I had the soggy pleasure yesterday of trudging, in the pouring rain, over to 101 Constitution Ave. for the latest update on the Common Core Standards Initiative from NGA and CCSSO. Apparently attendees didn't mind getting wet because it was a packed house. I weaseled my way into the back just in time to hear Dane Linn and Gene Wilhoit go through their PowerPoint slides. Here's the lowdown (some new news, mostly not):
- The K-12 back-mapped standards in reading and in math will be released for public comment on January 4th.
- "Early" February is still the timeline for the final draft of both the end-of-high-school standards and the back-mapped ones in both subjects.
- The Validation Committee is planning on issuing a report (not sure when) detailing the degree to which the standards are evidence-based, as well as the areas they can't decide or agree are evidence based (promises to be a fun read).
- Wilhoit gave a long-awaited definition for what it means to "adopt" the standards. Necks craned to read it; it is:???100% of the common core K-12 standards in ELA and mathematics to be adopted within 3 years;
???States adopt the common core in its entirety or in its entirety with up to an additional 15% of content added (the "85% rule");
???A state will have adopted the common core when the standards authorizing body within the state has taken formal action to adopt and implement the Common Core.
???The state is responsible for demonstrating that they have adhered to this definition of adoption.
- Regarding that first bullet, does that mean that states have three years to adopt? Or that they can adopt pieces of it gradually for three years?? And regarding that last bullet, it does not appear that NGA, CCSSO, or anyone else will be checking up on states' "adoption adherence." That's to be expected-NGA and the other partners can't be expected to both develop and monitor this effort-and we certainly don't want the feds getting their fingers in this pie. (All the more reason , btw, that we need to start discussing what the long-term structural and??governance arrangements for common standards and tests should look like. Stay tuned.)
- NAGB has apparently expressed interest in maintaining its "auditing" role. Wilhoit said they've commissioned a couple of studies to examine the overlap/divergence between what NAEP is measuring and what the Common Core will measure. Sounds like a good idea and would love to know more, especially since Wilhoit's quick explanation left much unanswered.
In the end, one of the big takeaways for me is that people are running forward really quickly to catch this train. The AFT, NEA, NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education), and the Higher Education community each got about one minute to give the Common Core Standards Initiative their blessing and highlight their "contribution." The AFT and Council of Great City Schools are planning on working with 10 districts who are "ready to move with implementation to find out what they need to have to make it work."( My guess? More money.) NASBE is planning four regional "adoption sessions" to prime their members for what standards adoption means to them. The big topic of NGA's winter conference is adoption of the Common Core. And the Higher Education Presidents (forgot which organization that one was but not this one) are meeting to discuss how they might "use the Common Core to gain traction to change teacher education programs across a number of institutions at scale." Tall order there.
Yep, everyone seems to be a movin' and a shakin.' Fordham's no different. Buckle up and enjoy the ride because, if we stay on track, we may just do our nation's children a great service.
-Amber Winkler
