INTRODUCTION
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (also known by its other name, the “Common Core”) is a comprehensive list of things that students should know in language arts and mathematics only—the Common Core does not deal with science, languages, physical education, and so on (Mathis, 2010). The “Common Core” is the curriculum that an educational assembly in the United States has decided is appropriate for students of each grade level across the United States (Bomer & Maloch, 2011). The Common Core has been incredibly controversial since its inception, but has been introduced in a number of states in grades K-12. The Common Core is designed to:
Act as a single curriculum structure for teachers across the USA
Provide more structure for schools and instructors
Make it easier for students to be ready for college or university
Provide an easier metric for the government to determine what schools are struggling (Bomer & Maloch, 2011)
Because the Common Core is very controversial, teachers have spoken out both for and against the introduction of the standards into the mainstream curriculum (Au, 2011; Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2011). Mathematics teachers have been particularly split regarding the adoption of the Common Core policies (Au, 2011; Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2011).
The Common Core standards have recently been adopted in forty-four of the fifty states (Schutz, n.d.). The states that have not adopted the Common Core standards on a state level have almost all adopted at least part of the standards into their curriculum; the states that have adopted them in whole have done serious reshuffling of their educational systems since they introduced these standards into practice (Au, 2011; Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2011).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The nature of the new Common Core standards:
The Common Core standards can be split into two separate areas: first, there are new mathematics standards, and second, there are new language arts standards that are necessary for the school to meet. The new mathematic standards have eight principles that are important for the students to understand: first, the new standards are meant to teach students perseverance when they are faced with difficult problems that they have to solve (Kendall, 2011). Next, students are encouraged to learn to reason in both an abstract manner and a quantitative manner; they are also expected to be able to read a problem and understand the abstract reasoning that the problem is encouraging (Philips & Wong, 2011). The new mathematics standards expect students to be able to craft arguments using mathematical concepts; the students must also be able to critique arguments made by other students or individuals (Philips & Wong, 2011). Students are expected to be precise, able to model real-world concepts mathematically, and use appropriate tools for mathematical modeling (Philips & Wong, 2011). Finally, students should be able to see patterns in reasoning, and be able to extend that reasoning to other, similar problems (Philips & Wong, 2011).
Precise communication is one of the fundamental tenets of the new Common Core standards in mathematics (Philips & Wong, 2011). These standards assume that students should be able to communicate their ideas clearly and with mathematical language to other individuals—this is different from prior standards, because it does not necessarily assume that the student should use mathematical notation all the time when attempting to convey precise mathematical ideas (Marzano et al., n.d.). This is a departure from the traditional teaching of mathematics, which teaches extensively in mathematical notation and very separate from the real-world examples that are commonly used in the Common Core (Kendall, 2011; Marzano et al., n.d.; Phillips & Wong, 2011; Porter et al., 2011; Tienken, 2009).
The changes that have taken place in the Language Arts curriculum are relatively less drastic than those that have occurred in the mathematics curriculum under the Common Core. The goal of the language arts requirements are also much looser in their definition: the Common Core wants to ensure that students are capable of performing at a grade-appropriate level in reading, writing, speaking and listening, and media and technology (Kendall, 2011; Marzano et al., n.d.; Phillips & Wong, 2011). Although the inclusion of media and technology is a departure from some traditional language arts curricula, the inclusion was made to ensure that children are more media and technology literate when they enter their tertiary education or the work force (Porter et al., 2011; Tienken, 2011; Rothman, 2011; Schutz, n.d.).
Interestingly, there is no reading list that is required for the Common Core language arts standards—the mathematics standards that are set forth for children are much more strict than the language arts standards (Tienken, 2011). Teachers are still free to choose their reading lists for their students under the language arts Common Core standards, although there are certain authors and books that are recommended by the curriculum and leaders in the educational field (Kendall, 2011). The important thing for students who are learning in the language arts Common Core curriculum is not necessarily the texts that they are reading, but whether they are learning to think about the texts in an age-appropriate, critical manner (Rothman, 2011).
Standardized testing in the Common Core
Because the Common Core is still a relatively new policy, there are a number of different assessments that must be done to determine its efficacy. Tieknen (2011) notes that there are many problems with the Common Core, most notably that the Common Core is completely untested in the school environment; the only way to test how well the curriculum is doing is by utilizing standardized testing. The states that are utilizing the Common Core standards have been split into two consortiums, the PARC RttT Consortium and the SBAC Consortium; these consortiums are each to be assessed independently, and the results will be reported in 2016 (Schutz, n.d.). Although standardized testing has been one of the primary ways that schools have been tested for their ability, some states have been pushing back against the use of standardized testing to test the Common Core, stating that this is contrary to the spirit of the new curriculum (Schutz, n.d.).
Interestingly, some states have decided that they need to conduct independent testing on the Common Core standards, refusing to take part in the federal assessment projects that have been in development (Schutz, n.d.). Tienken (2011) notes that if the Common Core is, indeed, meant to unite education and educators in the United States, then allowing each state to determine its own method for assessment is completely counterintuitive. However, each state does retain the right to withdraw from these consortiums and test their own students; because the standards are so new, it is difficult to determine what the outcome will be in 2016 after the first round of assessment testing (Schutz, n.d.; Elmore, 2004).
Efficacy of Common Core standards
Despite high hopes for the Common Core standards, there are certainly problems that have been established in the early years of implementation. Tienken (2011) questions the efficacy of these standards, stating that:
It is dangerously naïve and professionally irresponsible to think that one set of standards, based solely on two subjects, can prepare children to access the thousands of college options or even make them attractive to the admissions officers that control access to those options By mastery, I mean that all students can do this correctly on May 6, or whatever day the national test is administered. If a student cannot perform a specific standard to mastery on the one day of the national test, does that mean the student should not be admitted to colleges? Does it mean that the student will never be able to “master” that standard? [] Where is the evidence that being able to master such a standard predicts the student’s ability to be a productive member of society? (Tienken, 2011).
Despite early indications that the Common Core has improved some things in certain states—Kentucky has shown a notable improvement, for instance, as they had an increase in standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college entrances after the introduction of these standards—the road to improvement through these particular standards is very hard, and very long. Tienken (2011) makes an argument that standardized testing is a negative thing for students, and that it is ineffective—however, Kendall (2011), along with Bomer and Maloch (2011) note that the problem of standardized testing is small when compared to the problem of underachievement in schools (Kendall, 2011; Bomer & Maloch, 2011; Kendall, 2011; Schutz, n.d.).
The efficacy of the Common Core standards is under discussion, and there are many problems that are associated with these standards that have not yet been addressed by those designing the standards. However, there are some that claim they are effective, while others state that there is no clear evidence that they will be effective in the long run (Tienken, 2011; Tienken & Canton, 2009, Schutz, n.d.; Kendall, 2011; Bomer & Maloch, 2011; Kendall, 2011; Schutz, n.d.). New educational theories in math and science have been utilized in the design and function of these standards, and these theories are still mostly untested (Philips & Wong, 2011; Porter et al., 2011)
AIMS OR HYPOTHESES
The aims associated with this particular piece of research are straightforward: essentially, the researcher wants to examine the effect that the Common Core standards have had on a specific group of students. The students that have been chosen have been chosen because they experience high school curriculum in the previous curriculum and the Common Core; this gives the researcher a built-in control group for the investigation of the different impacts that the Common Core standards have had on a specific group of students. Most of the studies that will have been done on the Common Core focus on large groups of students or on large populations; instead of focusing on a large population, this study is focused on determining the effect that the adoption of the Common Core has had on only a few students over a period of time.
Aims:
Determine whether math or language arts common core curriculum has been more effective in the Grade 10 classroom;
Determine instructor and student response to new standards
Determine if there have been any coherent changes in standardized test scoring since implementation of Common Core
METHOD
Research Design
The first step to the research will be to determine, qualitatively, how students and instructors feel about the institutionalization of the Common Core standards. This will be done through a survey; the researcher will survey participants to determine their feelings towards the Common Core standards—both students and instructors, giving each set of participants a different study based on their role in the adoption of the standards. After the survey has been conducted, the researcher will gather information regarding the previous years’ state test scores for the current participants (before the implementation of Common Core). This provides the researcher with the baseline set of information that will be needed to conduct comparison results at the end of the process. Finally, after these results have been accumulated and tabulated, the researcher will get the results from the current year’s standardized testing, and use those results to compare test scores between the current year (after implementation of Common Core) and previous year in both math and language arts.
The researcher will also compare grade point averages between the year prior to the implementation of the Common Core standards and the year when the Common Core standards were implemented; this will give the researcher a better sense of how each individual student was affected by the change in curriculum. Most of the research will paint the changes in broad strokes, but the purpose of this research is to determine the effects that the Common Core has on students who are already established within the educational system, and who are used to understanding and learning in certain, specific manners—particularly considering the large changes in mathematics curriculum in the Common Core standards.
Sample
The sample should consist of 120 grade 10 students, assuming 20 students per class. These students will be chosen from students who had pre-Common Core curricula in ninth grade, and then experienced the switch to Common Core curricula in tenth grade. The sample should consist of 3 mathematics instructors and 3 language arts instructors, to ensure that there is enough information for the researcher..
Instruments
This study will require the use of surveys and interviews.
Procedure
The first step of the procedure will be to survey participants to obtain qualitative and quantitative information regarding feelings about math and language arts Common Core. Next, the researcher will obtain two sets of data: grade 9 state standardized test scores for participants, and the grade 10 state test score history for the school. After this is completed, the researcher will compare the current year’s standardized test scores in math and language arts (post-Common Core) to the previous years, as well as students’ past history. Finally, the researcher will determine if there is a statistical connection between Common Core and performance
Limitations
There are a number of potential limitations to this study. Primarily, there is a relatively small sample size for a study of this magnitude. Also, educational trends take a while to emerge, and the Common Core standards are still relatively new; there has not been time for trends to emerge yet.
REFERENCES
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21 st century curriculum. Journal Of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45. doi:10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2011). Relating Policy to Research and Practice: The Common Core Standards. Language Arts, 89(1).
Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.
Kendall, J. (2011). Understanding common core state standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Yanoski, D., Hoegh, J., Simms, J., Heflebower, T., & Warrick, P. Using common core standards to enhance classroom instruction & assessment.
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying Together the Common Core of Standards, Instruction, and Assessments. Phi Delta Kappa International, 91(5), 37-42.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116. doi:10.3102/0013189x11405038
Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.
Schutz, D. The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: An Analysis and an Alternative. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1965026
Tienken, C. (2011). Common Core Standards: The Emperor has No Clothes, or Evidence. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 58-62. doi:10.1080/00228958.2011.10516562
Tienken, C., & Canton, D. (2009). National Curriculum Standards: Let’s Think It Over. Journal Of Scholarship And Practice, 6(3).
Yong, Z. (2009). Comments on the Common Core Standards Initiative. Journal Of Scholarship And Practice, 6(3).
