1. Center on Education Policy (CEP) Nancy Kober & Diane Stark Rentner September 14 th, 2011 (EDD 1004) Triad Presentation Presenters Francis T. Harten Nat Singh Anthony Lubrano

2. Overview of Common Core Standards Mission Statement: The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. Common Core Definition: The Common Core Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics represent a set of expectations for student knowledge and skills that will result in high school graduates who are prepared for success in college and careers.

3. Common Core Standards Historical Process The bases of this report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) comes from a nationally representative sample of school districts which specifically examines their understanding and early structural implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The conceptualization of CCSS began in September 2009. K-12 standards drafted and released for public opinion March 2010. With the final K-12 Common Core State Standards document presented in June 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center). The document was produced on behalf of 50 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia. The main purpose was that English and Mathematic standards for grades K-12 should represent a set of expectations for student knowledge and skills that high school graduates need to master and succeed in college and future careers. CCSSO and NGA Center worked with states, educators, education experts, researchers, national organizations and community groups using their combined feedback to produce the final standards to compete with other high performing nations educational systems.

4. It is important to note that the final standards produced were based on the invaluable feedback of teachers, parents, state administrators, the general public, business leaders and higher education experts in order to develop a functioning criteria of college and career readiness standards incorporated into the K-12 standards. The following are the standards that were incorporated: 1. State-led and voluntary 2. Aligned with college and work expectations 3. Focused and coherent 4. Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills 5. Build upon strengths of current state standards 6. Internationally benchmarked 7. Based on evidence and research

5. Report Specifics As of August 2011, 44 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the voluntary common core state standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics released in June 2010. The standards are intended to set clear expectations for learning for grades K-12 that are consistent from state to state. The standards also aim to ensure that high school graduates possess the knowledge and skills needed for college and a globally competitive workforce. These standards are to guide education reform in the ways envisioned by the adopting states, much work will also need to be done at the school district level. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that students master the knowledge and skills in the standards rests with districts and schools, and their administrators and teachers. Districts will continue to have flexibility in deciding how to accomplish this goal, many will need to change their curriculum, instruction, local assessments, teacher professional development, and other elements of education to align them with the new standards.

6. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, describes school districts’ perceptions about the impact of the common core state standards, their progress in implementing these standards, and the challenges they face in doing so. The information is based on a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in the winter and spring of 2011.The survey covered a range of topics, including district budgets, federal stimulus money, education reform, and the CCSS. The information in this report is based on responses to questions specifically about the CCSS from districts that correctly reported their state was one of the 43 states and D.C. that had adopted the standards at the time the survey was analyzed.

7. To Date 45 States & the District of Columbia are Voluntarily Involved Adopted Not Adopted

8. Survey Key Findings 1. Almost three-fifths of the districts in states that have adopted the CCSS viewed these standards as more rigorous than the ones they are replacing and expected the CCSS to improve student learning. 2. Two-thirds of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have begun to develop a comprehensive plan and timeline for implementing the standards or intend to do so in school year 2011-12. Sixty-one percent of the districts are developing and/or purchasing curriculum materials. 3. Adequate funding is a major challenge. (Note: Three-quarters (76%) of districts in CCSS-adopting states view adequate funding to implement all aspects of the CCSS as a major challenge. Another 21% see this as a minor challenge.) 4. About two-thirds of the districts in adopting states cited inadequate or unclear state guidance on the CCSS as a major challenge. 5. Districts appear to face relatively little resistance to implementing the CCSS from parents, community members, or educators. 6. District or school-level staff participated in various state, regional, or district activities in school year 2010-11 to become informed about the common score state standards.

9. District Views about the Rigors and Impact of the CCSS Rigor of standards—Almost three-fifths of the districts in CCSS-adopting states view the common core state standards as more rigorous than the ones they are replacing. Impact on students’ learning—Almost three-fifths of the districts in CCSS- adopting states expect the common core state standards to improve students’ skills. Need for new or substantially revised curriculum materials—More than half of the districts in CCSS adopting states believe that implementing the common core state standards will require new or substantially revised curriculum materials. Impact on instruction—Half of the districts in CCSS-adopting states believe that fundamental changes in instruction will be needed to implement the common core state standards.

10. District-Initiated Activities Related to CCSS Implementation Comprehensive plan—Two-thirds of districts in CCSS-adopting states have developed or intend to develop their own comprehensive plan and timeline for implementing the common core state standards. New curriculum materials—Overall, 61% of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have begun to or plan to take actions to develop and/or purchase new curriculum materials aligned with the CCSS in math and/or English language arts. Professional development—Altogether, 48% of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have provided or plan to provide professional development on the CCSS for teachers who teach math and/or English language arts. Local assessments—Less than half of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have developed or plan to develop new local assessments to measure student mastery of these standards. Resource teachers—Just 29% of the districts in CCSS-adopting states have assigned or plan to assign resource teachers to help teachers integrate the CCSS into their classroom instruction in math and English language arts. Educator induction and evaluation—Less than one-third of the districts in CCSS- adopting states have changed or plan to change their educator induction or teacher evaluation systems to make them more consistent with the CCSS.

11. Challenges Districts Face in Implementing the CCSS About three-fourths of the districts in CCSS-adopting states cited inadequate funds to carry out all aspects of standards implementation as a major challenge. About two-thirds of the districts also considered inadequate or unclear state guidance on particular aspects of CCSS implementation to be a major challenge. The following must be considered: 1. Adequate & Appropriate Funding of all CCSS Initiatives 2. Teacher Evaluation Systems 3. Teacher Accountability of Students’ Mastery of the Standards 4. Creation of Local Assessments Aligned with CCSS 5. Alignment of the Content of Educator Induction Programs to the CCSS

12. Percentage of districts in CCSS-adopting states that cited various aspects of CCSS implementation as a major, minor, or no challenge Challenges associated with district implementation of the CCSSMajor challenge Minor challenge Not a challenge Inadequate funds to carry out all aspects of implementing the CCSS76%21%4% Inadequate or unclear guidance from the state education agency (SEA) related to modifying the teacher evaluation system to hold teachers accountable for student mastery of the CCSS 53%35%12% Inadequate or unclear guidance from the SEA related to creating local assessments aligned with the CCSS48%41%11% Inadequate curriculum materials to support integrating the CCSS in classroom instruction47%42%12% Inadequate or unclear guidance from the SEA related to aligning the content of educator induction programs with the CCSS 45%42%13% Inadequate/unclear information regarding the SEA’s plan and timeline for implementing the CCSS40%47%13% Resistance to implementing the CCSS from teachers and principals10%58%32% Resistance to implementing the CCSS from parents and community members5%35%60%

13. Myths vs. Facts Myths About Content and Quality: General Myth: Adopting common standards will bring all states’ standards down to the lowest common denominator, which means states with high standards, such as Massachusetts, will be taking a step backwards if they adopt the Standards. Fact: The Standards are designed to build upon the most advanced current thinking about preparing all students for success in college and their careers. This will result in moving even the best state standards to the next level. Myth: The Standards are not internationally benchmarked. Fact: International benchmarking played a significant role in both sets of standards. Myth: The Standards only include skills and do not address the importance of content knowledge. Fact: The Standards recognize that both content and skills are important. Myth: The Standards suggest teaching “Grapes of Wrath” to second graders. Fact: The ELA Standards suggest “Grapes of Wrath” as a text that would be appropriate for 9 th or 10 th grade readers.

14. Myths vs. Facts: (Continued) Myth: The Standards are just vague descriptions of skills; they don’t include a reading list or any other similar reference to content. Fact: The Standards do include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the Standards. Myth: English teachers will be asked to teach science and social studies reading materials. Fact: With the Common Core ELA Standards, English teachers will still teach their students literature as well as literary non ‐ fiction. However, because college and career readiness overwhelmingly focuses on complex texts outside of literature, these standards also ensure students are being prepared to read, write, and research across the curriculum, including in history and science. These goals can be achieved by ensuring that teachers in other disciplines are also focusing on reading and writing to build knowledge within their subject areas. Myth: The Standards don’t have enough emphasis on fiction/literature. Fact: The Standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.

15. Myths vs. Facts: (Continued) Myths About Process Myth: No teachers were involved in writing the Standards. Fact: The common core state standards drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts from across the country. Myth: The Standards are not research or evidence based. Fact: The Standards have made careful use of a large and growing body of evidence. Myths About Implementation Myth: The Standards tell teachers what to teach. Fact: The best understanding of what works in the classroom comes from the teachers who are in them. Myth: The Standards will be implemented through No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - signifying that the federal government will be leading them. Fact: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state ‐ led effort that is not part of No Child Left Behind and adoption of the Standards is in no way mandatory.. The NGA Center and CCSSO are offering support by developing a State Policymaker Guide to Implementation, facilitating opportunities for collaboration among organizations working on implementation, planning the future governance structure of the standards, and convening the publishing community to ensure that high quality materials aligned with the standards are created.

16. Myths About Implementation: (continued) Myth: These Standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools. Fact: The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. Myth: The federal government will take over ownership of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Fact: The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The Initiative was and will remain a state-led effort. NGA and CCSSO are committed to developing a long-term governance structure with leadership from governors, chief state school officers, and other state policymakers.

17. Major Conclusions of CEP Report Implementing the common core state standards in the adopting states will require considerable work by school districts as well as state education agencies. The majority of districts in CCSS-adopting states expect these standards to be more rigorous than the ones they are replacing and anticipate that the CCSS will help to improve students’ skills in math and English language arts. Large proportions of the districts also recognize that implementing the CCSS will require new or substantially revised curriculum materials and fundamental changes in instruction. About two-thirds of the districts in adopting states saw inadequate or unclear state guidance about various aspects of CCSS implementation as a major challenge. Districts’ implementation of the CCSS will very likely depend to on how quickly states put in place the necessary framework. Most of the states responding to our state survey on CCSS implementation expect to accomplish changes in professional development programs by 2012 or earlier, but many do not expect to fully implement major changes in assessment, curriculum, teacher evaluation, and teacher certification until 2013 or later.

18. Of greater concern is the fact that critical district actions related to CCSS implementation are being undertaken at a time when local, state, and federal budgets are expected to decrease. Eighty-four percent of the nation’s school districts anticipate declining budgets in school year 2011-12, and 54%of the districts with shortfalls expect to respond by slowing progress on, postponing, or stopping education reforms (CEP, 2011a). Another 27% of districts with budget decreases were unsure how these shortfalls would affect education reforms. These findings suggest that funding cuts could slow districts’ plans to implement the CCSS. Districts in CCSS-adopting states acknowledge this reality; 76% consider inadequate funds to be a major challenge in implementing the new standards. In short, the common core state standards hold promise for bringing greater consistency and rigor to key elements of education across states and school districts, but funding problems at all levels of government could hamper this worthwhile initiative.

19. Recent Newspaper Articles on (CCSS) Common Core a Brave New World for U.S. Schools Newsday April 3, 2012 http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letters-reconsider-the-common-core- 1.3657910 Letters: Reconsider the Common Core Newsday April 12, 2012 http://www.newsday.com/opinion/common-core-a-brave-new-world-for-u-s- schools-1.3641321

20. References Center on Education Policy. (2011a). Strained schools face bleak future: Districts foresee budget cuts, teacher layoffs, and a slowing of education reform efforts. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2011b). States’ progress and challenges in implementing common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2011c). More to do but less capacity to do it: States’ progress in implementing the Recovery Act education reforms. Washington, DC: Author. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.).Web site, http://www.corestandards.org/