Should California have second thoughts on Common Core?

Should California have second thoughts on Common Core?

Share

Posted on 1/17/12 • Categorized as Common Core standards

By forum

With new assessments scheduled for 2014-15, many districts and state education planners are becoming immersed in preparing for the Common Core State Standards in math and English language arts. California is one of 46 states to adopt them and has a lead role in one of two state consortia creating the new tests. Faced with potentially steep adoption costs and a conservative backlash to national standards, a few states may back out. California legislators, the State Board, and Gov. Brown have shown no intent of reversing course. Nonetheless, we thought we’d take the pulse again: Is moving ahead with Common Core adoption a wise move?

Advocating for the Common Core are David Plank, executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), and Jonathan Raymond, superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District. Arguing against are Eric Premack, founder and director of the Charter Schools Development Center in Sacramento, and Ze’ev Wurman, a software engineer who served on the state commission that reviewed the Common Core standards in 2010.

What do you think?

David Plank: Once-in-a-generation opportunity

David Plank

Implementation of the Common Core State Standards is a big step forward for California’s education system, for three main reasons:

• The Common Core are better standards. They are comparable in rigor to California’s current standards, but they emphasize academic content and skills that were previously neglected. Where California’s standards were superior to the Common Core, the State Board of Education added California standards to them. The Common Core standards focus explicitly on ensuring that students leave high school ready for college, and grade-by-grade standards are organized systematically to support students’ progress toward that goal. This “vertical alignment” makes it possible to track students’ progress over time, measuring how much students have learned, as opposed to how much they know at a certain moment in time. Grade-level assessments aligned to the Common Core can provide early warnings if students begin to fall short of expectations.

The Common Core support better assessments. Adoption was a necessary condition for California to take advantage of new multi-state assessments aligned to the new standards. The computer-adaptive assessments that California will implement in 2014-15 will include complex performance tasks in addition to multiple-choice items, and will provide much fuller and more accurate information on how students are progressing than we get from our current assessments.

The Common Core create economies of scale, and open the way to the digital future. The Common Core have been adopted by 46 states, which makes it possible for California to benefit from curricular resources and instructional materials and tools developed anywhere across the country. Many of these are “open source” and essentially free to teachers and schools. Adopting the Common Core will save the state money in the short run, but it will become even more valuable as the role of digital technologies in education inexorably grows. The producers of digital materials and tools can align them to the Common Core rather than to 50 different sets of standards, which will greatly accelerate the development of these resources and reduce their cost.

What will it cost to implement the Common Core? Some big numbers have been suggested, but these only make sense if we suppose that the alternative to Common Core implementation is spending – and doing – nothing. In fact, however, much of the spending associated with implementation – for the adoption and purchase of new materials, for the development of new and better assessments, and for the professional development of teachers – would be necessary whether California adopted new standards or kept those already in place. The benefits of adopting Common Core will surely exceed the marginal cost of change.

Implementation of the Common Core presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for California educators to do things differently and better. Taking advantage of this opportunity is neither simple nor cheap, but the chance will not come again soon, and the state is wise to move forward.

David N. Plank is executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Before joining PACE in January 2007, he was a Professor at Michigan State University, where he founded and directed the Education Policy Center. He was previously on the faculties at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Texas at Dallas, where he taught courses and conducted research in the areas of educational finance and policy. He has published widely in a number of different fields; his current interests include the role of the state in education, and the relationship between academic research and public policy.

Eric Premack: Path to another ill-fated systemic reform

Eric Premack

Nearly 15 years after adopting state academic content standards, aligned curriculum, and a standards-based high-stakes assessment system, California has precious little to show for its massive investments in “systemic” education reform. Yes, Academic Performance Index scores and proficiency rates are up, suggesting many students have acquired additional basic academic proficiency. At first blush, this sounds like progress.

Sobering data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests, however, suggest stalled progress. Though NAEP tests aren’t tightly aligned with California’s state standards, they reflect a loose national consensus and, for the past several years, are nearly flat. These results strongly suggest the apparent increases in student achievement on California’s state-specific tests stem from teaching to the test and narrowing of the curriculum rather than real increases in learning.

The price of standards-based reform is very high, including costly textbook and material adoptions, massive investments in staff development, testing, and often-disruptive interventions. Off-budget costs are much higher, including lost instructional flexibility, decimation of career/tech-prep instruction, millions of hours of lost instruction, and turning the teaching profession into a mechanized, assembly-line job (and we wonder why “smart” kids don’t join the teaching profession). Worst of all, a half-generation of students who aren’t engaged by the mile-wide, inch-deep, textbook-driven modes of instruction are lost.

Despite this track record, California is bellying up to drink a second pitcher of systemic reform Kool-Aid. It adopted new Common Core standards in a hasty, unsuccessful bid for federal Race to the Top funding and is now signing on to implement costly curriculum, testing, and other changes.

California is heading down this costly and ineffective path when it simply cannot afford to do so. Even if the systemic reform track record suggested success, ongoing implementation should be subject to cost-benefit analysis relative to other reforms and options. The State Board of Education and Legislature should hit the “pause” button and reconsider California’s commitment to a second round of standards-based reform. They might retain arguably essential elementary grades reading, arithmetic, and science standards, but should make state standards optional in upper grades to create options for high-demand career/tech-prep programs as well as other alternative programs such as multiple foreign languages, the arts, and in-depth critical thinking and analysis. The benefit may be large in terms of a richer range of programmatic options, student and teacher engagement, and a more comprehensive range of achievement measures – at little or no cost.

Eric Premack is the founder and executive director of the Charter Schools Development Center, the nation’s first charter school resource center and a leading provider of policy expertise, leadership training, advocacy, and technical assistance to charter schools, charter-granting agencies, and policy makers. Before founding CSDC, Premack provided consulting services to hundreds of California school districts at School Services of California, Inc., and was a nonpartisan education policy and finance analyst for California’s Office of the Legislative Analyst.

Jonathan Raymond: Strategic start for school transformation

Jonathan Raymond

To be globally competitive in the 21^st century, our students must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that will poise them for success beyond our K-12 system. Long gone are the days when a high school diploma and a factory job were the paths to attaining middle-class status. Yet according to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California, only 56 percent of California students enroll in a post-secondary institution after high school. This rate fails to address the projected workforce demand for a million new, highly educated employees by 2025.

What does this trend mean for California? Simply that the current approach to educating our children is not working. Transforming our educational system must lead the way. Although there are no simple solutions to this challenge, improving the career- and college-readiness of our high school graduates is a strategic starting place. To that end, the Common Core State Standards are the right place to begin this journey. Standards influence essential components of our educational system, such as curriculum design, curricular resources, assessments, and teaching practice. The adoption and implementation of the Common Core is a vehicle to transform teaching and learning. These standards are clearer and fewer, giving students and teachers the time to master them. They are also more rigorous and aligned vertically across all grades.

Inherent in the Common Core are skills our young people will need to be successful in work and life: critical thinking, problem solving, communication, teamwork, and technological literacy. These vital skills and deeper content will transform our teachers as well as our students. No teacher’s manual or pre-packaged curriculum will suffice. Our teachers must themselves engage in collaborative critical thinking and problem solving to develop assignments, performance tasks, and assessments for students to master.

At Sacramento City Unified, we have begun to implement Common Core State Standards, albeit in a scaled fashion. We do not have the necessary resources to fully roll out the standards at this time, but it is important to start somewhere. For us the work has begun, with a cohort examining English language arts. To reduce expenses associated with planning and training, we are leveraging relationships with partners and seeking outside funding. Of course, all funds are at a premium in this economic climate.

Keeping the “gold” in California’s future is directly linked to the capacity of its educational system to meet the demands of this age and the anticipated rise of a new “creative class.” California can’t wait for other states to take the lead. We must begin transforming what our students are learning and how we are teaching them. The Common Core is an important step in this direction.

Jonathan Raymond has been superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District, California’s 11^th largest school district with 47,000 students since 2009. Before his appointment, Raymond, a graduate of Tufts University, George Mason Law School, and the Broad Superintendents Academy, served as Chief Accountability Officer for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. His experience extends beyond education: He was president and CEO of the nonprofit, Boston-based Commonwealth Corporation; a deputy director in the Massachusetts Department of Labor and Workforce Development; and a private-practice attorney specializing in business and labor law.

Ze’ev Wurman: Wasting billions for weaker standards

Ze'ev Wurman

The Common Core standards are mediocre: They are clearly better than those of about 30 states, as good as those of 15 about states, and clearly worse than those of three states, California among them. Despite claims to the contrary, Common Core is not on par with international high achievers, nor will meeting Common Core qualify students for entry to either CSU or UC. In fact, California had to significantly supplement the standards just to close the gap between the Common Core and our current standards, which incidentally are based on those of high-achieving countries and will qualify students for CSU.

EdSource estimated the implementation cost of the Common Core for California to be $1.6 billion. That estimate does not include the massive technology infusion needed for the federally peddled national assessment, nor does it include the cost of restructuring the teacher preparation courses, the licensure examination, and principal training. Recently, the state Department of Education published its initial estimates of implementation costs. If we just take three basic numbers from them – $203 per student in new textbooks in K-8, $2,000 per each math and English teacher training, and $1,000 for English Learning training for almost every teacher – this comes to $850 million, $360 million, and $260 million respectively, close to EdSource’s original estimate.

Based on the number of existing classroom computers in the state, we need to spend $220 million to buy additional computers to bring their number to the minimal ratio of one computer to four tested students, and another $60 million to install and wire them, to provide bandwidth, and to train the staff. These sums amount to one-time spending over the next 2-3 years; afterward, we will need to spend an additional $35 million annually for assessment (at an optimistic $10 per student more than today) and $75 million more for computer support and amortization. All this just to … bring us back to a state worse than where we are today.

What is the logic behind adopting the Common Core, anyway? Do we really believe that a diverse country like ours needs some central planner in Washington, D.C., to tell us what to teach in our California schools? Canada and Australia don’t think so, yet they are high educational achievers. Are we really willing to sacrifice our independence just to satisfy Obama and Duncan in Washington? And for those who think so today, do they also look forward to the day when President Gingrich and his Secretary of Education will dictate our curriculum from Washington?

California should bail out and return to its own standards as soon as possible. Losing the Race to the Top was a blessing in disguise; we should now take advantage of it.

Ze’ev Wurman, a software engineer from Palo Alto, was a senior policy adviser in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development from 2007-09 and served on the California commission that reviewed the Common Core standards in 2010. He also serves on the panel that reviews mathematics test items for the California standards-based tests, and was a member of the California State mathematics curriculum framework committee.

11 Comments

Paul
January 17, 2012 • 6:33 am

Eric:

Your comment that we are “turning the teaching profession into a mechanized, assembly-line job (and we wonder why ’smart’ kids don’t join the teaching profession)” resonates. I myself was a non-traditional entrant, and quite different from the usual teacher candidate: top student from private universities, subject matter master’s degree, NCLB subject matter competence in K-8 and in two 6-12 specialties. For me, the Common Core was a breath of fresh air.

Had the Common Core math standards come along sooner (or had I had confidence that California was prepared to implement them fully), I would have had a good reason to stay in the classroom despite the paucity of job openings, the abysmal pay and the lack of job security (for young teachers, at least). The expiring math framework, and its popular implementations — traditional curricula by Holt, McDougal Littell, and Glencoe/McGraw-Hill — were what made teaching math “a mechanized, assembly-line job”. As a ’smart’ person, I found my work much more exciting when I was permitted to teach College Preparatory Math (CPM), the only secondary math curriculum that will not have to be re-written for the Common Core.

I would encourage you to take a second look at the Common Core standards, especially in math and especially as compared to the old California math framework. The content isn’t changing much, but the mandated approaches to teaching and assessment are. If fully implemented, the Standards for Mathematical Practice [ http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics/introduction/standards-for-mathematical-practice/ ] in the preamble will compel teachers to spend less time teaching procedures and more time teaching thinking skills. Students will be expected to take over more of the thinking work. This is already the norm in CPM classrooms: students are engaged, because their in-class tasks consist of more than copying the teacher’s notes, mimicking the algorithms “given away” by the textbook author, and repeating short, decontextualized computations in which only the input values have changed.

The mathematically strong teachers that I know are excited about the new Common Core Practices, whereas colleagues who “know” math on a procedural level tell me that they would feel safer sticking to the old framework. Even assuming
(a) that the state allocates money to Common Core implementation;
(b) that traditional textbook publishers take the Practices seriously (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, for example, tends to make cosmetic changes, including substituting names like “Lawanda” in word problems as if this might suddenly make the dull fodder “relevant”); and
(c) that local decision-makers accept the changes (witness San Mateo-Foster City, where poorly informed parents and teachers recently convinced the school board to end specific, standards-based grading and return to vague A/B/C/D/F grading);
the rapid elimination of recently-prepared teachers from the workforce means that the necessary math knowledge may be lacking. [See "The Status of the Teaching Profession 2011", http://www.cftl.org/documents/2011/TCF.FR.2011.pdf , p. 11. The report implies that the growing over-10-year contingent is better, due to longer experience, when in fact the broad NCLB exception for pre-2002 teachers -- HOUSSE -- casts doubt on that group's subject matter knowledge.]

In any case, wouldn’t you agree that teaching to the Practices is more stimulating rather than less stimulating for a teacher, assuming adequate math knowledge?

Ze’ev:

Good riddance to California’s math framework! That document reduces algebra to the status of a “gateway course” [p. 225] and calls primary reliance on forms of assessment other than timed multiple choice tests “a serious misunderstanding of what mathematics is and what it means to understand mathematical concepts” [pp. 224-225]. I’d sooner trust George Polya, who said, “A problem is not a problem if you can solve it in 24 hours.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Merrill Vargo
January 17, 2012 • 9:15 am

There clearly are substantial advantages to having one set of standards rather than fifty different ones. Yet California is definitely behind other states in implementation of the Common Core. This may even be a good thing. After all, California districts have not received funding to implement the Common Core, so if we can get over our prejudice against things “not invented here,” it makes sense to let other states to develop and test out tools, materials and approaches. Of course, the policy toolkit for California districts is missing more than just money: both tests and curriculum materials are coming, but what and when are both unclear. All of this means that districts need to take a substantially different approach than the last time we “implemented standards.” Districts cannot treat the Common Core as a compliance exercise; they cannot plan backwards from assessments; and they cannot purchase a textbook and expect teachers to “implement with fidelity.” The only sensible way to navigate through the uncharted territory of the Common Core is to use the big ideas to steer by. The good news is that the big ideas are good ones, since they are all about rigor, higher order thinking skills, and engaging students more deeply in learning content that matters. There are lots of reasons to take this approach: Many teachers, including many of our best teachers, will find this approach exciting and invigorating. Districts that are worried that starting on CCS by aligning their curriculum with a new set of standards will disadvantage them on the STAR test are right to worry if what they mean by “alignment” is moving topics from grade to grade: such an approach really could disadvantage them. But if what they mean is aligning their curriculum and instruction with the goals of rigor and higher order thinking skills, then this is work that can start now. And it should start now: many observers are frustrated that our decade of working in the high-stakes accountability environment of NCLB has led us to narrow the curriculum and dumb-down the pedagogy. Rightly understood, Common Core is an opportunity to take on these important issues.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Bea
January 17, 2012 • 10:31 am

Thank you for airing this topic, John. I see that some of the concerns and questions I’ve raised are shared by those much more knowledgeable.

Another question for the gallery: Since the ED is tying federal funds to both adoption of Common Core and using student test scores to evaluate teachers, are we to assume that the SMARTER and PARCC assessments are optimized for evaluation of teaching? Are all content areas taught also tested? Or are states and districts supposed to use the Common Core assessments to evaluate English and Math teachers but develop separate methods to evaluate art, PE, chemistry, etc., instructors?

As for the technology gulf, will we see philanthropists who invest in CMOs like Rocketship investing in their neighborhood schools to offer comparable technology? Our local pizzeria is going to donate 5% of sales this Thursday to help our school upgrade the computer lab. Maybe Reed Hastings will drop in to buy a slice.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Bill Honig
January 17, 2012 • 11:34 am

Eric, I agree with your general distaste for over-reliance on test-driven reform strategies but that is a different argument than whether the common core will be helpful. These standards could be the basis for a renewed concentration on teaching and learning the essences of ELA and math. This could be done within a revamped school improvement strategy which empahsizes team building for continuous improvement, accountability feeding back useful information to the school and districts, and investing in the upgrading of the teaching profession.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
el
January 17, 2012 • 11:53 am

As someone with long experience in the IT field, I have some distinct skepticism that the computer adaptive exams that are supposedly coming in 2014 will be ready. The documents I’ve seen are, to put it delicately, full of unicorns and kittens frolicking cheerfully in the sunny, flowered fields.

I also have seen no clear plan or assessment for getting enough bandwidth and technology into all schools to make it possible for them to use these exams. Money is one obstacle – but honestly I see no one at the state let alone national level who is even aware there is a problem – let alone any kind of plan that manages to solve it completely in two years. The lead time for a federal e-rate grant – even if there is enough money to do every school remaining – seems to be on order 3 years from start to implementation. There is need for bandwidth. There is need for power. There is need for machines. This is work that is important regardless of common core, and it is mostly shovel ready. Why isn’t it being done? And since this is a federal initiative with hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to it, why isn’t any of that money going to computer infrastructure?

As I look at the situation with education in California, I can appreciate the advantage of a national common core, but I am also pretty happy with the standards we have now. I don’t see Common Core as being a big step up or bringing much new to the table. A gradual transition makes sense to me, as new materials are adopted.

Today, when education is a zero sum game, money to implement Common Core is going to come out of some other program. Are today’s fifth graders going to get a better education with their teachers scrambling to implement Common Core if it’s at the expense of 5 instructional days, for example? Is this change really the highest and best use of our scarce time and money for students right now?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
el
January 17, 2012 • 12:02 pm

By the way, if what we really care about is that the kids get a great education, then it really shouldn’t matter all that much if the curriculum is perfectly aligned to the test. Yes, it would mean test scores might go down in the transition. But that doesn’t matter to the kids. If we the adults can agree to expect it and live with it and not use scores to bludgeon each other, we can probably get a smoother and less costly and more educationally sensible transition.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Eric Premack
January 17, 2012 • 6:57 pm

Paul:
Great points.

I do concur with you that the Common Core math standards at the high school level are an improvement over California’s ‘97 era ones. At first blush, the high-level Standards for Practice you reference seem much improved, especially for college-bound kids with a traditional academic bent. The actual Common Core standards, however, go into much more minutiae. Is there, for example, a vital, nationwide interest in all high school students being able to do the following: Prove the Pythagorean identity sin2(θ) + cos2(θ) = 1 and use it to find sin(θ), cos(θ), or tan(θ) given sin(θ), cos(θ), or tan(θ) and the quadrant of the angle?

If the underlying trigonometric principles are of vital nationwide interest for all students (a debatable proposition in my book), is it vitally important that all kids learn them by doing proofs? Or might it be OK to learn them through less esoteric, applied approaches? Though much depends on the to-be-developed assessments, it still appears that the Common Core standards go way too far in terms of breadth, detail, and specificity of a theoretical and abstract/esoteric approach to the subject matter. I fear that these standards will appeal to pointy-headed academic pinheads like me rather than the seemingly large proportion of students who may be engaged by alternative content and/or approaches to the content.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Paul Muench
January 18, 2012 • 12:17 am

I don’t expect much change from Common Core. Common Core is a technical fix to what I see as a largely human issue: education. I’ve seen more than a few “Common Cores” fall flat in the corporate world. If David Plank is right that Common Core is really a cheap tweek, then perhaps its worthwhile to get some minor improvements. If Ze’ev Wurman is right about the numbers we should stop all efforts on Common Core immediately. Not having the time to investigate who is closer to the truth, I’ll stick with my consistent fallback position: let’s delay, keep a low profile, and keep track of what happens in other states.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply
Ze'ev Wurman
January 19, 2012 • 10:24 pm

@Paul,

This is really mostly off-topic in the context of this discussion, but I’d like to respond to some of your statements.

You sound unhappy that the current Framework labels Algebra a “gateway course.” I find this an unfortunate attitude, because closing one’s eyes on it will not change the fact that Algebra *is* a gateway course. I will simply point out that if one does not become competent with content of an authentic algebra course, one cannot become competent with neither chemistry nor physics, nor statistics. Which effectively blocks this student from pursuing any career in science or technology, and even in social sciences. Not recognizing it does not do any favors to students. Blaming the Framework for stating an obvious truth strikes me as a bit foolish. Please note that neither I nor the Framework argue that one must take Algebra in grade 8, although that is what many high achieving nations do and I see no particular reason why California students can’t. What it says is that if the student is ready, he or she should take it by grade 8.

The case of your quotes about what the Framework supposedly says about assessment, that it ‘calls primary reliance on forms of assessment other than timed multiple choice tests “a serious misunderstanding of what mathematics is and what it means to understand mathematical concepts”’ is a more complex one. The Framework is much more nuanced than your out of context and misleading quote indicates. After addressing heads-on the controversy over types of testing and their utility — quite a unique and refreshing directness among educational policy documents — it goes on to say:

“All of these [multiple choice, short answer, open response] techniques can provide the teacher and the student with valuable information about their knowledge of the subject. However, they also represent a serious misunderstanding of what mathematics is and what it means to understand mathematical concepts. Assessment methods such as timed tests play an essential role in measuring understanding—especially for the basic topics, the ones that must be emphasized. If students are not able to answer questions in these areas relatively quickly, then their understanding of these topics is too superficial, has not been adequately internalized, and will not suffice as a basis for further development. The conduct of ordinary life and success in algebra and higher mathematics presuppose that students can perform basic calculations to the point of automaticity.” (p. 225, original emphasis)

The framework does NOT speak here necessarily about multiple choice items, and certainly not “primarily” about them as you incorrectly write. It speaks about the importance of verifying fluency and automaticity with basic arithmetic through timed testing because such fluency is a critical basis for further development. It also makes an important point that fluency and understanding cannot be easily disentangled at this basic level. In other words it makes the point that if a second grader takes a long time to answer “4+7=?” it is not because he may, somehow, “understand” the meaning but it just takes him a long time to “solve.” The Framework, correctly in my opinion, says that such student does not understand what is the meaning of “4+7.” There is not much “meaning” in a “4+7″ beyond its obvious meaning.

As I said, this is really off topic, but I feel you did not give the current Framework a careful reading.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

Reply