PILOTed

60% Change to Math Content Under Common Core

We all understood that the Common Core was meant to drive change in instruction, but did we understood how much change? Less than 40% of what is supposed to be taught in Math under the Common Core is currently taught at that grade today.

One of the most interesting presentations at NCTM was the results of a study comparing the Common Core to state standards. Dawn Teuscher of Brigham Young University presented, based on a paper she co-wrote with Shannon Dingman of the University of Arkansas, Jill Newton of Purdue University, and Lisa Kasmer of Grand Valley State University. The name of the paper is Common Mathematics Standards in the United States, and it is due to be published in The Elementary School Journal.

The paper specifically studies grades 6-8, comparing the Common Core State Standards in Math (CCSSM) to the current state standards in eight large states. But the implications are more universal and can likely be extrapolated to all states and all grades.

First step was to granularize the CCSSM, as these standards are written in a way that generally encompasses multiple learning expectations. For example:

CCSSM 8.EE.5: Graph proportional relationships, interpreting the unit rate as the slope of the graph. Compare two different proportional relationships represented in different ways, For example, compare a distance-time graph to a distance time equation to determine which of the two moving objects has greater speed.

This is really three different learning expectations:

1. Graph proportional relationships
2. Compare two different proportional relationships represented in different ways
3. Interpret unit rate as the slope of a graph

The researchers went into all the standards, and broke them down into learning expectations, which can then be compared to the existing state standards.

Second stage was to map the CCSSM learning expectations to the learning expectations of existing state standards. There were four possibilities for CCSSM learning expectations:

1. The existing standards could teach the material at an earlier grade than CCSSM
2. It could be taught at the same grade level under both plans
3. It could be taught at a higher grade currently
4. It could be something new that is not currently taught at all

The study found that, across states, about  40% of the CCSSM objectives are not taught at all today, in any grade. About 15% is taught in higher grades. About 15% is taught in lower grades. And only about 30% of the material is currently taught in the grade dictated by the Common Core. The specifics are different state by state, one state may teach an objective in 4^th, another in 5^th, and a third may not actually teach that skill, but the overall percentages generally apply.

 

Looking at individual grades:

• 48% of grade 6 CCSSM standards are new in at least ¾ of the states (absolute values, inequalities, measure of variation, and geometry)
• 46% of grade 7 CCSSM standards are new in at least ¾ of the states (relationship between 2D and 3D figures, angle measurement, random sampling, comparative inferences)
• 39% of grade 8 CCSSM standards are new in at least ¾ of the states (transformational geometry, qualitative features and comparisons of functions)

The biggest focus areas of new material are around statistics and probability and geometry. In fact, only about one quarter of the learning objectives of the Middle School CCSSM were found across all states.

How will teachers be able to adapt to teaching material that was never taught in K12 before? How will teachers teach material that used to be taught 1-3 grades later? What happens during the next 3-4 years when students who weren't taught CCSSM material in lower grades are expected to learn even more advanced material? Who among you has figured out that the figures don't add up to the 60% that is in the title of this blog post (55% of the objectives are either not taught yet or are taught in a higher grade level, while an additional 15% are taught at a lower grade level)?

We all want our next generation to be skilled in math and science. The current state standards aren't getting us there. But, as national education funding gets sequestered, and state education funding is being squeezed by Medicare and Medicaid, making this type of change should be easy. Right?

Related articles

Growing concern over school common core state standards

Editorial: Moving Ahead With Common Core

Federal and state education funding and policy

SIIA Ed Tech Government Forum 2013

By definition, virtually all US public education is funded and controlled through federal, state, and local governments. The SIIA ETGF, just held April 9-10 in Washington, DC is a chance to hear from federal and state education policy wonks what is likely to happen over the next year or two.

At this year’s conference, there were six themes:

1. What is the federal funding environment
2. What is the funding environment at the states
3. What is happening with Common Core
4. What is happening with the Common Assessment
5. What about Federal Education policy and the waivers
6. What is the outlook in higher education

Federal Funding

Don’t look for much. It seems that the department of education is going to allow states to reserve up to 15% of last year’s money to go into next year, as a way to soften the blow of sequestration. There do not seem to be any looming events that will force the government to come to a budget compromise, so look for sequestration to continue for at least the next 6 months, with federal education funds being cut 5-7%. Since these are the funds that are often used to purchase content, the impact on the publishing industry will be overweighted.

State Funding

State revenues are back up to where they were in 2007. Normally, this would be good for education, except the cost of Medicaid, which is mandated, has been growing by 5% a year. This is squeezing education spending. In general, expect some small increases in state funding of education (for the first time in five years) but a lot of that will be paying for increased pension and salary costs.

Common Core State Standards

Depending on how you phrase questions, states and schools are either totally unprepared or virtually completely ready. Teachers will often say that they already teach higher level skills according to the common core. Yet, when you talk to teachers about evaluation, they often respond by saying that neither they nor the students have been getting support to prepare them for the standards.

Educators will say that they currently have to cover so many topics that they cannot afford to go deeply into any one, so they are looking forward to the narrower by deeper focus of the Common Core. But they will also respond that if the new curriculum skips any areas that they currently teach, they will find a way to still cover it.

Practically, we will not fully know the effect of the Common Core until schools have to start administering the common assessments.

Common Assessments

These are due to be required for the 2014-15 school year. On the technical side, schools don’t have enough computers or bandwidth to deliver the tests. To get the money to invest in that technology, they’ll have to take the funds from some other area, because no additional money is going to be available.

Just as large an issue is that students will be scoring about 30-40% lower on these assessments as they have been on most state tests. How will states and communities cope with the fact that, while they showed 70-80% proficiency for students in 2013-14, they will be reporting 30-40% proficiency the following year? How will that affect teacher evaluation? Will states start backing away from the Common Core?

Helping states and districts cope with these issues is a tremendous opportunity.

Education Policy and Waivers

NCLB expired in 2007. Nothing has replaced it, so there have been resolutions to keep it in place even though both parties see major flaws in the act.

This has allowed the Obama administration to determine that they can, by executive decree, change certain aspects of the law. So they have been granting waivers to most states from the most penurious effects of the law in return for support on adopting “rigorous standards”, big data, charter schools, and teacher evaluation.

Three of the problems about this approach surfaced during the conference. One, instead of a national policy, there are negotiated policies with each state, and often negotiated and renogotiated by mid-level employees of the Dept of Ed who move in and out of their positions. Two, these waivers only last two years, so they have to be renegotiated often. Three, what happens when the next administration has different ideas about what should be negotiated or if some court rules the the administration does not have the authority to provide waivers to the law?

This is causing a good deal of uncertainty and potential discontinuity.

Higher Education

Higher Education often leads K12 by about five years. The massive online courses (MOOCs) have a real potential to disrupt higher education as we know it, especially if someone can come up with a sustainable model. They also open up a huge opportunity for independent assessment of proficiency.

Conclusion

The Ed Tech Government Forum is the best way I know of to find out about state and federal policy and funding directions in both K12 and Higher Education.