Will Common Core Standards Make Students College-Ready?

UPDATE: Since this story was first published, it has been clarified that 44 states and U.S. territories, not 48, have stated an intention to adopt the standards. The article has been updated to reflect the change.

--------------

Storytime isn't what it used to be. In classrooms across the country, kindergartners aren't just having books read to them -- they're comparing and contrasting characters. And second-graders aren't reciting rhymes -- they're analyzing poetry.

These examples are the Common Core Standards in action. From kindergarten to 12th grade, 15 districts nationwide are currently participating in trial runs of the standards, which urge critical thinking in students and also provide uniform benchmarks for all states to follow.

But the standards also allow schools some flexibility. In Florida, district officals are meeting now to discuss exactly what their standards will look like. Melissa Erickson, president of the Hillsborough County Council of PTA/PTSA, tells Tampa Bay Online she thinks common standards will benefits the entire education community:

"This is the biggest thing right now in education.''

Forty-four states and U.S. territories have stated an intention to adopt the standards, introduced last year by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The measure was endorsed by the Obama administration, and most states quickly jumped on board last year in an attempt to get federal funding through Race to the Top. States that agreed to adopt the standards won points for a share of the $3.4 billion.

The new standards give specific goals -- from kindergarten to 12th grade -- that prepare students for college. The New York Times cites examples of English and history students who are required to go beyond summarizing information by reading media such as long-form magazine articles and synthesizing them with other sources. Students aren't just exposed to different viewpoints, but are also required to analyze the beliefs and biases present in a piece of reading, according to the Times.

But Shael Polakow-Suransky, New York's chief academic officer, says big changes within students won't happen overnight.

"This isn't one of those things where you flip the switch and tomorrow, everything is going to be different," he said.

And some are simply not pleased with the new standards.

Texas, which has resisted the new standards completely, has now written its own. The standards are founded upon Massachusetts' former benchmarks, according to Boston.com.

Though Massachusetts is one of the states that adopted the standards last year, the Tantasqua Regional school board has petitioned the legislature to now opt out, Education Week reports.

The state's initial adoption of the standards came amid controversy, as Massachusetts leads the country in education scores and was hesitant to forgo its own standards:

"We have some of the most exacting standards in the United States," said James A. Cooke, the Tantasqua Regional school board say member who initiated discussion of the issue. "Why should we use someone else's standards?

As an example, the national standards make little room for the state's strong commitment to literature, Boston.com reports. The Common Core Standards require that by 12th grade, 30 percent of students' readings should be literary and 70 percent should be informational.

The Tantasqua Regional board says the state was too quick to embrace the new standards, excited by the idea of potentially winning Race to the Top dollars. But a state education department spokesman released a statement last year saying Massachusetts believes in a nationwide unified front:

"That said, in today's economy, it makes little sense for 50 states to have 50 separate set [sic] of standards, and for students to be tested using 50 separate assessments. In addition, while we have strong standards now, we would be naïve to assume they cannot be improved, and that we have nothing left to learn from others."

Comments

[Smalltowngirl95]

03:53 PM on 05/19/2011

The problem with schools is that
1. We keep teachers who should be fired. In any business if you are not good at your job your fired.... Why do we have teachers who are glorified babysitters in a classroom. Long story short: Keep good teachers and fire the bad or place them in a position outside of the classroom.
2. We spend millions of dollars on programs that are useless. Fastforward, Reading 180. They are both programs that most schools don't even use but we keep spending money on it.
3. We are watering down our core curriculum. Our students are competing in a global economy that keeps raising the standards. Students in other countries are fluent in two or three languages by the time they graduate. Most students in America can't speak proper English.

I am a high school student and we need to stop tolerating the apathetic view of education. Most students think of school as a chance to talk and hang out with friends. The truth is we go to school to learn and not socialize. Students are disrespectful towards teachers and simply don't care. We need to change student's view of education before we can make any real progress.

[f0rTyLeGz]

06:18 PM on 04/29/2011

Every state should have their own standards. They should compete with each other. The federal government has enough trouble managing wars, and taxes, and they should stay completely out the public schools. Imagine if every school was the same like a McDonald's?

[any mouse]

12:33 AM on 04/30/2011

Given that most humans in the US are now competing with humans from other, better educated countries, the states show have no say in the matter.

This is a matter of NATIONAL priority and too many states are living in the 1800s.

[jenny9840]

09:08 AM on 04/30/2011

Every state has their own standards so currently their is no consistency among states. States that are more focused on looking good according to NCLB dumb down standards. We are in a global economy, every child in the US deserves the best education and common core grew out of that not being the focus and adults looking good being the focus.
Common Core is more rigorous than a vast majority of current state standards.

[SupportPublicEd]

03:04 PM on 05/02/2011

When common core standards are written in science, what will Kansas do about evolution? What will Texas do about the history they recently attempted to rewrite? I am curious to see how that plays out and I hope they are not written to avoid such conflicts. Consistency is good, as long as the standards have merit.

[SupportPublicEd]

02:34 PM on 04/29/2011

What states have any money left to implement these standards? Teacher training, new texts and resources, development of new benchmarks etc. all take time and money. School years are being shortened and pay is being slashed. How will this transition be funded?

[any mouse]

12:36 AM on 04/30/2011

It will not.

It is a pipe dream because Americans are unwilling to pay the taxes required to have a quality education system.

Just look at how so many states are dismantling their school systems today, forcing thousands of teacher out of teaching, replacing them with inexperienced, ineffective new hires if they replace them at all.

[ejmerwin]

01:57 PM on 04/29/2011

By the time students are seniors, their reading across the curriculum should be 30% literary and 70% informational/persuasive. That doesn't meant that English classes are being asked to de-emphasize literary reading; it means that other content areas need to incorporate challenging informational/persuasive texts into instruction. Teachers in history/social studies, science, and technical studies are also accountable for addressing selected literacy standards. See http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/introduction/key-design-considerations/. I've encountered widespread misunderstanding regarding what the percentages mean, but the Key Design Considerations document does clarify. The footnote on that page says, "The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational." I think people avoid that doc and dive straight into standards that pertain specifically to them, missing an important point.

[SupportPublicEd]

02:38 PM on 04/29/2011

anything that gives precise percentages is misleading and or undesirable because it implies that these amounts can and will be measured. Why not just say that by senior year a majority of reading should be informational. Let the individual schools determine what actual percentage is best suited for their population's needs.

[ejmerwin]

03:23 PM on 04/29/2011

I agree that accurately gauging percentages would be a nightmare. The point worth making is that the distribution of informational vs.literary reading applies across the curriculum and not to English classes in isolation from the rest. Truly, in the state where I teach, the guidance was inaccurately understood at the state level; and this article suggests that the same is the case in more than one state. English teachers were led to believe that they had to throw out a significant portion of the literature they have been teaching and to replace literary texts with informational reading in English classes. That's not accurate. I'm not speaking on behalf of the folks who put together the Core Standards. I'm just speaking as an English teacher who is charged with interpreting and applying those standards. I do teach informational reading alongside literary reading, but the proportion is nowhere near 70/30, nor should it be.

[any mouse]

12:38 AM on 04/30/2011

What gets measured is what gets done.

That is part of the problem with US schools, there are no standards because if we try to set some , too many people get embarrassed at how poorly we do.

[f0rTyLeGz]

06:32 PM on 04/29/2011

I'm sorry that teachers have to put up with such control freaks that administer funds to our schools. I read through the link you posted ( http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/introduction/key-design-considerations/ ) and I find it depressing. Schools should be local, and funded by state taxes. The feds should have NOTHING to do with public schools.

[any mouse]

12:44 AM on 04/30/2011

Schools are a NATIONAL resource, not a local resource.

The days when the school was teaching the local farmer's kids a little math and reading before they worked on the farm the rest of their lives, are LONG GONE. Today every student is competing with 25 other humans on this earth.

What are you worried about? Are you afraid to discover that your schools are terrible and your kids are not competitive? Are you afraid you might have to pay higher taxes?

WAKE UP! Either we educate our kids to world standards or they will be starving to death with no jobs.

[leftbehind2000]

12:19 PM on 04/29/2011

We are squeezing out a nation of widgets. One day, we'll proudly be able to state that every one of them fits neatly into the round hole.

[mlaiuppa]

09:33 PM on 04/28/2011

I've been hearing that the California state standards are more rigorous.

[SupportPublicEd]

02:54 PM on 04/29/2011

Looking over the common core Algebra standards, I would say that California's expect students to be able to do more advanced operations (quadratics for example) in Algebra I, yet I would call this aspect of the California standards "more problematic" and not "more rigorous". Students need a very strong foundation in algebra, not to be beat over the head with it by racing through voluminous and age inappropriate content (CA students take Algebra in 8th grade, and some concepts are better addressed later on). I am a science teacher though, so any CA math teachers might have a different perspective.

[mlaiuppa]

04:31 AM on 04/30/2011

If you read through the math standards for sixth grade they're already starting algebra. It's pre-algebra but they don't say it.

I agree with the age appropriate comment. For California it holds true for all disciplines. It's, shall we say, ambitious. And there is way too much. As we like to say, miles wide and an inch deep.

We would have done better to limit the standards to allow for more depth.

I'm hoping the common core standards would address some of that.

[Sean Taylor Teacher]

09:22 PM on 04/28/2011

I love the Idea! We need to get all grades, schools, districts, parents, students, and politicians on the same page. The US population is very mobile and standards can range from college preparatory to self discovery daycare. We need to raise the standards to the highest level possible, anything less is not fair to our students. Kids need to have a solid foundation in the core subjects in primary and expand into 21st Century skills as intermediate students. We need to scrap some of the curriculum that has watered down learning at the primary level and focus on reading, math and written communication.
Sean Taylor M.Ed
http://reading-sage.blogspot.com

[giono]

08:32 PM on 04/28/2011

Maybe....assuming that they are implemented and used in the classroom. just because a state adopts standards does not mean that classrooms see instruction based on those standards.

[tultican]

05:37 PM on 04/28/2011

Standards in education have surprisingly resulted in a poorer product. Standards do create a space in which curriculum experts can give guidance to local and state leaders about what is appropriate for a subject like algebra. Unfortunately, people who do not understand education misuse standards as a way to supervise teachers and insure that students are achieving. The moment high stakes testing started creativity and joy in education was ended. The big driver in American education has become “teach to the test or else!” Curriculum is strangled and learning is onerous. Tedium with a whip spiced by testing hell is what faces our students. Common core standards will be misused the way the state standards are now. Ever since the Reagan administration published “A Nation at Risk” and the attack on public education in America began in earnest, the public school system has been damaged by “reform.” It is no longer the best system in the world and in 1983 it was. Corporate management models are not suited for providing good pedagogy and do not inspire students.

[Righteous Fury]

08:18 PM on 04/28/2011

Excellent job! A+ 100/100

[William50]

05:02 PM on 04/28/2011

There are very good examples of education in this country. Most of the political leadership send their kids to this type of school. The very rich and even many who want their children to succeed send the kids to these schools. The work, educate and are always over full. But the federal government hates programs that work or do not meet the new views on education.

[McCauley]

04:55 PM on 04/28/2011

Long, long overdue.

[Righteous Fury]

08:19 PM on 04/28/2011

The library books you still haven't read?

[f0rTyLeGz]

04:27 PM on 04/28/2011

I think that students should compete. And when a student can't keep up they fail, and don't get to come to school anymore. If you fail two years in elementary school... that's it. You have a problem and it isn't the State's problem or the Federal government's problem. Then after the 8th grade there is a big exam. Fail it and you don't go to high school. All State school students wear uniforms. There is no breakfast served at school, and there are no free lunches.

There should be no Federal money in State schools. Principals should be in charge of their schools, and have wide control over teacher, their salaries, and who is hired and fired, and EXPELLED.

I also have big doubts about sports in schools. What is the good that comes out of the football, basketball, baseball madness? Why should tax dollars go into the creation of a class of individuals that are good playing with balls of different shapes?

[leftbehind2000]

12:21 PM on 04/29/2011

To tag onto your last paragraph, why should scholarships to alleged "institutions of higher learning" be granted to those who have no interest in attending class? All this, while those who actually seek classroom knowledge must pay for it. For years. And years. And years.

[f0rTyLeGz]

04:01 PM on 04/28/2011

I always vote Democrat, but I believe the Feds should be OUT of primary education. I believe it should be up to the States. Let the states compete... that is how our government is supposed to work.

[Righteous Fury]

08:21 PM on 04/28/2011

Yeah! I'm sure Mississippi was going to let little black kids go to school with little white kids if we just gave them a chance!

States Rights!

[f0rTyLeGz]

08:28 PM on 04/28/2011

Segregation is against the law.

My point is that No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top are a waste of taxpayer's money. And the Federal government shouldn't be financing public schools. That should be the State's job.

[flossophy]

03:27 PM on 04/28/2011

Getting r!d of the government monopoly on education will make students college ready.

[Righteous Fury]

08:14 PM on 04/28/2011

No local or state government has a monopoly on education. Maybe in your country that's the case but not here in the US.

[flossophy]

03:48 AM on 04/30/2011

Poor and middle class kids are forced into the failing public school in their district. 

These families have no choice on where to send their kids to school. 

This is considered a monopoly.

[any mouse]

12:47 AM on 04/30/2011

Actually the best educated student throughout the world are in ... wait for it ... PUBLIC school systems that are controlled by the national government. Private schools being better is a myth.

[flossophy]

03:49 AM on 04/30/2011

Private schools being able to deliver the same or higher quality education at half the cost is a fact. 

Btw, nationalized / socialized government-run schools are too OrweIIian for a free society. 

It's just too weird... and economically unsustainable.

[danny crabtree]

03:07 PM on 04/28/2011

Who cares..with million graduating every year and going to wok as waitresses or bar tenders or worse ..what makes the difference..todays sheepskin is practically worthless.