The Education Gadfly Weekly

With Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on the tip of everybody’s tongue and Common Core–aligned assessments expected to roll out nationally in less than two years, the release of the Center on Education Policy’s most recent implementation update is particularly relevant. First, thirty states (out of forty) reported that Common Core–aligned curricula in both math and ELA are being taught in at least some districts or grade levels. As for full saturation, nine states began implementing CCSS math curriculum throughout their K–12 systems in 2012 or earlier; in ELA, the same is true of twelve states. Second, thirty states report that they are sponsoring specific initiatives to help low-performing schools make the transition to CCSS. Third, a dozen states with cuts or freezes in education spending report eliminating or reducing the scope of CCSS activities due to strained state budgets. For instance, six states have reduced their technology expenditures related to CCSS assessments. Fourth, thirty-seven states are developing and disseminating PD materials and guides; thirty-three report working with higher-ed institutions to align the academic content of their teacher-preparation programs with CCSS. But finally—and most troubling—twenty-six states conveyed that they were finding it difficult to identify and/or develop curriculum materials necessary to implement the Common Core—and thirty-two said the same of developing teacher- and principal-evaluation systems to hold individuals accountable for student mastery of CCSS. Oddly, twenty-seven states also claimed that they have the staff expertise to support state implementation of the CCSS. That rings an alarm bell: Most states are developing and disseminating professional-development materials and guides, but most states are also reporting difficulties in finding adequate curriculum materials. If the professional development precedes the curriculum—which is apparently the case in some states—aren’t we putting the cart before the horse?

SOURCE: Diane Stark Rentner, Year 3 of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Overview of States’ Progress and Challenges (Center on Education Policy, August 2013).

Harvard EdLabs researchers Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer have plunged more deeply into the Harlem Children Zone’s Promise Academy, emerging with positive outcomes from this high-performing charter middle school in New York City. Previously, Dobbie and Fryer found that the Promise Academy had closed the black-white achievement gap, as measured by test scores, by the time sixth-grade lottery winners reached the eighth grade. Now the pair has looked to the school’s impact on more “medium-term” outcomes such as high school graduation, college enrollment, teen pregnancy, and incarceration—and they have found that the Promise Academy provides a huge human-capital boost. Six years after winning the admissions lottery, Promise Academy students not only score higher on the nationally normed Woodcock-Johnson math achievement tests than lottery losers, but they are more likely to enroll in college, by 24 percentage points. Additionally, female lottery winners are 12 percentage points less likely to become pregnant in their teens, while males are 4 percentage points less likely to be incarcerated. The Harlem Children’s Zone social and community-building services are well documented, but Dobbie and Fryer attribute Promise Academy’s success to the markers that make it a high-performing school (extended school time, high-quality teachers, data-driven decision making, and heightened expectations). This suggests that high-quality charters may have a bigger impact on a range of outcomes than previously thought. Hear hear! Bring on more research—and on a larger sample of charters.

SOURCE: Will Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Jr., “The Medium-Term Impacts of High-Achieving Charter Schools on Non-Test Score Outcomes,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2013.

After pondering the sale of the Washington Post to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Mike and Dara deliberate New York’s lower test scores, A-to-F school-grading systems, and whether it really is schools versus nursing homes. Amber sees a red flag in Common Core implementation.

Amber's Research Minute

Year 3 of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Overview of States’ Progress and Challenges by Diane Stark Rentner, (Center on Education Policy, August 2013).

The Common Core State Standards will soon be driving instruction in forty-five states and the District of Columbia.

While the standards are high quality, getting their implementation right is a real challenge—and it won't be free, a serious concern given the tight budgets of many districts and states.
But while critics have warned of a hefty price tag, the reality is more complicated.

Yes, some states may end up spending a lot of money. But there are also opportunities for significant savings if states, districts and schools use this occasion to rethink their approach to test administration, instructional materials and training for teachers. The key is that states have options, and implementation doesn't need to look (or cost) the same everywhere.

States could approach implementation in myriad ways. Here are three:

• One, stick to "Business as usual" and use traditional tools like textbooks, paper tests, and in-person training. These tools are very familiar in today's education system, but they can come with reasonably high price tags.
• Two, go with only the "bare bones" of what's necessary: Experiment with open-source materials, computerized assessments, and online professional development in ways that provide the bare bones of more traditional, in-person approaches. This could save major coin, but could require more technology investment and capacity for some states.
• Or, three, find a middle ground through "balanced implementation" of both strategies, which offers some of the benefits—and downsides—of each model.

But how much money are we talking? Take Florida: 

If Florida sticks to business as usual, it could spend $780 million implementing the Common Core. Under the bare bones approach, the tab could be only $183 million. A blend of the two? $318 million.

But that's the total cost; don't forget states are already spending billions of dollars each year on textbooks, tests, curricula, and other expenses. Look at it that way and the sticker shock wears off: The estimated net cost of putting the Common Core in place in the Sunshine State, for example, ranges from $530 million to roughly $67 million less than what we estimate that they are spending now. 

Each implementation approach has its merits—and drawbacks—but states and districts do have options for smartly adopting the Common Core without breaking the bank. Further, they could use this opportunity to create efficiencies via cross-state collaborations and other innovations.

To learn more, download "Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?"

Until now, I have generally kept out of the politics of the Common Core State Standards, in favor of helping teachers, districts, and states understand and implement them. But the recent editorial by James Milgram and Emmett McGroarty was so misleading that it demands a response.

Just how rigorous are the Common Core State Standards?

• The standards received a perfect score for content and rigor in the Fordham Institute’s 2010 review.
• Research by William Schmidt, a leading expert on international mathematics performance and a previous director of the U.S. TIMSS study, has compared the Common Core to high performing countries in grades K–8. The agreement was found to be high. Moreover, no state's previous math standards were as close a match to the high-performing countries as the Common Core.
• Milgram and his circle are a decided minority on the question of Common Core. The presidents of every major mathematical society in America support the Common Core, including the American Mathematical Association, the Mathematical Association of America, and the National Association of Mathematicians. These presidents lead organizations representing literally hundreds of research mathematicians.

Milgram and McGroarty have misrepresented the standards in an attempt to frighten policymakers and the public. To read their editorial, you would never know that the Common Core State Standards require students to demonstrate fluency with the standard algorithm for each of the four basic operations with whole numbers and decimals. (See pages 29, 35, and 42.)

Even the previous California standards never expected California students to demonstrate fluency in the standard algorithm for each of the four operations. (That oversight has now been corrected, thanks to California’s adoption of the Common Core.)

The standards also require students to know addition facts and multiplication facts from memory. (See pages 19 and 23.)

Milgram and McGroarty describe a “two-step process” in the Common Core for bringing students to fluency with the standard algorithms. But I was one of the lead writers of the Common Core, and I do not recognize the two-step process they are talking about.

These authors’ mischaracterization of the standards is extreme. There are no expectations in the Common Core for students to invent, construct, or discover algorithms. One reason no such expectation can be found is that “constructivism,” whatever you think of it, is a teaching method—and the standards do not prescribe teaching methods.

It is true that fluency with the standard algorithm is explicitly required only after students have worked with place value and the properties of operations. But clearly, nobody would expect a child to demonstrate fluency with the standard algorithms of arithmetic without building up to them first. Milgram himself appeared to understand this point perfectly well just a week or two ago, when, I am told, he testified before the Arkansas legislature that the right way to prepare for the standard algorithms is by “first carefully studying and understanding the meaning of our place value notation, as they do in the high achieving countries.” Although Milgram’s Arkansas testimony appears to have been the model for his editorial with McGroarty, that particular sentence was left on the cutting-room floor.

Also left out was the sentence in which Milgram characterized the Common Core as being “better than 90% of the state standards…that they replace.” Milgram’s positive assessment of the Common Core in Arkansas gives the lie to the hysterical tone he takes in the editorial.

The Common Core State Standards aren’t “fuzzy math.” In fact, calling the Common Core “fuzzy” is not only misreading the standards—it is also, I fear, sanctioning others to misread them in the same way. When Milgram and McGroarty minimize the standards’ attention to algorithms in order to terrify the public and policymakers, they give comfort and cover to the true proponents of “fuzzy” math, who are only too eager to act as if the standards don’t really require the standard algorithms to be taught and learned to fluency.

Tough standards don’t implement themselves. State departments of education should ensure that their implementation efforts fully respect the balance of rigor in the standards—including the Common Core’s rigorous expectations for fluency with pencil-and-paper computation.

James Milgram, Ze’ev Wurman, and Sandra Stotsky have been barnstorming the country trying to convince state legislators that the sky is falling because of the Common Core State Standards. One point they commonly raise has to do with the definition of college readiness in the standards.

What are their stunning revelations? In mathematics, they are twofold: First, that the Common Core includes three years of mathematics at the level of Algebra II. And second, that this level of mathematics will not prepare you for a STEM major, like physics or engineering, or get you into more selective universities.

But both of these things are obvious. And it’s factually incorrect to say, as these critics frequently claim, that the definition of college readiness in the Common Core is pegged to a community college level. The definition of college and career readiness in the standards is readiness for entry-level, credit-bearing courses in mathematics at four-year colleges, as well as courses at two-year colleges that transfer for credit at four-year colleges.

Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky want the term “college ready” to mean something beyond Algebra II. They want to call students college ready only if they go beyond Algebra II to take trigonometry, precalculus, or calculus. At the risk of giving more oxygen to what strikes me as being fundamentally a dispute about language, what Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky think of as “college ready” is what I might call “STEM ready.” I think it makes sense to most people that college readiness and STEM readiness are two different things. The mathematical demands that students face in college will vary dramatically depending on whether they are pursuing a STEM major or not.

Students in high school should take as many rigorous mathematics courses as they can. Students who intend to pursue STEM majors in college should know what is required. All of that was true before the Common Core, and it remains true today.

The Common Core has every promise of increasing the number of students in our country who actually attain advanced levels of performance. Nothing is being “dumbed down” here. Just because the Common Core State Standards end with Algebra II doesn’t mean the high school curriculum is supposed to end there. California had calculus standards before adopting the Common Core, and the state still has them now, as it should. The difference in California today is that better standards can help more of California’s students gain the strong foundations they need to succeed in calculus.

States still can and still should provide a pathway to calculus for all students who are prepared to succeed on that pathway—not only because it is at the heart of many STEM fields but also because calculus is one of the greatest intellectual developments in human history.

But the real problem, not only in California but everywhere, is that so many students who take calculus today aren’t ready for it. The most common score on the AP Calculus exam is 1 out of 5. This striking level of failure is just one of the reasons we need the stronger foundation of the Common Core State Standards to propel students into advanced mathematics.

Research shows the standards to be world class. The presidents of every major mathematical society in America support the standards and attest to their rigor. James Milgram, Ze’ev Wurman, and Sandra Stotsky are entitled to their opinions, but misrepresenting the Common Core does a disservice to policymakers and the public.

Jason Zimba was a lead author of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and is a founding partner of Student Achievement Partners, a nonprofit organization. He holds a BA from Williams College with a double major in mathematics and astrophysics; an MS by research in mathematics from the University of Oxford; and a PhD in mathematical physics from the University of California at Berkeley.

This article was updated on August 8, 2013, for the Education Gadfly Weekly.

On Wednesday, New York officials released results from the state’s first administration of the new, more difficult, Common Core–aligned tests. As officials warned—and as everyone knew—the results were low; shockingly low in some instances. Last year, 47 percent of New York students scored at or above proficiency on the state’s old English language arts exam and 60 percent were proficient or better in math. This year, 26 percent were at or above proficiency in ELA and 30 percent in math.

Critics were predictably outraged, accusing state and city leaders of having “unrealistically high” expectations for their students. While New York leaders have certainly made some missteps over the past several years, with absurd commissioned passages, scoring errors, and questionable links between Pearson curricula and statewide assessments, they have been unwavering in their support for more rigorous standards and in their desire to align state tests and proficiency cut scores with those standards.

Yet, reform critics and parents have asked why the state would raise the bar so high that so many students score below proficient?

The purpose is simple: to ground the work of our schools in an honest understanding of how our students are actually doing. For too long, we set the bar based not on academic standards but rather, it seemed, on political calculations.

A high school diploma—or high school proficiency rate—is supposed to be a meaningful indicator that the student who has earned it has mastered content that would prepare her for what lies beyond—at a minimum, for credit-bearing coursework in college or for gainful employment. We know that, in too many places, “proficiency” cut scores and high school diplomas do neither.

That evidence comes from a variety of sources. The number of high school graduates who need to take remedial courses in college, for example, is alarmingly high. According to the NCES, fully 30 percent of blacks and Hispanics who matriculate into college reported taking remedial courses to learn things that they should have learned in high school–level courses. Ditto 20 percent of white students. And that is just among those who opted into college. What about the students who self-selected out? The simple truth is that large numbers—perhaps a majority—of high school graduates have not mastered what they need to master.

The Common Core, then, do not attempt to arbitrarily “raise the bar” for the sake of making school more difficult (or making schools look bad). They attempt to align minimum K–12 expectations with those of the colleges and universities who will be accepting our graduates to ensure that they actually master the content they are supposed to while they are in our public schools.

That is a distinction with a very real difference for our children.

Of course, that’s not to say that there aren’t very important debates we should be having about the accountability we tie to results from state assessments. After the recent flap in Indiana, several of us at Fordham voiced concerns and questions about state accountability systems, and I’ve certainly questioned the value of state-driven teacher-accountability reforms.

But while those are important discussions, they are separate. Today, the story is more straightforward. And to understand the implications of the test-score release, it’s important to keep focused on the facts. To that end, let’s remember three things:

1. This year’s New York test scores are a baseline that will be used to calculate future growth scores.

Because this year’s test is so different, the results from this test will be used as a baseline. We can’t—and shouldn’t—try to extrapolate achievement gains or losses based on the released data. It’s a different game now.

2. Test-score drops in New York do not mean schools or teachers have suddenly gotten worse.

The Common Core State Standards are different from—and in many cases higher than—the New York standards they replaced. So, even if students were objectively doing exactly the same this year as they did last year, scores would drop. Indeed, New York City’s Chief Academic Officer Shael Polakow-Suransky warned that “you can’t really compare results from this year’s test with results from previous New York State tests because they’re not just slightly different tests, they’re dramatically different tests.”

3. Results from this year’s New York State test will not be used to punish teachers, students, or schools.

Critically, the department of education assures that scores from this year’s test will not be used to unfairly penalize teachers and principals. Guidance released by the Department this week urges school and district leaders “to be thoughtful to ensure these proficiency results have no negative impact on students, schools, districts, or teachers.” While I have questions about state teacher-evaluation plans, I am glad to hear that baseline results from the first Common Core tests won’t be linked to teacher and principal evaluation.

The state also released 25 percent of the assessment items, along with information about how each item measures the aligned standard. Given the importance of state assessments to Common Core implementation and statewide accountability, we can and should scrutinize those items for their alignment to the content and rigor of the CCSS. And that information will be critical for educators seeking to use the assessments to help drive planning and instruction.

As we’ve long said, adoption of the Common Core was, in many ways, the easy part. Faithful implementation of the standards, and steadfast commitment to the goal of aligning our K–12 expectations with college and career readiness, will be far more difficult. Now the commitment of New York’s leaders, as well as of Common Core supporters around the country, is being tested. They are doing the right thing and they deserve our support.

An earlier version of this article appeared in Common Core Watch.

Following the Tony Bennett flap, the A-to-F school-grading systems that Bennett championed are themselves under the gun. Some have argued in favor of increasing the number of measures upon which schools are graded, reflecting the variety of grades that parents see their children bring home from school every year. But at what point will more information become too much information? For a great discussion, check out this week’s Education Gadfly Show.

After announcing its plans to withdraw from both Common Core–assessment consortia, Pennsylvania has clarified that it will in fact remain a member of both PARCC and Smarter Balanced—it just won’t be using either test. “Huh,” you say? The nominal difference means that the Keystone State will retain the right to “participate” in each group’s discussions.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Robert Samuelson argued that the fiscal crisis facing state and local governments can be boiled down to the clash of two interests: schools versus nursing homes. Samuelson characterized the impending pension crisis as a “prolonged squeeze” from retirement commitments to public employees, while we call it the “big squeeze” in our series of reports on retirement costs of teachers.

The Common Core State Standards will soon be driving instruction in forty-five states and the District of Columbia.

While the standards are high quality, getting their implementation right is a real challenge—and it won't be free, a serious concern given the tight budgets of many districts and states.
But while critics have warned of a hefty price tag, the reality is more complicated.

Yes, some states may end up spending a lot of money. But there are also opportunities for significant savings if states, districts and schools use this occasion to rethink their approach to test administration, instructional materials and training for teachers. The key is that states have options, and implementation doesn't need to look (or cost) the same everywhere.

States could approach implementation in myriad ways. Here are three:

• One, stick to "Business as usual" and use traditional tools like textbooks, paper tests, and in-person training. These tools are very familiar in today's education system, but they can come with reasonably high price tags.
• Two, go with only the "bare bones" of what's necessary: Experiment with open-source materials, computerized assessments, and online professional development in ways that provide the bare bones of more traditional, in-person approaches. This could save major coin, but could require more technology investment and capacity for some states.
• Or, three, find a middle ground through "balanced implementation" of both strategies, which offers some of the benefits—and downsides—of each model.

But how much money are we talking? Take Florida: 

If Florida sticks to business as usual, it could spend $780 million implementing the Common Core. Under the bare bones approach, the tab could be only $183 million. A blend of the two? $318 million.

But that's the total cost; don't forget states are already spending billions of dollars each year on textbooks, tests, curricula, and other expenses. Look at it that way and the sticker shock wears off: The estimated net cost of putting the Common Core in place in the Sunshine State, for example, ranges from $530 million to roughly $67 million less than what we estimate that they are spending now. 

Each implementation approach has its merits—and drawbacks—but states and districts do have options for smartly adopting the Common Core without breaking the bank. Further, they could use this opportunity to create efficiencies via cross-state collaborations and other innovations.

To learn more, download "Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?"

The Common Core State Standards will soon be driving instruction in forty-five states and the District of Columbia.

While the standards are high quality, getting their implementation right is a real challenge—and it won't be free, a serious concern given the tight budgets of many districts and states.
But while critics have warned of a hefty price tag, the reality is more complicated.

Yes, some states may end up spending a lot of money. But there are also opportunities for significant savings if states, districts and schools use this occasion to rethink their approach to test administration, instructional materials and training for teachers. The key is that states have options, and implementation doesn't need to look (or cost) the same everywhere.

States could approach implementation in myriad ways. Here are three:

• One, stick to "Business as usual" and use traditional tools like textbooks, paper tests, and in-person training. These tools are very familiar in today's education system, but they can come with reasonably high price tags.
• Two, go with only the "bare bones" of what's necessary: Experiment with open-source materials, computerized assessments, and online professional development in ways that provide the bare bones of more traditional, in-person approaches. This could save major coin, but could require more technology investment and capacity for some states.
• Or, three, find a middle ground through "balanced implementation" of both strategies, which offers some of the benefits—and downsides—of each model.

But how much money are we talking? Take Florida: 

If Florida sticks to business as usual, it could spend $780 million implementing the Common Core. Under the bare bones approach, the tab could be only $183 million. A blend of the two? $318 million.

But that's the total cost; don't forget states are already spending billions of dollars each year on textbooks, tests, curricula, and other expenses. Look at it that way and the sticker shock wears off: The estimated net cost of putting the Common Core in place in the Sunshine State, for example, ranges from $530 million to roughly $67 million less than what we estimate that they are spending now. 

Each implementation approach has its merits—and drawbacks—but states and districts do have options for smartly adopting the Common Core without breaking the bank. Further, they could use this opportunity to create efficiencies via cross-state collaborations and other innovations.

To learn more, download "Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?"

With Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on the tip of everybody’s tongue and Common Core–aligned assessments expected to roll out nationally in less than two years, the release of the Center on Education Policy’s most recent implementation update is particularly relevant. First, thirty states (out of forty) reported that Common Core–aligned curricula in both math and ELA are being taught in at least some districts or grade levels. As for full saturation, nine states began implementing CCSS math curriculum throughout their K–12 systems in 2012 or earlier; in ELA, the same is true of twelve states. Second, thirty states report that they are sponsoring specific initiatives to help low-performing schools make the transition to CCSS. Third, a dozen states with cuts or freezes in education spending report eliminating or reducing the scope of CCSS activities due to strained state budgets. For instance, six states have reduced their technology expenditures related to CCSS assessments. Fourth, thirty-seven states are developing and disseminating PD materials and guides; thirty-three report working with higher-ed institutions to align the academic content of their teacher-preparation programs with CCSS. But finally—and most troubling—twenty-six states conveyed that they were finding it difficult to identify and/or develop curriculum materials necessary to implement the Common Core—and thirty-two said the same of developing teacher- and principal-evaluation systems to hold individuals accountable for student mastery of CCSS. Oddly, twenty-seven states also claimed that they have the staff expertise to support state implementation of the CCSS. That rings an alarm bell: Most states are developing and disseminating professional-development materials and guides, but most states are also reporting difficulties in finding adequate curriculum materials. If the professional development precedes the curriculum—which is apparently the case in some states—aren’t we putting the cart before the horse?

SOURCE: Diane Stark Rentner, Year 3 of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Overview of States’ Progress and Challenges (Center on Education Policy, August 2013).

Harvard EdLabs researchers Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer have plunged more deeply into the Harlem Children Zone’s Promise Academy, emerging with positive outcomes from this high-performing charter middle school in New York City. Previously, Dobbie and Fryer found that the Promise Academy had closed the black-white achievement gap, as measured by test scores, by the time sixth-grade lottery winners reached the eighth grade. Now the pair has looked to the school’s impact on more “medium-term” outcomes such as high school graduation, college enrollment, teen pregnancy, and incarceration—and they have found that the Promise Academy provides a huge human-capital boost. Six years after winning the admissions lottery, Promise Academy students not only score higher on the nationally normed Woodcock-Johnson math achievement tests than lottery losers, but they are more likely to enroll in college, by 24 percentage points. Additionally, female lottery winners are 12 percentage points less likely to become pregnant in their teens, while males are 4 percentage points less likely to be incarcerated. The Harlem Children’s Zone social and community-building services are well documented, but Dobbie and Fryer attribute Promise Academy’s success to the markers that make it a high-performing school (extended school time, high-quality teachers, data-driven decision making, and heightened expectations). This suggests that high-quality charters may have a bigger impact on a range of outcomes than previously thought. Hear hear! Bring on more research—and on a larger sample of charters.

SOURCE: Will Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Jr., “The Medium-Term Impacts of High-Achieving Charter Schools on Non-Test Score Outcomes,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2013.