Who invented common core standards

In March, Indiana, one of the first states to adopt the Common Core, became the first to back out. In June, South Carolina and Oklahoma followed, and other states are considering at least slowing implementation. In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal, formerly a strong Core proponent, has done a complete flip and is now battling his state's education superintendent in efforts to scuttle the new standards.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently asked the state legislature to drop the standards. Proponents — once elated at how fast the standards were adopted — suddenly find themselves scrambling to stem a mutiny. They are asking skeptics to simply give the standards a chance, insisting that their emphasis on reasoning and critical thinking will better prepare students for college and the workforce. Importantly, they worry that suddenly dropping or stalling the Common Core after four years of preparation, without offering a reasonable substitute, will seriously derail teachers and kids.

As former Secretary of Education for Massachusetts, Professor Paul Reville was instrumental in the Commonwealth's adoption of the Common Core, and he remains a stalwart supporter. The central concept, he says, is that the nation's 40 million K—12 students should be offered the same high-standard education no matter where they go to school; a child in Mississippi, say, should finish each grade with the same general proficiencies as one in Maine — and ready to compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

This notion was extremely attractive to most of the nation's governors, who worried that curricula developed independently in the nation's 14, school districts varied so dramatically that some children were significantl y disadvantaged simply by geographical accident.

Amity Conkright, Ed. She, too, is an unabashed proponent. I think they've upped the game. Educators, business leaders, and politicians had applauded — at least in theory — the Core's focus on reasoning, analysis, and problemsolving. In contrast to rote memorization, this approach is designed to prepare students for the critical thinking skills that modern employers seek.

But once implementation began, teachers and parents were surprised by some changes the Core required, including less emphasis on literature: half of grade-school reading assignments must be nonfiction, and by 12th grade, that rises to 70 percent. Still, it's the math component that has drawn the most criticism.

In order to help students develop problemsolving skills useful in many areas of life, the Core's focus on "conceptual" math requires students to understand the reasoning behind the correct answers to math problems. It's a major shift, and many parents are finding it near impossible to help their children do their homework. And it's a major modification for teachers, too. That's a really big shift.

What proponents didn't fully predict — perhaps because the standards sailed through with such widespread support — was the rise of so many different pockets of resistance uniting into a nationwide movement to kill the Core. The discussion has become far messier because debate over the Core has become enmeshed — even conflated — with growing opposition to high-stakes testing.

It's been 13 years since a culture of consequential student testing was launched in the George W. Bush administration as part of the No Child Left Behind initiative. Once the new tests connected to the Core kicked in, the opposition attracted many new adherents and the battle got a lot fiercer. Already, some states that committed to these tests have backed out, in some cases because the cost of these tests is significantly higher than before; some are creating their own assessments.

From New York to Florida, organized "opt-out" groups are springing up to fight the testing culture with rallies and other protests, and an estimated 35, kids in New York refused to take the Common Core assessments this year.

Professor Daniel Koretz points out that there was a movement in New York City by parents to opt out of standardized testing even before the Common Core. But, he adds, "The Common Core gives it more impetus because it's a harder test, which makes people more upset. The Core presents a chance that various groups, including people with legitimate concerns about high-stakes testing, don't want to miss, some believe. Senator Lamar Alexander R-Tenn. But for Core proponents, the timing couldn't be worse: Just as states began implementing the new standards, 40 states receiving No Child waivers are also launching new systems to evaluate teachers, which will incorporate some measures of student achievement, including, where available, scores from standardized tests.

Now that Obamacare has become more successful than critics predicted, "Obamacore" is their next target, he says, "fueled by right-wing talk show hosts feeding listeners a steady stream of misinformation. The super-right wing criticism isn't terribly valid, in Reville's opinion, because "it comes from a political place: 'Since the Obama administration promoted it, we will be opposed automatically.

But teasing out the various interests — and what they really represent — isn't easy. That's why the Common Core debate "makes the most sense to people who've studied the Cold War because it's really a proxy fight," says Rick Hess, Ed.

On the left, it serves as a proxy fight over standardized testing being tied to teacher evaluations. It starts with some sort of foundation and everything builds on that foundation. I am a grandmother now. My six-year-old granddaughter, in first grade, is already learning her multiplication tables, can add and subtract, and is reading like a champ. We as a family are education-oriented, teaching our children and grandchildren at home, in the car, on road trips, at restaurants, etc.

Teaching at home is how many young ones excel, but good curriculum and a teacher able to vary explanations and methods are godsends. I believe in the basics. Design curriculums to relate to what people USE in their lives. Was natural stages in human development considered at all in the development of Common Core standards. The standards were vetted by many teachers during their process of creation. Bob, you may have missed this sentence in the article, but it appears they all have teaching experience.

It is important to remember that there was also a large number of educational professionals who consulted on this project. It appears that fear of hard work and political partisanship are driving the calls for repeal of the Common Core. That is a sad state of affairs.

Business leaders, post-secondary educators and our military leaders keep telling us they are not getting the caliber of applicant that they need to do the job, complete the class and achieve the mission. We need to improve to stay competitive or we need to become satisfied with being mediocre in all aspects of the global and US society. Stop listening to pundits and start doing some research. If everything the politicians and talking heads are saying is true, we will be able to find it and prove it.

In this case, they are dead wrong and we need to be smart enough to stop letting them speak on our behalf! What ever you do,change the text books,train the teachers,nothing can change age factor. Students as young as 15,have no life experience they study in schools,will need some time age to fully understand those concepts.

Let me get this right. All were involved at some level to make money eventually. What could go wrong? Now this guy is surprised that his child is having difficulty with the crap. Someone tell these clueless idiots.

Crying about being one of the few students who had to work does not make you poor like the millions of students attending public K schools. Having a few teachers on as advisors does not constitute teacher-driven. These three guys went into this as a business venture, and have made money doing so.

Businesses only exist to make money, and if they fail later on after pocketing millions, they close shop and take their profits with them. Educators are in it for the long-haul, we cannot just dump unprepared 5-year old kids on the street and take our profits elsewhere. As a math teacher, I see huge potential with the Common Core math progressions. Who I am, though, is not important. Phil Daro, a former high school algebra teacher… William McCallum, head of the math department at the University of Arizona.

Through my journey into alternatives to public neighborhood school mediocrity, I have seen and experienced very VERY different educational settings, curricula, and teaching methods. Honestly, I appreciate the new standards.

They are achievable. From my own boots on the ground and in the trenches observations, however, determining that curriculum is the problem is a very simplistic conclusion. As a home school parent and tutor, I have seen children flourish with parent care and involvement.

We need to stop blaming the schools and the teachers and take a GOOD, hard, honest look at the working conditions, class sizes, and accountability of children and families who are entering into our schools.

My take away from equal time spent as a public educator and as a private, home educator includes the fact that our schools are both free and compulsory, and those two descriptors breed entitlement, blame, and mediocrity.

Why would we follow anyone anywhere about math or anything else? He confesses he knows nothing and then whines because we all hate his product. I can tell you and him — child development, cognition, and brain development were not considered. Something as simple as — conservation at the elementary level were not considered in the development of any common core standard — math included.

I should frame this piece of work. As an example of the stupidity that reigns over public education. I admit to feeling for Mr. Zimba as it would seem his efforts were genuine and outside of the current for-profit corporate playbook. That said, the biggest blunder of the CCSS was the intentional dis-invitation of our public school teachers to the process. As mentioned, you may come across a few classroom teachers here and there that are gushing over the new standards, but the clear majority of teachers in this country view them negatively and are resentful of how they came to be, without their input.

Top down management and mandates are a very poor formula success in the teaching profession, let alone most others. CCSS has many other challenges to face, but this mistake may be the final nail in its coffin.

The Hechinger Report is an independent news organization. The stories you read here are produced by our team of experienced journalists, who take our watchdog role very seriously. We ask tough questions and challenge the status quo in education, and we prize our independence. Our funders know that any attempt to influence our stories would jeopardize the work we do and lead us to seek support elsewhere.

We welcome questions from the public about how we do our work, and strive to be transparent to our audience.

Our current journalism examining the Common Core, one of the most important stories in American education at the moment, is funded in part by the Helmsley Foundation. Jason Zimba sounds well-intentioned but naive. The common core standards seem to be based on the discipline and logic of math without any awareness of years of research into how young children learn and how they develop.

The most striking example is the way common core math in K-4 starts with abstract concepts before using concrete experiences or even actual numbers. From Piaget to more current cognitive psychologists, we find out that concepts and abstractions need to be based on something.

Experienced teachers also know that children often learn by rote and later learn the concepts that underly rote routines. They play with nesting pots and pans before they can verbalize that ten is twice as much as five. Likewise, they learn the alphabet before they learn the letter-to sound correspondences of reading and writing. In other words, the authors of the common core standards ignored years of research and experience that would have illuminated how children learn.

Following the discipline and logic of a subject is not always the appropriate way to teach it. Common core math is arduous and oppressive because after children have solved a problem, they are expected to explain the process at an abstract level beyond their developmental abilities. They are not given the opportunity to experience the joy and symmetry of manipulating quantities before they have to explain the process logically.

As a former newspaper journalist who saw the writing on the wall , and now a 4th-grade teacher, I have been appalled at the lack of reporting in depth — until this story that came to me via SmartBrief — on how the standards were developed, the origins. And I read a lot trying to figure it out. Is it perfect, no. Are my students understanding mathematics more deeply, yes. Zimba recommend? I am sorry. This story is made up. I have 4 children currently trying to deal with Common Core.

I live in Florida. The children in these programs would have all advanced programs starting in Kindergarten. When Common Core went into effect, they stopped the advanced programs, specifically math, reading and science. The way the program was set up was that by the time the child finished middle school, they would be starting their math in 9th grade with Geometry and you would be in your second year of high school english and science.

Now your student will be starting high school with Algebra. All the advanced students are having trouble with common core due to the fact that it is too basic for them.

So tell me, how is common core suppose to bring up the standards of learning, when it is holding our children back from learning? McCallum said CC standards are not very high, especially when compared to high achieving countries. Daro said the reason we have standards is because of Social Justice. CC math standards feed into the reform math ideology which has been going on for the past 2 decades.

Not a surprise that they are being intepreted the way they are. Also, Phil Daro has been a big part of this movement, as has Doug Clements, also part of the CC effort but not mentioned in the article. Sybilla Beckmann, another writer of the math standards is a U of GA math professor, also supportive of the math reform movement. The alternative interpretations are not obvious at all. I believe the common core is a step in the right direction.

Our politicians, school leaders, teachers, and parents realized there was a need for change. Though it does allow for professional autonomy within disciplines teachers are lacking proper resources to collaborate and develop effective curriculum. The anxiety and discontent which politicians and the media share regarding the Common Core are a direct result of the mandated standardized tests PARCC which will take up valuable hours of classroom instruction time.

It is also true that education is an EASY target for power hungry politicians and media outlets who want attention and ratings. Many teachers, the people responsible for implementing Common Core and educating students feel unprepared in preparing their students for the standardized tests due to a number of factors like lack of educational resources, professional development, and many other issues. Students are not products and teachers cannot choose the ingredients and materials they receive in the beginning of the school year.

Under the current guidelines, teachers have months to prepare their students for a test which will impact the livelihoods of both teachers and students. In conclusion, the common core guidelines are a step in the right direction. However, in order to see results it will take time, collaboration, professional development, resources, and patience.

Zimba: Well, for, for the colleges most kids go to, but not that most parents probably aspire, right…. Not said in the article is that many districts Santa Monica, CA for example are jettisoning all advanced-track math.

Common Core says algebra is for 9th grade and calculus is for college, so schools are shutting down the calculus track. I teach common core math and English at the middle school level in New York. I am a special education teacher. I will be supporting the classroom teacher in my classroom. Many of my students are reading at a 4th grade reading level at best… Good book — but way over their heads — SMH.

Math is actually a little more manageable and to my surprise the students with disabilities are doing okay — except on the state tests — those three April Days where it all is calculated — not the real world!

I teach in a small rural school district and am responsible for math grades These students are grade levels below and can not possible be successful even with support. The standards are watered down for them, they have modifications and support through out their assessments. The federal government didn't write the standards, but it has promoted them. States weren't explicitly required to adopt the Common Core in order to compete for the federal money; they could have used their own standards if they proved to the Education Department that those standards prepared students for college.

Nearly all of them adopted Common Core instead, and all of the states who eventually won the grants were Common Core states. Another grant program was created to help develop tests based on Common Core standards.

The federal government has other levers to promote Common Core, too. It waives some requirements of No Child Left Behind, the education reform law, for states that among other things adopt "college and career-ready standards" and assessments based on those standards. But Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota got waivers from the law without adopting the Common Core by proving that that their standards could prepare kids for college and careers. Opponents of the Common Core are a pretty varied group, as are supporters.

Chamber of Commerce, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush among them and others who oppose it, particularly from the Tea Party.

The Democratic party is also divided, as it often is on education reform issues: The Obama administration supports the Common Core, while teachers' unions have concerns about how it's being implemented and some on the left are opposed to continuing to emphasize standardized tests at all. After George W. Bush expanded the federal role in education through No Child Left Behind, a growing sector of the Republican Party has returned to viewing education as a local and state responsibility.

They believe local authorities are best at determining what's appropriate for children to learn in that state or community. As a result, they distrust the idea of quasi-national standards promoted by the federal government. Some Republican governors who initially supported the Common Core have tried to walk a fine line as controversy has erupted, saying they support the standards but oppose the federal government's involvement. Others, including presumed candidates in , have denounced it as a federal takeover: Sens.

There are also Common Core opponents on the left, who worry about student privacy, the growth of standardized testing, and how the standards are being implemented. Some liberals are suspicious of the education reform movement, which encourages the growth of charter schools and minimizes the role of teachers' unions. They also don't like that Common Core continues to emphasize standardized testing.

Because students are likely to perform poorly on early Common Core tests, they say that those results will be used to argue that American public schools are failing and charter schools or vouchers are the solution.

Diane Ravitch, a former Bush administration official who later turned away from the education reform movement, is one of the most prominent opponents from this line of thinking. She says she supports voluntary national standards in theory, but argues the Common Core standards are untested.

She also opposes raising standards so high that students cannot meet them. Standards are about what students should know or know how to do; curriculum is about how they're taught to know or do those things. For example, the Common Core standards require second-graders to be able to contrast two versions of the same story.

But teachers are free to pick what lesson plans are used to teach that skill, and states still pick what books are assigned for children to read. Federal law prohibits the Education Department from interfering in curriculum, which is determined at the state and local level. However, the Common Core standards are very detailed.

The second-grade standard on comparing stories includes an example, although schools aren't required to use it: How the Cinderella tale differs across cultures. Some critics say that this level of detail starts the United States down a slippery slope to a single, national curriculum. Most states that have adopted Common Core standards have also joined one of two groups, called consortia, that are creating new standardized tests.

Every state in each consortium will use the tests that consortium creates. The tests will measure how well students are doing at meeting Common Core standards in reading and math, which is meant to measure whether they'll be ready for college and careers by the end of high school.

States will continue to administer the tests at the end of the year, just as they do now. The federal government gave grants to two consortia to develop Common Core assessments. Both are nonprofit groups. As pushback to the the Common Core increases, states are rolling back their commitment to the standard by saying they'll write their own tests rather than use the tests the two consortia create.

It's a way to pull back without getting rid of the standards themselves. Some Common Core supporters are worried about that, because if states are writing their own tests, it's easy for them to define proficiency however they want — which would undercut the benefit of common standards. Not all that well. So far, only two states, New York and Kentucky, have given their students tests on how well they're meeting Common Core standards. They're still using their own tests, not the tests that the two consortia of states are developing.

Those tests just started field testing in spring and won't be in action until the school year. Scores dropped off a cliff in both states. In New York , fewer than one-third of all public school students passed state assessments once they were aligned to the Common Core. Before the new standards, more than half of all students passed the tests. Kentucky also saw a big drop. When the state first used Common Core assessments, the percentage of students passing dropped by more than one-third.

Scores went from hovering around 70 to 80 percent to less than 50 percent. Supporters say the new standards are supposed to be hard. The low scores are a feature, not a bug. But unions are worried about the consequences for teachers if their students don't do well on the new tests, and are saying states should slow down on putting that part of the Common Core in action.

In all, 43 states currently have Common Core standards. The process for signing on has varied based on state law, but in most states, the state board of education had to vote in favor of the new standards. In other states, the state Education Department was able to make the decision on its own. Source: CoreStandards. Indiana wrote its own standards to replace the Common Core and adopted them March 24 after a tide of grassroots opposition.