Abstract
States may soon discover that the 15% of standards permitted them beyond the Common Core actually represents the time they need to catch up. The CCSSO/NGA initiative that identifies standards for state adoption accounts for 85% of the maximum, allowing states their own stamp once they've adopted the Common Core verbatim. But before heaping on more expectations for students, states would do well to first consider a looming near-term problem.
Let's consider the example of a student going from a 5th-grade mathematics class based on your state standards to a 6th-grade class based on Common Core standards. The 6th-grade mathematics standards are crafted for the student who has mastered the Common Core sequence of learning from prekindergarten to 5th grade. The problem? At the inception of the Common Core in your state, no such student will exist.
Instead, there will be students at each grade who likely won't be prepared or may have already mastered the content. It's not unusual to find similar content addressed as much as two or three grades apart when comparing standards documents. Thus, because of their state standards, students might be prepared for Common Core standards one or two grades earlier, a grade or two later, or not at all. Un-addressed, this means that students may miss content completely because state standards anticipate that the content will be addressed in the following grade, while Common Core presumes the content was already addressed in the previous grade. To what degree and in how many topics will the Common Core vary by subject and from state to state?
Educators are already anticipating this problem — to a point. Many state departments of education began identifying gaps even from the earliest drafts of the Common Core. But identifying the differences that surface at the same grade is different from comparing two systems of standards to understand how well a given student is prepared for moving from one system to another, not simply one grade to the next.
Even before Common Core provides a 15% cushion, in fact, states may do well to cut 15% of their current standards in order to find the necessary time to help students prepare for the change. The result would be transition standards — an amalgam of current state standards along with content that anticipates the Common Core. Developing transition standards requires a close analysis of existing state standards to identify whether students will have mastered the prerequisite knowledge and skills they need before entering a grade defined by Common Core standards. These standards may be useful for just a year or two, but they could make a positive difference for both students and teachers. Transition standards also help focus efforts on the implications this change has for instruction, curriculum, and assessment. Time is needed to identify the units and lessons that will continue to serve in the new regime, which ones may be adapted, and which are no longer viable.
The fly in this ointment may be obvious to some. Standards identify what's expected of students; they don't tell you what students actually know and can do. So, how can we dig deeper and ask: Where are students right now relative to the expectations of the Common Core?
Data may be available to help answer this question. The Common Core identifies much that is already found across state standards and may be part of state assessments. By aligning the results of student assessments to content identified in the Common Core standards, educators may get a valuable early glimpse as to the areas that are less likely to present a challenge for students in their state, the areas in which their students might excel, and the areas where there is reason for concern and quick action.
The move to the Common Core represents significant change. But the change may be a little easier by making wise use of the standards and assessments we have now.