Common Core and California

Common Core Standards

Documentary Notes

Where did the idea originate for Common Core standards?

Ever since 2008, Common Core standards (CCS) planning has been underway. It was kick-started by the chairperson of the NGA (National Governors Association) for the year 2006-07, ex-governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is currently leader of University of California's system. Her program concentrated strongly on both the workforce and scientific and mathematical education improvements (Bidwell, 2014).

How were the Common Core standards developed? Consider funding process.

CCS development was financed by state school heads and governors, together with backing from organizations like the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Pearson Publishing Company (CCSSO, 2014).

How were the Common Core standards adopted?

After the conclusion of the planning phase, states started implementing CCS of their own accord, on the basis of their extant academic standard implementation process. Board members for state schools embraced the CCS officially in a majority of states. As for the remaining states, this decision was approved of or made by state governors, education superintendents or State Legislatures (CCSSI, 2017).

Why did Sandra Stotsky, a member of the "validation committee" of the standards ultimately choose not to endorse them? Consider her specific concerns.

1. The individuals who penned the standards were unqualified: They were virtually unfamiliar with the area, and lacked standards writing and K-12 expertise (ANHPE, 2013).

2. English Language Arts (ELA) standards were bad: According to Dr. Stotsky, what was presented as ELA standards were actually only skills, with virtually no matter or listing of recommended texts or authors (ANHPE, 2013).

3. In Dr. Stotsky's view, more writing standards were provided for all grade levels as opposed to reading standards, contrary to an educationally robust curriculum.

4. In Dr. Stotsky's opinion, CCS standards for writing were not developmentally apt as they call for emotions- and opinions- based writing during the early schooling years.

5. Lastly, the standards have been poorly penned. For instance, Dr. Stotsky is of the view that the 'anchor' standard encompasses a disproportionate number of things in a single standard (ANHPE, 2013).

Why did James Milgram, a member of the "validation committee" of the standards ultimately choose not to endorse them? Consider his specific concerns.

Milgram claims that despite several strengths in effect, the standards were composed at a rather inferior level, failing to appropriately reveal latest insights into why high achieving nations' mathematics programs yield radically better outcomes (ANHPE, 2014).

Thought Questions

In your opinion, can the Common Core standards achieve both college ready and career ready skills?

Fresh EPIC (Educational Policy Improvement Center) studies explored the skills and knowledge the CCS encompasses, their significance, and how far they directly apply to higher education and career related preparedness. CCS's chief aim was defining the abilities and knowledge pupils ought to acquire for finishing high school fully equipped to enjoy success in credit-bearing, entry-level, scholastic college programs and workforce training initiatives (Wengland, 2013).

Do you think that Common Core is simply a set of standards (guidelines for states to follow) or is it National Curriculum? Explain.

CCS does not come under a national-level curriculum; in fact, it isn't a curriculum of any sort. Rather, it is simply a collection of standards, which differs entirely from curricular planning system and scope. Where curricula form the roadmap, standards prove to be the end destination. Academic standards essentially form the product of academic outcomes and largely constitute a number of behaviors educators require their pupils to exhibit. Meanwhile, curricula form a large list of things to accomplish, and the time and expected duration of accomplishing them (Greene, 2014).

Do you think students should be annually assessed in California? Why or why not?

During the foremost state-wide annual comparison, 2016 test outcomes revealed that forty-eight percent of learners fulfilled ELA standards while thirty-seven percent fulfilled mathematics standards, as opposed to the 2015 figures of forty-four percent (English) and thirty-four percent (mathematics). In other words, over half the exam-takers in individual subjects still didn't come up to scratch (Kohli, Resmovits, & Poindexter, 2016). Yearly evaluations fail to consider innumerable aspects that could help determine actual pupil improvement.

Do you think teacher evaluations in California should be tied to the Smarter Balance test? Why or why not?

SBA (Smarter Balanced Assessment) employs computer-adaptive performance tasks and exams enabling pupils to demonstrate their abilities and knowledge. The above system is grounded in the math and ELA CCS. SBA incorporates 3 elements aimed at supporting the year-long instruction process: interim evaluations, summative tests and a Digital Library covering formative testing tools. Educator appraisals ought to be linked with SBA as the latter outcomes can be best interpreted together with other available data on pupils' educational attainment, which includes measures like grade and classroom assignment, class tests, educator feedback and report cards (CDE, 2017).

How do you think the State of California should best measure student learning?