The adoption of the Common Core State Standards has upped the quality of most states’ English language arts and math expectations. But, for them to positively impact student achievement, we must get implementation right. This is a rare opportunity: States have set the bar higher. Now it’s time to jump.
Unfortunately, effective implementation is hardly inevitable. Consider the lackluster results witnessed in several states that adopted strong standards in the 1990s, only to see them ignored.
In some states, such as California and Indiana, this was because the assessments to which the standards were tied weren’t strong enough, or they weren’t tied to a meaningful state accountability system. In other states, teachers had limited access to high-quality curricular and instructional resources that were properly aligned to their state’s standards. These challenges have caused many to question the potential of standards-driven reforms; to wonder whether we need to focus our attentions elsewhere.
 |
This is a rare opportunity: States have set the bar higher. Now it’s time to jump. |
|
 |
There is, however, evidence that, done right, standards-driven reform holds enormous promise. In Massachusetts, for instance, a combination of rigorous standards and assessments and thoughtful state-level implementation has catapulted its students to the top of national and international assessments. In fact, since Massachusetts adopted its standards in 1993, the state has seen its achievement levels rise precipitously: from a 23 percent fourth-grade proficiency rate on the NAEP math test in 1992 to a 57 percent proficient rate in 2009. That same year, Massachusetts students outperformed every state on the fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math NAEP, with a greater proportion of students performing at both the proficient and advanced levels.
So as states flesh out their plans to implement the Common Core standards over the next several years, what pieces are most essential to put into place? Here are five questions state officials and reform advocates ought to be asking themselves:
1. What is the role of the state in providing curricular and instructional resources for teachers?
Everyone agrees that teachers need access to rigorous materials aligned to the standards. But who is best positioned to provide those resources to teachers? And to what extent should the state coordinate—or even mandate—scope and sequences, curriculum, or instructional resources? States have attacked this question very differently. Some states (such as Connecticut and Illinois) have focused on providing assessment frameworks and/or blueprints that help clarify how each standard will be assessed at each grade level and help teachers set priorities and plan instruction that is aligned to the state assessment. Other states (like Virginia and Massachusetts) have gone a step further and developed “curriculum frameworks” that not only identify priorities but also give teachers models of how they might teach the standards. And still others (thinking Texas and California on this one) have linked a list of approved textbooks or curriculum resources for teachers. As we look towards Common Core implementation, states will need to decide how heavily they’ll want to prescribe—or even recommend—curriculum and instructional resources.
2. What is the role of the state in identifying professional development needs and training teachers?
All states have some role in training new teachers—either in setting certification requirements, mandating a subject-area or other test, or creating guidelines for state schools of education. But to what extent should they get involved with professional development for existing and veteran teachers? Should state departments of education actually provide training to teachers and principals? Should they play a role in “approving” professional-development providers? Or should these decisions be devolved to district and school leaders? It may seem like a no-brainer that states should play some role in professional development—after all, all teachers will need some level of training to implement the new standards effectively. But any state-led or state-approved professional-development activity will necessarily be a blunt instrument that cannot meet the needs of all teachers. How can states ensure that professional development opportunities are sufficiently varied so that they can be tailored to meet the needs of a variety of teachers?
3. What is the role of the state in student assessment?
NCLB ushered in a requirement that states develop or adopt summative assessments for students in key grades (in third through eighth grade and once in high school). But to what extent should the state provide interim or formative assessments that help teachers track student mastery of standards over time? To date, few states have gone beyond developing summative assessments, but both assessment consortia (PARCC and SBAC) will be developing interim and/or formative assessment tools for teachers. Should states mandate their use? And, if they do, what impact will these decisions have on curriculum flexibility and planning for all schools, including charter and other schools of choice?
4. What role should the state play in helping struggling schools?
Even the most thoughtful implementation policies will suffer if implementation practice isn’t done right. Every state has some schools with weak leaders, ineffective teachers, or both. What is the role of the state in helping schools that are struggling to meet achievement targets on their own? Should states mandate curriculum and/or summative and formative assessment tools for struggling schools even when they don’t for others? Or, should state policies focus on turnarounds and takeovers?
5. What role should standards and assessment play in district, school, and teacher evaluation?
Both of the Common Core assessment consortia have committed to developing assessments whose results will be valid for use in teacher and school-leader evaluations. But to what extent should state policies dictate how student achievement should be used in teacher evaluations? How long should teachers be given to adjust to the new standards in these evaluation systems? And what impact do these policies have on the ability of school and district leaders to make hiring and firing decisions independently?
What’s next?
There are undoubtedly a host of additional implementation challenges that states will face over the next year and beyond. But addressing these big-picture questions is the first step towards setting states up for successful standards implementation. It will be a long and bumpy road. But the view at the end will be well worth the voyage.
This piece was originally published (in a slightly different form) as one of a series of policy briefs written for the PIE-Net annual summit. The other briefs are available here.
