What People Don’t Know About Common Core Standards Limits Reform

If the rationale of most federal educational initiatives is logical and sensible, then what causes the educational inertia to perpetuate failure?  Some may argue politics are to blame.  Others feel justified in their complaints with the bureaucracy interfering with change.

As with every federally backed initiative since the ESEA (1965) and PL 94-142 (1975), it is difficult to argue with a well-scripted rationale.  Pragmatically, not too many politicians wanted to raise their hand in objection to NCLB, (2001).  After all, who wanted to go on record as being the person willing to leave a child behind? Yet, few educators would suggest NCLB was well-implemented.

 High expectations explicated as learning standards are a good thing.  Ensuring every state promotes high expectations within its learning standards is a good thing too as the United States must compete in a global economy.  So, could the problem with embracing Common Core Standards once again be poor implementation providing chum for politicians? 

In a Los Angeles Times editorial (April 22, 2013) the dilemma facing implementation of the Common Core State Standards was well explicated:

Experts are divided over the value of the new curriculum standards, which might or might not lead students to the deeper reading, reasoning and writing skills that were intended.  But on this much they agree: The curriculum will fail if it isn’t carefully implemented with meaningful tests that are aligned with what the students are supposed to learn.  Legislators and education leaders should be putting more emphasis on helping teachers get ready for common core and giving them a significant voice in how it is implemented.  And if the state can’t get the right elements in place to do that by 2014, it would be better off delaying the new curriculum a couple of years and doing it right, rather than allowing common core to become yet another educational flash in the pan that never lives up to its promise.

High expectations explicated as learning standards are part of the variables called leading indicators for success.  Subsequently, test results produce a trailing indicator-exhibiting either student success or failure.  Effective implementation, and ideally good instruction, is what comes between the high expectations and the test results. 

A mission of promoting learning for all requires a district to either create a vertically aligned, curriculum-based system or modify a purchased system to make it appropriate for the district’s needs.  An effective system would be able to monitor and adjust established “nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 23).

The increased expectations for monitoring and adjusting in real time would be nearly impossible without a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  The Kennewick School District case study provides an actual example of the value of a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  Research by Fielding, Kerr, and Rosier (2007) documented how the achievement gap between economically poor and disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged counterparts could be closed by a four-step Targeted Accelerated Growth (TAG) loop process.  The TAG loop process includes the following steps:

(1)   discovering through the administration of diagnostic assessment the

sub-skill deficiency,

(2) providing increased direct instructional time,

(3) focused teaching to the deficient sub-skill, and

(4) retesting to assure that learning actually occurred (Fielding et al, 2007, p. 19).

The TAG loop process is a process not a linear model.  With any process, change resulting from the interpretation of reliable data is crucial for success based on application of correct micro-adjustments.  It would seem diagnostic testing and professional development for the teaching staff optimizes effectiveness in efficiently using data to implement proportional micro-adjustments in instructional time.  Therefore, with an efficient and effective student information and instructional management system, how to utilize data to effectively and efficiently diagnose and implement needed change becomes possible.    

Before implementing the principle of monitor and adjust effectively, leaders must identify the problem and then lead continuous improvement systems and processes.  To lead continuous improvement systems and processes, the effective educational leader evaluates the Five Ts of Continuous Improvement: Theories, Teams, Tools, Time, and Technology.  The effective educational leader then ensures appropriate performance criteria are established.

A school or district’s continuous improvement goals for a given academic year must succinctly indicate implementation steps for each improvement goal.  The current framework utilized for continuous school improvement encourages no more than three goal statements per year.  Given the complexity of the school system, too many goals adversely impact the level of human energy devoted to the initiative.  Displaying a limited number of continuous improvement goals allows followers and stakeholders to monitor growth through well-explicated action plan.  Therefore, anything more than three continuous improvement goals will be visually overwhelming and thereby perceived as unmanageable.  

The Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC) system frequently monitors student performance and ensures alignment between the “intended curriculum”…,“implemented curriculum”…, and the “attained curriculum” (DeLorenzo et al, 2008, p. 64).  Based on research and best practices, implementation of the correlates for Effective Schools is therefore prudent when seeking school improvement.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62). 

The result of frequent monitoring and analysis means data guides instructional decisions.  However, effective use of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here” Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without interdependent implementation of all the correlates of Effective Schools Research, any progress is adversely impacted.

Common Core Standards are not the problem.  Knowing where instruction should be heading creates, rather than limits, the autonomy of the innovative, imaginative, passionate educator. Stakeholders should look upon Common Core Standards the same way ancient navigators valued the north star.  So, let us calibrate our instruments based on a set starting point and then succeed to exceed.  For, if better is possible, then good is not enough.  Universally-accepted standards, by any name, merely helps us know good so we can seek better!

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2016) What people don’t know about common core standards limits 
               reform.[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

                APQC

Delorenzo, R. A., Battino, W., Schreiber, R. M., Carrio, B. G. (2008). Delivering on the promise:

                The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. ISBN-13: 9781934009420

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth

for those who are behind. New York: Foundation Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009).  District Leadership That Works. Bloomington, In: Solution

                Tree Press

The Interdependency of Common Core Standards, Proficiency Levels, and High Expectations

            An October 12 article by Emma Brown reported Ohio and Arkansas politicians and their State Education Agents (SEA) decided to redefine what “proficiency” means based on the results on their Common Core tests.  This action inflates the performance of its students.  One result of embracing lower levels of proficiency is diminished expectations to achieve the mission of learning for all.  

            Forty-four states and the District of Columbia continue to implement the Common Core State Standards.  Several states sought to avoid the politically-toxic Common Core name by using alternate names.  However, while the Missouri Learning Standards or the North Carolina Standard Course of Study avoid the Common Core name, their tests of adequate yearly progress are still designed to measure learning based on Common Core Standards. 

            Neither the Mathematics or ELA minimal standards at grade level collectively identified as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or any related assessments of student progress, such as the PARCC or Smarter Balanced, reduce student aspirations or potential.  Idiomatically, "A rising tide lifts all boats."  The effect of lowering the cut points that determine proficiency is false identification of progress.  Such a lie puts a hole into an educational system’s expectations and forecloses that system's students.  An effective educational system embraces high standards for success, thereby guiding its students to "reach for the stars.”  By contrast, lowering levels of proficiency reinforces a containment culture whereby too much credit is provided for a student’s ability to hit the ceiling with a pencil.

            A thorough review of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report card reveals the disparity of education by state.  NAEP math and reading tests are given every other year to a representative sample of fourth and eighth graders.  Nationwide, 2015 score results were down on three of the four tests, which critics of Common Core will use as evidence that the standards do not work.  However, as reported by Felton (2015), NAEP scores from the four states that never adopted the Common Core: Virginia, Nebraska, Alaska, and Texas, also exhibited a downward trend compared to 2013 NAEP results. 

            It is more important to examine NAEP results to identify states with the highest performing students.  Finding many of the states with the lowest performing students are the same states with politicians and SEA that will lower cut points for proficiency should not be surprising.  It should also be noted that many of the states with the lowest performing students either opted out or are now seeking to opt out of the CCSS.  Rather than focusing on the 2015 NAEP results as proof that the Common Core Standards are ineffective, the state-by-state disparity of 2015 NAEP results actually add to the rationale for the Common Core.  The state-by-state disparity that is clearly recorded in NAEP results since 1998 reinforce the need for common standards, rigorous assessment of learning, and great expectations established through a high level of proficiency.

            The leaders of states with consistently low performing school systems seem to embrace a philosophy of avoiding the truth rather than embracing a concerted effort for educational reform. Explication of minimal grade level benchmarks for learning at each grade level, which the CCSS provides, creates opportunities and realistic expectations.  Standards such as the CCSS represent the minimal level of expected achievement not the final destination for all students.  It is prudent to suggest leaders willing to lower expectations or discard a system of research-based minimal level of achievement, want sheep rather than "an informed citizenry (Jefferson) who will be capable of protecting government of the people, by the people, for the people (Lincoln, 1863). 

            A state’s commitment to Common Core math and ELA standards has been related to an upward proficiency trend (Petersen & Ackerman, 2015).  Effectively teaching our children is the greatest societal responsibility because the educational search for truth frees our minds, strengthens our spirits, and secures our society.  By contrast, any state educational system exhibiting a lack of willingness to optimally educate its students encourages ignorance and disempowerment.  Such a system perpetuates fear and hopelessness, which is the food for prisons of the mind and spirit.

            The goal of an effective educational system must be driven by an honorable mission.  Effective Schools Research suggests the mission for educational systems is "learning for all" (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  Educational systems dedicated to such a mission willingly provide the necessary tools so the outcome is everyone knows how to "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 29, 2015) The interdependency of common core standards, proficiency 

               levels, and high expectations.[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Crawford, J. (2012). Aligning your curriculum to the common core state standards. Thousand

               Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483387727

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37,

15-24.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

               correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Manley, R. J., & Hawkins, R. J. (2013). Common core state standards: What are they?

               In Making the common core standards work: Using professional development to

               build world-class schools. (pp. 19-31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

               http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483387949.n2

Recalibration of Performance Standards Based on the Common Core State Standards Unveils an Opportunity for Equal Access to Quality Education

      In a May 2013 post, this writer suggested tying adoption of the Common Core State Standards to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition was political genius.  As noted in the original post, by the middle of 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds were being exhausted.  Therefore, thirty-nine states facing massive educational budget shortfalls by 2011, did in less than 100 days what was unattainable during the previous 100 years.  Throughout the country, states adopted common standards for English and Mathematics that would uniformly guide learning each year from Kindergarten through High School.  Sadly, “genius” in political circles is based on the leader’s popularity rather than an initiative’s righteousness or effectiveness.   

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia adopted the Common Core State Standards. A nation having high expectations explicated through MINIMAL learning standards should be a good thing.  Ensuring every state promotes high expectations through the same MINIMAL learning standards should also be seen as a good thing as the United States must compete in a global economy.  So, what derailed fact-based conversation in relation to the Common Core State Standards?

            It would be too easy to blame the derailment upon politics and the media.  Yet, these days politics and the media seem more vested in hyperbole and fear-mongering than elevating civil discourse.  In this vain, the discourse on the Common Core is allowed to focus upon what will be lost from implementation of the Common Core State Standards rather than what will be gained.  Interestingly, similar groups that criticize the condition of our public schools also criticize what will be lost as a result of implementation of the Common Core State Standards.  Is that not the epitome of talking out of both sides of one’s mouth? 

            The public education system in this country has shown real improvement since implementation of federal initiatives or mandates.  The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the nation’s report card, documents the educational progress of our public education system during the last two decades.  The sustained progress exhibited by NAEP scores since the start of the standards-based reform movement proves the effectiveness of the creation, adoption, and assessment based on MINIMAL learning standards.  NAEP also identified those states that consistently exhibit much less progress than others. 

NAEP proves the autonomy built into the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) created a serious unintended consequence.  NCLB allowed state education agencies to independently establish grade-level proficiency cut-points that would ensure the state’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  However, the pursuit of AYP based on autonomous measures did not always adequately asdress the ESEA federal mandate to close achievement gaps by ensuring equal access to quality education.   

High expectations explicated as learning standards are part of the variables called leading indicators for success.  Subsequently, test results produce a trailing indicator-exhibiting either student success or failure.  Effective implementation is what comes between the high expectations and the test results. 

MINIMAL learning standards are not the problem.  Since the mid-1990s MINIMAL learning standards transformed the educational landscape from a teacher’s boast “that I know my students” as the criteria for student promotion, to current data-driven systems that provide the capability to diagnostically and prescriptively promote learning for all.  The Common Core State Standards simply provide the latest evolution to a process that should be addressing the maxim, “if better is possible then good is not enough.” 

By now, it should be obvious that this writer emphasizes the reality that any standards, including the Common Core State Standards, provide MINIMAL expectations rather than an end goal.  The Common Core State Standards create a uniformed level of MINIMAL expectations, called “proficiency” for each participating state and the District of Columbia.  An effective system needs the ability to monitor and adjust established “nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 23).

Prior to the standards-based reform movement, states measured success however they deemed fit.  Local autonomy and states-rights, the basis for many significant conflicts in this great nation, ensured adoption of uniformed education standards would not be easily reconciled.  To highlight the faulty logic in the demand for state autonomy in public education, let’s imagine another area using the same demand for autonomy.  A simile involving measurement might suggest education in this nation before the mid 1990 was like each state being able to establish what it considered to be an inch.  Many states autonomously used an established measure based on a ruler.  Other states used a system based on the international metric system.  Yet, other states argued that the inch, as established by King Edward II (1324), clearly should be “three barleycorns, round and dry.” 

Then, in 2001, each state was told it needed to identify how it would measure a foot because if it wanted federal money for its public schools everyone needed to be measured in feet.  Some states showed 12 inches would equal a foot.  Other states noted 30.48 centimeters would equal a foot.  Other states stayed vigilante to the old ways and found 36 barleycorns, round and dry, to demonstrate a foot.  Respectful of state rights for autonomy in education, the federal administration noted all three equaled a foot.  Of course the federal leadership disregarded the fact that most Americans do not understand the metric system, so communication would be hampered.  Worse yet, a windy day or non-agrarian society could make measurement with barleycorns really inefficient and ineffective. 

The adoption of the Common Core State Standards as MINIMAL benchmarks for learning is simply as logical as establishing an inch being an inch based on a single form of measurement.  Grade-level proficiency needs to be proficiency regardless if the student attends public school near the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, the curvaceous slopes of California, or near a hill and molehill of Mississippi.  The dream for all should be attainment of the mission of learning for all.

So, besides, political agendas and partisan media, what derailed the conversation in relation to the Common Core State Standards?  A lack of communication about transparency!  Specifically, the need to align results of the Common Core State Standards with the metrics used to demonstrate AYP over the last twelve years exposed which states measured proficiency using a ruler and which used barleycorns.  There are national and international instruments that could be used to validly and reliably calibrate proficiency based on a uniform standard  As noted above in paragraphs four and five, the national instrument was NAEP!

As a uniform instrument to evaluate public education throughout this country, results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) document each state’s educational progress.  To establish uniform performance standards, state education agencies used NAEP results to recalibrate the levels of proficiency established for the previous high stakes tests.  This process re-established what proficiency would mean from a national perspective rather than locally.   
Recalibration revealed the states that had established comparatively low criteria for purposes of AYP proficiency and continued to remain low-performing with NAEP.  The result for students within states with comparatively low standards for proficiency was, for example, if a child’s state testing scores previously indicated he or she was a level- 4 (advanced), that child might now be scored a 2 based on the performance standards now being aligned with Common Core State Standards.  The results of realignment does not mean the problem is with the MINIMAL expectations identified by the Common Core State Standards.  Realignment results also do not mean there is suddenly a problem with your child, your child’s teacher, or your child’s school, for they usually only rise to the level of expectations.  In a vast majority of cases, dissatisfaction with the Common Core State Standards mean the state was previously measuring proficiency by counting barleycorns rather than establishing high expectations.  A reference of a state’s NAEP scores reveals which would experience the greatest shift in performance standards as a result of recalibration.  Whenever a state is ranked in the middle or the bottom of NAEP results, the residents of that state should expect a reduction in students' ratings relative to proficiency.  

Anyone concerned with recalibration of state performance standards using NAEP as the common metric should be horrified by the results of an American Institutes for Research (AIR) report (Phillips, 2010).  To compare each state’s proficiency standards with the international benchmarks,  Phillips used two international assessments: the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).  Thus, Phillips utilized an international common metric for comparing state expectations.  This examination identified the stark contrast between a state with high standards (Massachusetts) and a “barleycorn” state’s standards indicated a difference of 2 standard deviations.  Such an expectation gap “may represent as much as four grade levels” (p. 2).

Sadly, under the NCLB paradigm, success typically was based on low performance standards.  A result of allowing states to develop autonomous standards for proficiency was too many states’ residents thought their students were doing well and therefore felt no need to improve.  The Common Core State Standards and related assessment that provides a uniformed metric will cause temporary shock wherever low expectations previously prevailed.  Long-term advantages should offset short-term embarrassment because through the Common Core State Standards critical thinking is back in the classroom.   

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 18, 2014) Recalibration of performance standards based on the common core

State  standards unveils an opportunity for equal access to quality education.   [Web log post]

Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., & McLaughlin, D. (2009). Mapping state proficiency standards

onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES 2010-456). Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District Leadership That Works. Bloomington, In: Solution

                Tree Press