP test in grade three ("Know more about the common core," 2013). In addition, the new Common Core pause law requires the Office of Management and Budget to provide a fiscal impact statement on the Common Core to taxpayers (Burke, 2013). ELA Standards This author will examine the Common Core English Language Arts standards for the purposes of this assignment, hereafter referred to simply as ELA standards. There are no specific teaching strategies included in the common core. The CCSS are presented as a set of standards only, allowing teachers to continue to develop their own lesson plans and adapt teaching methods to meet the unique needs of their classroom. The intent is to emphasize targeted achievements or outcomes rather than specific classroom teaching methods. Contrary to what some state standards may have required of classroom teachers in the past, the developers make the following claim: Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards (NGA, 2010). Standards were purposefully developed to include both the content and the application of knowledge through required skills (NGA, 2010). This is evident in the carefully chosen wording which guides the teacher s choice of methods appropriate to the specific cognitive process included in each standard. The ELA standards, as with the math standards, are intended

5 COMMON CORE 5 to develop college and career readiness. From these initial foundational standards, grade-specific standards were developed to match the learning abilities of each age group. In addition, literacy standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects were included in the ELA standards which indicate an integrated curriculum design model for meeting these literacy standards. Subsequently, the responsibility for meeting literacy standards is to be shared among faculty who teach in those content areas (NGA, 2010). The ELA standards consist of four anchor standards: 1) reading, 2) writing, 3) speaking and listening, and 4) language. Each of the four anchor stands are then broken down into various sub-strands. These anchor strands and sub-strands are applied to the standards across each grade level. Given its complexity, a more detailed explanation of how the standards are organized is provided on the official CCSS website as follows: Each section is divided into strands. K 5 and 6 12 ELA have Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language strands; the 6 12 history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects section focuses on Reading and Writing. Each strand is headed by a strand-specific set of College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards that is identical across all grades and content areas. Standards for each grade within K 8 and for grades 9 10 and follow the CCR anchor standards in each strand. Each grade-specific standard (as these standards are collectively referred to) corresponds to the same-numbered CCR anchor standard. Put another way, each CCR anchor standard has an accompanying grade-specific standard translating the broader CCR statement into grade-appropriate end-of-year expectations. Individual CCR anchor standards can be identified by their strand, CCR status, and number (R.CCR.6, for example). Individual grade-specific standards can be

6 COMMON CORE 6 identified by their strand, grade, and number (or number and letter, where applicable), so that RI.4.3, for example, stands for Reading, Informational Text, grade 4, standard 3 and W.5.1a stands for Writing, grade 5, standard 1a. Strand designations can be found in brackets alongside the full strand title ("How to read the standards," 2010). In 2010, the Fordham Institute examined the standards from each of the individual states and compared these standards to the CCSS. Each set of state standards and the CCSS was given a grade in every content area. In their report on the Indiana ELA standards, Indiana received perfect scores under each of the two grading criterion: 1) clarity and specificity, and 2) content and rigor. Whereas the Indiana ELA standards earned a grade of A, the Common Core was given a grade of B+. The superiority noted in the Indiana standards had to do with its more logical grouping of essential content rather than spreading them across strands. The inclusion of literary examples which added clarity to the standard was also observed, as was the systematic treatment of specific genres and sub-genres. Of particular note was the superiority of Indiana s more comprehensive reading list as compared with the list included in the Common Core (Carmichael, 2010). Assessment Strategies Ultimately, the achievement of the CCSS will be measured by standardized tests designed to align with the CCSS. Those involved in writing the tests are the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), each of which is made up of representatives from participating states (NGA, 2010). Eventually, each state s end of year assessments will be replaced by these tests as states adopt the CCSS. Pilot testing was begun during the school year, with field

7 COMMON CORE 7 testing to be conducted during the upcoming school year. Participating states are scheduled to launch the new tests in ("Know more about the common core," 2013). Critique of the CCSS The reviews of the CCSS are mixed, and the criticisms are growing as familiarity increases. Proponents of CCSS declare that it offers these advantages over the present system: 1. CCSS are internationally benchmarked, meaning that students will compare more favorably and be better prepared to compete in the global marketplace (Meador, 2013). 2. Uniformity between states will make it easy for students to transfer from state to state, an important benefit in our increasingly mobile society. 3. A common curriculum between states will be more cost effective. 4. By incorporating standards from states with the best performance records, the result will be a much stronger, more robust curriculum. Opponents to CCSS are sponsoring grass roots efforts to inform the public of their concerns. They offer these objections: 1. That No Child Left Behind funding and waivers were tied to states decisions to adopt CCSS argues against the idea of so-called voluntary consent (Ruffino, 2013). 2. It utilizes a one-size-fits-all approach, meaning that some students are doomed to fail (Llopis-Jepsen, 2013). 3. By adopting a nationalized curriculum, states will be giving up their autonomy which is guaranteed by the tenth amendment (Layton, 2013). 4. The elimination of 50% or more of the classics from the reading requirements in favor of technical content leaves a major component of the traditional reading curriculum out

8 COMMON CORE 8 altogether, not to mention that teachers were not trained in teaching technical reading material (Stotsky, 2012). 5. The goal of insuring that students are college and career ready is inferior to the educational goals of the past ("Hillsdale college lecture on common core," 2013). 6. A major conflict of interests exists in the integral involvement of Achieve, a progressive non-profit group in DC with connections to a major textbook publisher ("What as achieve, inc., and why should you care?," 2012). 7. It eliminates the diversity that has historically characterized one of the greatest educational systems in the world (Ruffino, 2013). 8. There is evidence of data mining, resulting in the erosion of privacy among US citizens (Sauer, 2013). 9. Since the College Board has already announced a realignment of college entrance tests, it will place private school graduates, including those from homeschools and Christian schools, at a distinct disadvantage when applying for college (Corona, 2013). 10. The Common Core is still untested and has yet to demonstrate that it will address the needs of America s weakening educational system (Ravitch, 2013). Concluding Statements The impact of CCSS on Christian education in the state of Indiana is yet to be seen. This author is convinced that CCSS will not come without great cost. Christian leaders should expect that as more and more school districts implement CCSS, and as college entrance tests are aligned with CCSS, Christian schools will be pressured by parents to move in this direction lest their children be disadvantaged. The potential loss of states autonomy in developing and overseeing their own curriculum could also bring more scrutiny on private schools that enjoy a greater

9 COMMON CORE 9 measure of freedom from government control. Accredited Christian schools may face pressure from the Indiana Department of Education to adopt CCSS or lose their voucher approved status. Christian School administrators, school boards, teachers and pastors must stay informed of new developments regarding CCSS. In addition, they must not hesitate to stay involved in the political process and make their voice heard. They should make every effort to raise the bar of student academic achievement in their own schools in order that our present reputation for outperforming public schools, as well as the testimony of Christ, is not diminished. If CCSS becomes a requirement for maintaining full accreditation status, leaders in Christian education must be prepared to count the cost and stand on biblical principles rather than succumb to pragmatism brought on by a reliance on public tax dollars. As long as Christian schools are allowed the freedom to adopt academic standards consistent with their strongly held religious convictions, and direct their own curriculum choices, they can use the best of the CCSS to strengthen their schools.

10 COMMON CORE 10 References ASCD. (2011, March 25). ASCD awarded $3 million to aid nationwide common core standards implementation. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from ASCD: Learn Teach Lead: media/press-room/news-releases/ascd-awarded-gates-foundation-common-core- Grant.aspx Burke, L. (2013, May 17). Governor Pence pauses Indiana common core standard. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from The Foundry: Carmichael, Sheila Byrd, and W. Stephen Wilson, Kathleen Porter-Magee, Gabrielle Martino. (2010, July 21). The state of state standards -- and the common sore -- in Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Fordham Institute: Common Core State Standards: A Tool for Improving Education. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from NEA Policy Brief: Corona, B. (2013, June 23). Common core: Homeschoolers face new questions on college admissions. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from The Foundry: blog.heritage.org/2013/06/23/common-coresnationalizing-tentacles-sat-act-and-ged-alignment/ Hillsdale College Lecture on Common Core. (2013, June 20). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Common Core: Education Without Representation: How to Read the Standards. (2010). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Common Core State Standards Initiative:

11 COMMON CORE 11 Know More About The Common Core. (2013). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from State Impact: Indiana: Layton, L. (2013, April 29). Turmoil swirling around common core education standards. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from The Washington Post: 29/local/ _1_common-core-standards-new-tests Llopis-Jepsen, C. (2013, June 26). Kansans in congress oppose common core. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from The Topeka Capital-Journal Online: Meador, D. (2013). What are some pros and cons of the common core standards? Retrieved June 29, 2013, from About.com: Of-The-Common-Core-Standards.htm National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Common Core State Standards Inititiative: Ravitch, D. (2013, Feb. 26). Why I cannot support the common core standards. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Diane Ravitch's Blog: Ruffino, D. (2013, May 13). "Common core" or "rotten to the core" - You decide. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from Beaufort Observer Online Edition: COMMENTARY-c COMMON-CORE-Common-Core-or-Rotten-to-the- Core-You-Decide.html Sauer, M. (2013, April 25). Data mining students through common core. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from The New American:

12 COMMON CORE 12 Stotsky, S. (2012, Dec. 11). Common core standards devastating impact on literary study and analytical thinking. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from The Heritage Foundation: What Is Achieve, Inc., and Why Should You Care? (2012, April 06). Retrieved June 29, 2013, from Common Core: Education Without Representation: