This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices. Some of the authors featured on this page include Aimee L. Papola, Alex Harris, Michael Watt, Sandra Murphy, Matthew R. Larson, Nick Rodriguez, Shelby McIntosh, Karen K. Wixson, Alice Wexler, and Bree A. Jimenez.
(2012). A First Look at Higher Performing High Schools: School Qualities That Educators Believe Contribute Most to College and Career Readiness. Executive Summary. The Common Core State Standards Initiative represents one of the most significant reforms to US education in recent history. As of June 2012, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Standards. ACT is pleased to have played a leading role in the development of the Standards. Not only did the initiative draw on its longitudinal research identifying the knowledge and skills essential for success in postsecondary education and workforce training, but its College Readiness Standards[TM] were also among the resources used in the creation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In "A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness (ACT 2010)," ACT recognized that the goal of college and career readiness (CCR) changes expectations by setting higher standards for all students to meet as they leave high school. Among ACT-tested high school graduates of 2011, only one in four met all four College Readiness Benchmarks (ACT 2011). While the national CCR rates suggest significant room for improvement, there are high schools across the country where students are advancing more quickly toward CCR. As educators work to improve and prepare for implementation of the CCSS, it is worthwhile to examine the high schools where students are progressing toward CCR at atypically fast rates. What is it about these schools that educators perceive contributes most to their students' growth? Are the school qualities that are deemed most important different for school administrators and teachers? What are educators' general perceptions of the value of the CCSS? How far along are these schools in implementing the CCSS? This study addressed these questions by surveying educators at high schools across the country that have demonstrated strong progress toward CCR. This paper discusses how the findings relate to core practices that can be used to guide coherent approaches to school improvement. [For the full report, see ED541867] [More] Descriptors: College Readiness, State Standards, Educational Change, High School Graduates
(2012). iLEAP Assessment Guide-Revised, Grade 5: English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies. "Louisiana Believes" embraces the principle that all children can achieve at high levels, as evidenced in Louisiana's recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). "Louisiana Believes" also promotes the idea that Louisiana's educators should be empowered to make decisions to support the success of their students. In keeping with these values, the Department has created transitional assessment guides to help prepare teachers and students as they transition to the new CCSS over the next two years. These guides reflect the State's commitment to consistent and rigorous assessments and provide educators and families with clear information about expectations for student performance. The "iLEAP Assessment Guide" provides an overview of Louisiana assessments administered through the integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP). In addition to providing teachers with a description of the overall design of the iLEAP tests, this guide presents sample test items and suggested informational resources. Teachers should use this guide to: (1) become familiar with the iLEAP test format; (2) include similar item formats in classroom instruction and assessments; (3) align instruction and assessment with the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum and Grade-Level Expectations (GLEs); and (4) provide appropriate test accommodations. In 2010, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) approved the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which will eventually replace the current English language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards/GLEs. This revised guide provides information about the changes to iLEAP during the transition to CCSS. Appended are: (1) Glossary; (2) iLEAP Transitional Assessments: Frequently Asked Questions; (3) Testing Special Populations; and (4) Writer's Checklist and Mathematics Reference Sheet-Grade 5. [More] Descriptors: Student Evaluation, Achievement Tests, Educational Assessment, Testing Accommodations
(2011). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Action Agenda for Higher Education, State Higher Education Executive Officers. Recent years have seen the pace of change in education accelerate at all levels as educators and policy makers instigate reforms aimed at raising academic achievement in the United States to a world-class level. Perhaps nowhere has the pace and scale of change been more dramatic than in the realm of K-12 academic standards. In 2009, 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia signed a memorandum of agreement with the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), committing to a state-led process–the Common Core State Standards Initiative–to produce a set of K-12 standards in the foundational subjects of English language arts and mathematics designed to prepare high school graduates to succeed in college and careers. On June 2, 2010, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released. As of December 2010, 41 states and the District of Columbia have formally adopted the CCSS. Most states will begin implementing the standards in schools in 2011-2012. This issue brief describes key areas that will require active participation from higher education leaders and faculty from a broad array of disciplines, in the following areas: (1) Defining college readiness and aligning key policies for the school-to-college transition; (2) Developing K-12 assessments and aligning college placement policies with these assessments; (3) Aligning K-12 and higher education curricula; and (4) Teacher preparation and in-service professional development. The issue brief also suggests structures at the state and local levels that can help facilitate collaboration between K-12 and higher education. It concludes with links to detailed information about the standards and related assessments. [This paper was written with the assistance of Paul Lingenfelter, Sharmila Basu Conger, Charlie Lenth, Julie Carnahan, Margaret Horn, Sandy Boyd, Allison Jones, and Mikyung Ryu.] [More] Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Higher Education, State Standards
(2012). State High School Exit Exams: A Policy in Transition, Center on Education Policy. Since 2002, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at The George Washington University, a national advocate for public education and improving public schools, has been studying state high school exit examinations–tests students must pass to receive a high school diploma. This year marks the 11th year CEP has reported on exit exams in order to help policymakers reach informed decisions about assessment policies in their states. Information from this year's report comes from several sources: a formal verification process through which department of education officials in states with exit exams confirmed and updated information about their exit exam policies from CEP's previous reports on this topic; a special survey of states both with and without exit exams about the future of these policies; state Web sites; media reports; and past CEP publications. Chapter 1 of this report focuses on the present status of state high school exit exam policies, including which states have exit exams, specific characteristics of these exams, how many students are impacted, and changes that have occurred in these policies over the past year. Chapter 2 discusses the future of these policies, such as the shift to assess college and career readiness and the impact of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and common assessments. Chapter 3 reviews states' past 11 years of experience in implementing exit exams to draw out lessons that may be valuable to state leaders and policymakers as they decide about future policy changes and their implementation. Impact of Common Core State Standards in states with high school exit exams is appended. [More] Descriptors: Student Evaluation, State Standards, Exit Examinations, High Schools
(2012). Will CCSSM Matter in Ten Years?, Teaching Children Mathematics. As elementary educators across the country begin to interpret the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSI 2010) and put them into practice, this article takes a look at this latest set of mathematics standards from a historical viewpoint. The author discusses how educators might use a historical perspective to make the outcome of implementing the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics better than the reform efforts that have preceded it. He says that today's educational climate puts an emphasis on standards and curriculum, but at the present time, there is no correspondingly intense focus on instructional practices. A continued focus on the Content Standards, without a congruent focus on instruction, is likely to–at best–result in continued incremental growth in student learning and, based on history, may fail to have the desired effect on student learning differentials. If a narrow concentration of attention on Content Standards characterizes the CCSSM reform effort, then it is likely to become just another postscript in the chronology of mathematics education. However, if–(1) the implementation of CCSSM "helps teachers move toward more effective instruction in mathematics" through a focus on the Standards for Mathematical Practice; (2) low-track math classes are eliminated and students who struggle are supported with supplementary targeted instruction based on ongoing formative assessment practices while still receiving their grade-level content; and (3) teachers are offered professional development time to collaboratively improve their instructional practices, deepen their understanding of mathematics, and develop their capacity to implement CCSSM–then this reform effort has the potential to improve students' mathematics learning and simultaneously close achievement differentials. As Kilpatrick recently argued, "We can hope for that" (2011, p. 16). Should that hope become reality, then CCSSM is likely to remain a significant force in mathematics education ten years from now. [More] Descriptors: Elementary School Mathematics, State Standards, Academic Standards, Teaching Methods
(2012). Meet the Promise of Content Standards: The Principal, Learning Forward (NJ). Successful principals shape the culture of schools, set clear expectations, and share leadership with others to create productive learning environments for students and staff. For nearly a decade, The Wallace Foundation has coordinated studies of principal effectiveness and has concluded that principals are second only to teachers as the most influential school-based factor in student achievement. As states, districts, and schools strive to prepare all students for college and careers through full implementation of Common Core State Standards, transformed instruction, and new assessments, attention to the significant role of principals in this work is long overdue. Many report feeling overlooked in the Common Core movement and unprepared to guide teachers in implementation of the standards (Gewertz, 2012). Focused attention on the specific principal practices that support student achievement, transformation in instruction, and implementation of new standards will be a welcome relief to principals. The Wallace Foundation research identified five essential principal practices associated with increasing student achievement: (1) Shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based in high standards; (2) Creating a climate hospitable to education in order that safety, a cooperative spirit, and other foundations for fruitful interaction prevail; (3) Cultivating leadership in others so that teachers and other adults assume their part in realizing the school vision; (4) Improving instruction to enable teacher to teach at their best and students to learn at their utmost; and (5) Managing people, data, and processes to foster school improvement. This brief, drawn from research and first-hand experiences of principals in schools across the country, examines specific practices in each category listed above that are likely to support implementation of Common Core standards and parallel, necessary changes. It also suggests how states, districts, and principals themselves can contribute to strengthening principal leadership for full implementation of Common Core State Standards. [More] Descriptors: Academic Achievement, State Standards, Leadership, Principals
(2013). A Study of NAEP Reading and Writing Frameworks and Assessments in Relation to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, American Institutes for Research. Since its first assessment in 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has made a unique contribution to our understanding of American education. It is the only national source of information on the educational achievement of U.S. students, and it is the only vehicle by which states can compare the progress of their students against a common standard. Assessment results reported by NAEP complement the states' own reports of progress under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and track the status of achievement gaps for traditionally disadvantaged student groups. NAEP is carried out under the guidance of the National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Throughout the course of its history, NAEP has frequently sought to improve by studying its own processes, instruments, and procedures. In keeping with this tradition, in fall 2011, NCES asked the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel, which operates under contract to NCES, to undertake two inter-related studies, one in reading/writing and one in mathematics, to examine the content of the current NAEP frameworks and item pools at Grades 4, 8, and 12 in relation to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The primary question under investigation is whether NAEP can continue to serve as an independent monitor of student achievement and state assessments following the implementation of the CCSS. This report addresses the relations between the NAEP reading and writing frameworks and the CCSS in English language arts (CCSS-ELA), and the relations between the NAEP reading and writing items and the CCSS-ELA. It does not address the relations between NAEP reading and writing items and items developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) to assess the CCSS-ELA because those items were not available at the time of this study. The report concludes with recommendations to NCES regarding broader issues on the alignment between NAEP reading and writing and CCSS-ELA, including the extent of alignment that is appropriate to support NAEP's role as an independent monitor of student achievement. An appendix presents a list of the Reading and Writing Panelists. [For the main report, "Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress," see ED545237.] [More] Descriptors: National Competency Tests, Reading Achievement, Writing Achievement, State Standards
(2012). Teaching under the Policy Cascades: Common Core, Learned Dependency, and Literacy Instruction, ProQuest LLC. Educational policies and initiatives continually influence the instruction in classrooms across the nation. At the time of this study, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was in its first full year of implementation in schools across the country. Using ethnographic methods (Foley, 1990; Heath, 1983; McLaren, 1986) and a critical theory perspective (Apple, 1999; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005), this study examined how elementary teachers planned and implemented literacy instruction in their classroom while balancing the numerous policies and initiatives related to education. Six teachers participated in the study. Over three months, data was collected in the form of fieldnotes on observation of instruction, interviews with teachers, and physical artifacts. Each teacher was observed for sixty minutes once a week and participated in a thirty to forty minute debriefing interview weekly. Data analysis consisted of ongoing and repeated coding for patterns and themes related to the literacy planning and instruction for each individual teacher, as well as themes that were common across teachers. Findings from the data analysis indicated a significant reliance of teachers on outside factors for planning and instruction in literacy, with a particular focus on the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The teachers' own professional knowledge base was eroded in the process of policy cascades, and as a result, the teachers developed a learned dependency on outside influence for instructional decision making in literacy. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta… [More] Descriptors: Educational Policy, State Standards, Ethnography, Critical Theory
(2012). Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and mathematics represent a sea change in standards-based reform and their implementation is the movement's next–and greatest–challenge. Yet, while most states have now set forth implementation plans, these tomes seldom address the crucial matter of cost. Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? estimates the implementation cost for each of the forty-five states (and the District of Columbia) that have adopted the Common Core State Standards and shows that costs naturally depend on how states approach implementation. Authors Patrick J. Murphy of the University of San Francisco and Elliot Regenstein of Education Counsel LLC illustrate this with three models: (1) Business as Usual; (2) Bare Bones; and (3) Balanced Implementation. The report examines the tradeoffs associated with each strategy and estimates how much the three approaches would cost each state that has adopted the Common Core. The authors also point out that, since states already invest billions annually in professional development, assessments, textbooks, and other expenses in connection with existing standards, proper forecasting of Common Core costs should "net out" the sums that states would spend anyway for activities that this implementation process will replace. Appended are: (1) Technology in Common Core Implementation; (2) District Budget Estimates; (3) Data Sources; and (4) States' Common Core Resources. (Contains 9 tables and 93 endnotes.) [This report was written with Keith McNamara. Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler.] [More] Descriptors: Expenditures, State Standards, Costs, Academic Standards
(2015). Access to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics through Early Numeracy Skill Building for Students with Significant Intellectual Disability, Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. This study investigated the effect of systematic early numeracy skill instruction on grade-aligned 4th and 5th grade Common Core math skill acquisition for three 4th and 5th grade students with a significant intellectual disability. Students were taught early numeracy skills (e.g., number identification, making sets to five items, simple addition) using theme based lessons, systematic prompting and feedback, manipulatives and graphic organizers. Four Common Core math standards were task-analyzed to identify the early numeracy skills needed to access the standard. A multiple probe across students design was used to examine the effects of the early numeracy instruction on the number of steps completed on each of the grade-aligned math standards task-analysis. Results indicated a functional relationship between the early numeracy skill instruction and students independent correct responses on grade-aligned math. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. [More] Descriptors: Grade 4, Grade 5, Elementary School Students, Numeracy
(2012). A First Look at Higher Performing High Schools: School Qualities that Educators Believe Contribute Most to College and Career Readiness. The Common Core State Standards Initiative represents one of the most significant reforms to US education in recent history. As of June 2012, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Standards. ACT is pleased to have played a leading role in the development of the Standards. Not only did the initiative draw on its longitudinal research identifying the knowledge and skills essential for success in postsecondary education and workforce training, but its College Readiness Standards[TM] were also among the resources used in the creation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In "A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness (ACT 2010)," ACT recognized that the goal of college and career readiness (CCR) changes expectations by setting higher standards for all students to meet as they leave high school. Among ACT-tested high school graduates of 2011, only one in four met all four College Readiness Benchmarks (ACT 2011). While the national CCR rates suggest significant room for improvement, there are high schools across the country where students are advancing more quickly toward CCR. As educators work to improve and prepare for implementation of the CCSS, it is worthwhile to examine the high schools where students are progressing toward CCR at atypically fast rates. What is it about these schools that educators perceive contributes most to their students' growth? Are the school qualities that are deemed most important different for school administrators and teachers? What are educators' general perceptions of the value of the CCSS? How far along are these schools in implementing the CCSS? This study addressed these questions by surveying educators at high schools across the country that have demonstrated strong progress toward CCR. This paper discusses how the findings relate to core practices that can be used to guide coherent approaches to school improvement. [More] Descriptors: College Readiness, State Standards, Educational Change, High School Graduates
(2011). Implementing Common Core State Standards and Assessments: A Workbook for State and District Leaders, Achieve, Inc.. Achieve and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute have developed a practical Common Core Implementation Workbook for all states in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). This workbook uses a proven performance management methodology known as "delivery" to lay out clear action steps for states and districts. It provides relevant information, case stories of good practice, key questions and hands-on exercises for leadership teams to complete together. Regardless of one's timeline, the workbook offers state and district leaders the means to plan for the CCSS and then drive successful implementation. The workbook begins with a diagnostic assessment to help readers determine where their Common Core State Standards (CCSS) implementation effort is going well and areas of challenge that merit additional attention. After the diagnostic, the next sections of the workbook focus on how the state agency and school districts can organize for implementation. The workbook then offers a set of implementation actions that consist of the actual work of the CCSS transition. Chapters 5 and 6 help readers answer the critical questions for two key actions: how to align curricular and instructional materials and how to train educators on the CCSS. The workbook ends with Chapter 11, which answers the final question–how to monitor progress and sustain momentum, a topic that obviously applies across all the implementation actions. Individual chapters contain endnotes. ["Implementing Common Core State Standards and Assessments: A Workbook for State and District Leaders" was written with the assistance of Marie O'Hara and Lauren Kurczewski. This paper was developed with the U.S. Education Delivery Institute.] [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Workbooks, State Agencies, Alignment (Education)
(2012). Are You Ready for Common Core Math?, District Administration. With new Common Core State Standards assessments in K12 mathematics due to be in use by the start of the 2014-2015 school year, many district administrators and teachers do not know what they should know about them now and are not taking steps they should be taking to prepare for them. While they are aware that the assessments are being developed, educators generally do not understand what that means to them. The assessments are based on the Common Core State Standards that districts are using to revise their curricula and instruction in math as well as English Language Arts and Literacy. The Common Core assessments will probe more deeply than assessments do now into what students are learning in math and how they are learning it. Another major change that districts should be aware of is that the questions students are asked will be delivered online and answered online instead of on paper. While that will provide immediate results to teachers and administrators, it might require districts to install more computers and other technological tools, which could raise questions about how they will pay the costs in a period of tight budgets. One reason many districts are not paying much attention to the forthcoming assessments is that they are not known in their final form yet. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (PARCC) is one of two multistate consortia working to develop the assessments; the other is the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Even though the final assessments have not been released, some districts are finding that they have already engendered internal discord. Some teachers love them, but others hate them. Some are very in tune with what's coming, while others are saying students can't take a math test with a computer. [More] Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, State Standards, Mathematics Tests, Test Construction
(2014). The Common Core "State" Standards: The Arts and Education Reform, Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education. In this commentary, Alice Wexler notes that as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) become reality, teachers have reason for concern. She contends that this reform to public education has consequently marginalized the arts and exacerbated the inequities of people in poverty and those with disabilities. Teachers, principals and, ultimately, schools are accountable for student test scores. Consistently low-performing schools face corrective action, restructuring, or closure. Most at stake are the arts, faced with elimination if test scores are not raised in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. In January 2013, the revision of the National Arts Standards was begun, its purpose was to place the arts in the curriculum beyond their "integration" into ELA and mathematics. Members of the coalition [National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS)] intend to dispel any doubt that the arts have a meritorious place within the curriculum. A declaration against the betrayal of children's potential is underway and communities resisting CCSS are gaining momentum around the country by creating coalitions of educators, academics, administrators, and parents. The removal of affect from the already emotionally flattened public school system will leave children unprepared to find what they are good at, to use their imaginations, to make school relevant in a critical period of transition into a technological world, thus wasting precious human resources. Wexler argues that CCSS has overlooked the most fundamental growth to which children are entitled: "to imagine and shape their future." [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Art Education, Educational Change, National Standards
(2009). The Movement for National Academic Standards: A Comparison of the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the USA and the National Curriculum in Australia, Online Submission. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature of activities in the change process undertaken by two initiatives to produce national standards in academic disciplines, national assessments and accountability measures. The Common Core State Standards Initiative, a project coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, aims to produce common core standards for states in the USA, and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority aims to produce a national curriculum. Content analysis method was applied to summarise information obtained from searches on the web sites of organisations involved in these initiatives and education newspapers. A model for classifying the activities of research, development, diffusion and adoption in the change process was applied to evaluate the two innovations. The results showed that activities involving research and development, at which point evaluation of both innovations was made, were well-defined. Each initiative was preceded by publication of policy documents advocating innovation and research activities to uncover possibilities for change, although these activities were more extensive and substantial in the USA than Australia. The emphases in each innovation for developing academic standards are different. Benchmarking standards against state, national and international standards, using a research-based process for decision making, reviewing successive drafts by stakeholders, and conducting an independent validation characterise the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Specifying plans and guidelines, inventing and refining standards, using a consensus-building process for decision making, and reviewing successive drafts by stakeholders characterise the national curriculum initiative in Australia. Initial steps to sustain adoption of the innovations are the formation of the National Policy Forum to build support for the Common Core State Standards Initiative and the foundation of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. However, attention to other activities to assist practitioners adopt the innovations are lacking in both initiatives. The paper concludes by presenting some judgments about the potential success of each initiative. [More] Descriptors: National Curriculum, Research and Development, National Standards, Academic Standards