Common Core State Standards Initiative
Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative and why is it important?
This Common Core State Standards Initiative is a significant and historic opportunity for states to collectively accelerate and drive education reform toward the ultimate goal of all children graduating from high school ready for college, work, and success in the global economy. The initiative will build off of the research and good work states have already done to build and implement high-quality standards. The standards will be research- and evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked.

Today we live in a world without borders. To maintain America's competitive edge, we need all of our students to be well prepared and ready to compete with not only their American peers, but with students from around the world. These common standards will be a critical first step to bring about real and meaningful transformation of our education system to benefit all students.

States know that standards alone cannot propel the systems change we need. The common core state standards will enable participating states to:

• Articulate to parents, teachers, and the general public expectations for students;
• Align textbooks, digital media, and curricula to the internationally benchmarked standards;
• Ensure professional development for educators is based on identified need and best practices;
• Develop and implement an assessment system to measure student performance against the common core state standards; and
• Evaluate policy changes needed to help students and educators meet the common core state college and career readiness standards.

Who is leading the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) have initiated a state-led process of developing and adopting a common core of state standards.

As part of this process, they have convened a National Policy Forum composed of signatory national organizations (e.g., the Alliance for Excellent Education, Business Roundtable, National School Boards Association, Council of Great City Schools, Hunt Institute, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Education Association, and others) to share ideas, gather input, and inform the common core state standards initiative.

How will states adopt the common core state standards?
States will adopt the common core state standards through a process that respects unique state contexts. CCSSO and the NGA Center will ask states to share their adoption timeline and process in early 2010, when the K-12 common core state standards are completed. A validation committee will verify that states have accurately adopted the common core state standards.

---

Frequently asked Questions about the Common Core State Standards Process

What will make this process different from other efforts to create common standards?
Both the timing of this initiative as well as the process give it a high probability for success.  There is a growing belief among state leaders, education leaders, and business leaders that differences in state standards, in an era of increasing student mobility and global competition, no longer make sense. 

This process is different since it is a state-led, vs a federal effort, and has the support of several major national organizations, including CCSSO, the NGA Center, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the National Education Association, the Hunt Institute, and the Business Roundtable, and involves participation of leading standards developers from Achieve, ACT, and the College Board.

States have been the leaders of standards-based reform efforts. The proposed adoption process respects and takes into consideration unique state contexts and encourages states to adopt the common core state standards.

Are these national standards?
No. This initiative is driven by collective state action and states will voluntarily adopt the standards based on the timelines and context in their state.

By what criteria will the standards be judged? Who or what entity sets such criteria?
The standards will be judged based on research and evidence that they meet the following criteria:

• Aligned with college and work expectations
• Inclusive of rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills
• Internationally benchmarked

Criteria have been set by states, through their national organizations CCSSO and the NGA Center.

Why are the common core state standards just in English-language arts and math? Are there plans to develop common standards in other areas in the future?
English-language arts and math were the first subjects chosen for the common core state standards since states have the longest history of standards in these areas, they are the core of our current national accountability system, and they provide the greatest areas of leverage.

Once the English language arts and math standards are developed, states plan to develop a common core of standards in science and potentially additional subject areas. The emphasis now is on getting the English language arts and math standards right.

What grades will be covered in the common core state standards?
The English-language arts and math standards will be K-12 standards. This will not cover pre-k, but the common core state standards will be informed by research from the early childhood community.

Who or what entity determines the common core state standards?
CCSSO and NGA Center are responsible for the development and cross-state adoption process.

• A Standards Development Work Group, composed of standards experts is responsible for determining and writing the common core state standards. This group is composed of content experts from Achieve, ACT, and the College Board. This group will be expanded later in the year to include additional experts to develop the standards for grade K-12 in English language arts and mathematics. Additionally, CCSSO and the NGA Center have selected an independent facilitator and an independent writer as well as resource advisors to support each content area work group throughout the standards development process. The Work Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process. States and national education organizations will have an opportunity to review and provide evidence-based feedback on the draft documents throughout the process.
• A Feedback Group to provide information backed by research to inform the standards development process by offering expert input on draft documents. Final decisions regarding the common core standards document will be made by the Standards Development Work Group. The Feedback Group will play an advisory role, not a decision-making role in the process.
• A Validation Committee composed of independent experts will review the process and substance of the common core state standards to ensure they are research- and evidence-based and will validate state adoption of the common standards. Members of the validation committee will be selected by governors and chiefs, and they must be national or international experts on standards and have a demonstrated record of knowledge in English-language arts, mathematics or a related field.

How will we be sure that the standards are based on evidence and not on individual beliefs about what is important?
The validation group of independent, national experts will review the process and substance of the common core state standards delineated by the standards development group to ensure they are research- and evidence-based.

What process will be employed to manage the challenges from special interest groups that will push for their content or skills to be in the common core state standards?
It is the responsibility of the validation group as well as the standards development group to ensure relevant research and evidence are considered.

Will these standards incorporate both content and skills?
Both content and skills are important and will be incorporated in the common core state standards. One of the criteria by which the standards will be determined is whether or not they are inclusive of rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills.

Will the Common Core State Standards be updated?
Yes. There will be an ongoing state-led development process that can support continuous improvement of this first version of the common core state standards based on research and evidence-based learning.

Will there be common assessments based on the common core state standards?
States know that standards alone cannot propel the systems change we need. Assessments aligned with the common core state standards will play an important role in making sure the standards are embedded in our education system. NGA and CCSSO will work with those states who adopt the standards to develop a proposal to create common assessments in English language arts and mathematics.

What is the appropriate role of the federal government in this initiative?
The federal government can:

• Support this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support for states to effectively implement the standards as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
• Provide additional long-term financial support for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal professional development, other related common core state standards supports, and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core state standards over time.
• Revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states' international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.

What is the timeline for the common core state standards initiative?
Key dates in the project are identified below.

• July, 2009 – draft of common core state standards for college and career readiness English-language arts and mathematics completed and publicly released by standards development committee.
• August 2009—college and career readiness standards approved by validation committee
• December, 2009 – K-12 common core state standards in English-language arts and mathematics completed and publicly released.
• January 2010—K-12 standards approved by validation committee
• Early 2010, states submit timeline and process for adoption of common core state standards in English-language arts and mathematics.

Close Window

Voluntary National Standards Dead on Arrival

 

Written By: Robert Pondiscio Blogger

A draft of the newly developed common core state standards purports to offer “sufficient guidance and clarity so that they are teachable, learnable and measurable,” however the ELA guidelines offer almost no specific content and little that would be of use to teachers in planning lessons–or parents in understanding what their child is expected to know.

Copies of the draft, an effort spearheaded by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) have begun circulating among reviewers.  A copy found its way to me without any restrictions on its use or circulation.  I have posted the draft document here.  (Trouble with the link?  Try here instead)

The draft insists that the voluntary standards be “coherent” but defines coherence to mean they “should convey a unified vision of the big ideas and supporting concepts within a discipline and reflect a progression of learning that is meaningful and appropriate.”  Framed as a series of benchmarks students must reach “to be college and career ready,” the draft enumerates standards such as the ability to “determine what text says explicitly and use evidence within text to infer what is implied by or follows logically from the text.”

To put this as blandly as possible, this is neither a revelatory insight nor a meaningful standard.  Educators hoping for guidance on what particular texts are expected to be taught, or how to get students to reach the bland and obvious standards will be disappointed.  On specific “texts” the draft says merely:

The literary and informational texts chosen should be rich in content….This includes texts that have broad resonance and are referred to and quoted often, such as influential political documents, foundational literary works, and seminal historical and scientific texts.

“At first glance, these language standards are, despite the brave descriptors, very similar to the dysfunctional state standards already in place,” notes Core Knowledge founder E.D. Hirsch, Jr.  “Like most state standards, they naively take a formalistic approach to language ability.   They assume that the ability to understand literary and informational language is chiefly a how–to skill, whereas it is chiefly a topic-dependent skill that varies with specific topic familiarity.”   

 A sample scientific text on covalent bonds in the draft document, Hirsch notes, is a “a good illustration of this general point.  Will it be more useful for understanding such texts to spend class time teaching some will-o-the-wisp language proficiency or to impart a good general education in science and the humanities?  

“One begins to despair,” Hirsch concludes.

Federal control expands despite the rules

By Laurie H. Rogers, author of "Betrayed"

Columnist EducationNews.org

The federal government is taking over public education. It has no legal authority to do this, but it’s doing it anyway. This is not change I believe in.

New national education Common Core Standards (CCS) were released in draft form in July, reportedly “prematurely.” Critics call these supposedly “international” benchmarks vague, fuzzy and inadequate, but the most critical questions about them actually have to do with the fact of their existence.

In theory, the CCS initiative was driven by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards will be followed by development of a national assessment and perhaps a national curriculum. President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan have said they support this initiative.

I have questions for those who are pushing this initiative on an unsuspecting public:

·                     Who are they? Who lurks there in the dark, behind the scenes, basketball shoes in one hand and a bully whip in the other?

·                     How much will this initiative cost the taxpayer (who already pays ridiculous sums of money for an arrogant, secretive, ineffective, close-minded, top-heavy public-education bureaucracy)?

·                     Under what authority does the U.S. Department of Education direct, supervise, or control “the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system”?

o                  (Hint: None, according to Congress.)

·                     Where is the voter in this entire process?

o                  (Hint: Nowhere, except as a means for more money.)

Since July 1, I’ve been asking questions of the U.S. Department of Education (DoE); the Washington State Governor’s Office; the Washington State Board of Education (SBE); the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI); the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA); the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO); and Achieve, Inc. (which is partnering with the NGA and CCSSO). Here’s what’s happened so far.

U.S. Department of Education:

From July 11-22, the DoE steadfastly refused to answer my emailed questions, repeatedly referring me to the NGA and CCSSO. I told them my questions had to do with DoE policy, but this had zero effect. I changed my tactic, calling the DoE directly. On July 25, I finally found a person willing to address my questions.

Besides the CCS initiative, I’m concerned about the DoE’s changing role. For example, Race to the Top is a competition for $4.35 billion in federal grants that President Obama and Sec. Duncan formally announced July 24. President Obama reportedly “wants states to use funds to ease limits on charter schools, tie teacher pay to student achievement and move for the first time toward common academic standards” (Shear & Anderson, 2009). He reportedly said in a July 23 Oval Office interview: “What we're saying here is, if you can't decide to change these practices, we're not going to use precious dollars that we want to see creating better results; we're not going to send those dollars there.”

                Sec. Duncan has reportedly threatened California with the loss of federal “stimulus” funds if it doesn’t tie teacher evaluations to student achievement (Felch & Song, 2009). What does this have to do with the CCS initiative? Answer: Nothing.

                Do what we tell you, California was told, or you don’t get the money. Whose money is this? Ours. Whose vision is it? Good question. Federal “support” is looking more like coercion or blackmail.

This behavior is inappropriate. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Public education, therefore, falls outside of federal authority.

Despite the Tenth Amendment, the Department of Education was created in 1980 to:

a)      increase equal access

b)      “supplement and complement” the efforts of states, schools, parents and students, and "encourage” community involvement

c)      improve education through research, evaluation and information sharing

d)      help coordinate federal programs, improve their management and efficiency, and increase their accountability to Congress, the public and the president.

From its inception, the DoE’s activities were deliberately limited – especially with respect to decision-making. The original act (Public Law 96-88) says “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.”

According to "20 USC Sec. 3403," the DoE is prohibited from “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The DoE acknowledges this, adding that “the establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation -- these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

All of this might as well be history, folks. The DoE’s 1980 budget of $14 billion skyrocketed to a 2009 budget of $140.5 billion. Its appetite for power has surpassed all intents and purposes. Its top official is a gunslinger, swaggering his way around the country. And I – the most critical stakeholder in my child’s education – can’t even get a few simple questions answered.

State Governor’s Office:

On July 1, I emailed the Washington State governor’s office, asking for pertinent documentation on the CCS initiative. The legal affairs coordinator replied, sending me a heavily redacted document and a May 20 letter from the State Board of Education that had encouraged the governor to participate. One pertinent document was exempted from my request, due to “Executive Privilege.”

On July 11, I sent follow-up questions and a request for the exempted document. I received that document and was directed to Senior Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann for answers to my questions. I’ve twice requested a telephone appointment with Ms. Hartmann, but so far have been unsuccessful.

The exempted document is a confidential Decision Brief from Ms. Hartmann, having to do with a Memorandum of Agreement on the CCS initiative. The Brief indicates that by May 15, our governor had already decided to participate. (Therefore, the SBE’s May 20 letter, encouraging the governor to sign the MOA, was dated at least five days after her decision.) But the most interesting part about the Decision Brief is this:

“Federal standards adoption. While the standards are being developed by states, CCSSO/NGA believe federal money – Race To The Top - to support this work is appropriate as well as taking the next step to developing common assessments. Discussion: The MOA does not address the possibility of federal adoption of the standards. As you know, some in Congress are looking at this issue.
Race To The Top funds. There is the possibility that one of the criteria for participation in Race To The Top funds will be participating in the Common Standards project.”

(At that point, with federal adoption of the standards and federal money contingent on participation in the CCS initiative, they might as well stuff "20 USC Sec. 3403" in the shredder. )

All states need to do is say no to this siren call. On July 24, our governor met with President Obama and Sec. Duncan in Washington, DC. At home the next day, the governor reportedly said that for a chance to “win” Race to the Top money, legislators “may need to talk about teacher evaluation, teacher pay and what the state is doing for struggling schools that are not getting better.”

State Board of Education:

The minutes from the May 14-15 meeting of the Washington State Board of Education note the board members’ decision to send the governor a supportive letter about the CCS initiative, but the agenda for that meeting didn’t mention their intent to discuss it. Therefore, the public wouldn’t have known.

I asked the SBE executive assistant to tell me which came first – the governor’s decision or the SBE’s May 20 letter. She would say only that the letter was “in support of” the governor’s decision. She eventually referred me and my questions to the governor and OSPI’s public disclosure officer (PDO).

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:

OSPI’s PDO, a polite and helpful person, says OSPI will provide me with pertinent documents a month from now, during the last half of August. My questions were referred to Superintendent Randy Dorn. I haven’t heard from him, but on July 14, I was notified that Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke would respond in 7-14 days.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices:
Council of Chief State School Officers:
Achieve, Inc.:

I sent emails to these three organizations July 11 and July 20. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t responded. After the July 20 email, Achieve referred me to the CCSSO.

To recap:

The DoE refused my questions. I persisted until someone agreed to answer them.
The governor’s office sent me documents but hasn’t answered my questions.
The SBE sent me documents, then referred my questions elsewhere.
OSPI will send me documents late in August, but has yet to answer questions.
The NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence, much less answered questions.
Achieve, Inc. declined to answer questions, referring me elsewhere.

Welcome to your new paradigm, folks. Parents are not the “stakeholders” that matter to these bureaucrats. They behave as if we don’t know anything and have nothing to contribute. They seem to think we should sit down, shut up and stop bothering the true professionals. We are not supposed to take notice of their obvious disregard for inconvenient laws and policies.

This message is coming through loud and clear, and I reject it completely.

The questions I’m asking are reasonable and not difficult. The tactics illustrated thus far allow a deeply flawed process to move forward until it appears to have enough momentum where it can’t be stopped. But it can be stopped if we speak up, ask the hard questions, refuse to be diverted, stand tall in defense of the Constitution and the laws and policies of the land, demand that government agencies stay in their proper lane, fight for our children’s education, and refuse to give the government an open checkbook for poorly defined programs.

Yes, we can.