No matter where you live, chances are it’s a Common Core state. In total, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core and are developing plans to implement those standards over the next several years. While much of the work around implementation is taking place behind the closed doors of state education departments, the state Race to the Top applications and the more recent ESEA waivers provide a window into where states are prioritizing their time and focusing their resources. Not surprisingly, all states have some kind of plan to align curriculum, assessment, and professional development around these new standards. But it’s far from certain whether most states will get it right.
Below are three ways states can ensure that these newly adopted standards translate to clear student achievement outcomes:
1. Clearly define the student learning outcomes to which all students will be held accountable once the CCSS-aligned assessments come down the pike.
Perhaps the most important thing that a state department of education can do for classroom teachers is to clearly define the student learning outcomes to which students will be held. The Common Core Standards for ELA and math get us partway there, but they, like all standards, don’t go far enough. For instance, the following are three standards from sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, respectively.
RL.6.1. Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
RL.7.1. Cite several pieces of textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
RL.8.1. Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
How will students demonstrate mastery of these standards? What kind of analysis will students be expected to do in sixth grade and how will that differ from the analysis they are asked to do in eighth? These are important questions that will help teachers shape instruction and that states can and should help teachers answer as they work to align their curricular and instructional resources to the Common Core. Of course, the assessment consortia are doing some of this work, but their assessments won’t come online for several years. And states, schools and districts are already starting to rewrite curriculum and formative assessments. If they wait too long, they will have already invested heavily on the curriculum side without ensuring that those curriculum efforts are aligned to learning outcomes and assessments.
Unfortunately, of the 11 recently submitted ESEA waivers, it appears that only two states—New Jersey and Kentucky—have plans to deliberately link curriculum and professional development efforts with efforts to define student learning outcomes. New Jersey plans to create model units that are linked to clearly defined learning outcomes, end-of-unit assessments, and formative assessment tools. While states don’t need to go as far as creating a complete model curriculum for each core content area at each grade level, the Garden State’s focus on directly linking their curriculum development efforts with a clear plan for defining student learning outcomes makes it a real leader in this area that other states should be looking to for inspiration.
Kentucky is taking a slightly different, though similarly assessment-focused path. The Bluegrass State plans to use the ACT’s assessment program and its related PLAN, EXPLORE, and ACT assessments to assess student mastery of college- and career-readiness standards. (This is interesting because Kentucky is still a participating state of both assessment consortia, but seems to be developing plans to go it alone on the assessment side, at least in the interim.)
Of course, other states have indicated that they will make adjustments to their assessment programs. Some are planning to shift assessment blueprints beginning as early as this year to better reflect CCSS priorities. Others are planning to pilot “PARCC-like” assessment items. While these are all worthy activities, they feel more like afterthoughts than deliberate attempts to align curriculum and instruction to clear student learning outcomes.
2. Align professional development priorities with gaps in teacher knowledge and skills
Professional development is not a blunt instrument, but rather a precision tool that should be used to meet teachers where they are and to address specific gaps in knowledge and skills. State departments of education should develop plans to work with school and district leaders to figure out the kinds of targeted professional development that teachers need to drive rigorous, standards-aligned instruction.
Unfortunately, state implementation plans seem more focused on information dissemination—particularly on helping teachers understand the specific differences between the CCSS and their state standards—than on diagnosing where standards implementation has gone wrong in the past, what changes need to be made to right those wrongs, and how they can best support teachers moving forward. For example, Tennessee is working with Achieve to compare the CCSS to its existing state standards and will focus professional development activities on educating teachers on the differences between existing state standards and the CCSS. The state plans to “focus PD on the areas that will lead to the greatest shifts in instruction, particularly the 3-6 ‘biggest shifts’ identified through the Crosswalk process.” Several states have similar professional development plans.
While educating teachers on the differences between previous state standards and the CCSS is important, it seems based on the assumption that we only need to tweak around the margins—that implementation of the previous standards was strong, and so professional development should focus on differences. In reality, however, many states had rigorous standards in place prior to the CCSS and those standards did not lead to dramatic increases in student achievement. States should, therefore, focus not only on identifying differences between the standards, but also on identifying teacher knowledge and skills gaps more broadly and to targeting district- and school-level professional development on addressing those gaps. (Noting, of course, that the gaps will likely differ from district to district and school to school.)
3. Set a clear bar for the level of rigor required to align planning, instruction, and assessment to the CCSS
State Departments of Education are well positioned to give teachers the clear guidance they need to make CCSS work for their students. They should seize CCSS implementation as an opportunity to develop exemplars and models of the kind of rigorous, well-planned units, lessons, and formative and summative assessments that teachers should be creating to drive instruction. Some states have engaged in activities like this in the past. In the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, for instance, the state provided sample “integrated learning scenarios,” which were essentially exceptionally well-planned, standards-aligned lessons that clearly demonstrated the level of planning and rigor that was required by the standards. Rather than focusing on developing fully-developed model curricula, states should work to created targeted exemplar units, lessons, and formative and summative assessments. Then, they should work to ensure that teacher and school leader professional development is focused on helping teachers meet these targets.
In its ESEA waiver, New Jersey has articulated plans to do just that. In addition to creating model units, the state plans to focus professional development on helping teachers design and use formative instruction, on helping principals support effective data-driven instruction, and specifically on helping teachers really understand the level of instructional and assessment rigor that is required to assess the student learning requirements. Other states should take note and follow New Jersey’s lead in this area.
In the end, if the Common Core is going to student achievement, states need to change the way they think about standards implementation. It’s not a question of whether states are focused on CCSS implementation. Rather, it’s a question of whether they are going to seize this opportunity to focus Departmental efforts on the few key levers they can pull to drive meaningful change.
