Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program
High Expectations

The State of State Standards Post-Common Core

David Griffith, Ph.D. Victoria McDougald Solomon Friedberg Diane Barone Juliana Belding Andrew Chen Linda Dixon Francis Fennell Douglas Fisher Nancy Frey Roger Howe Tim Shanahan
Foreword by:
Amber M. Northern, Ph.D.
Michael J. Petrilli
8.22.2018
8.22.2018

Eight years ago, we compared states’ English language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards to what were then the newly-minted Common Core State Standards. That report found that the Common Core was clearer and more rigorous than the ELA standards in thirty-seven states and stronger than the math standards in thirty-nine states.

While many states have, to varying degrees, revised their standards since 2010, the questions that should concern policymakers and the public haven’t changed: Are states’ ELA and math standards of sufficient quality and rigor to drive effective instruction? And if not, how might they be improved?

Unlike our previous reports, The State of State Standards Post-Common Core does not formally review standards in all fifty states. Instead, it focuses on those that have made the most substantive changes to the Common Core, or that never adopted them in the first place. By taking a close look at these states, plus a fresh look at the Core, we identify ideas that are worthy of broader adoption, as well as major mistakes that states should avoid.

The standards reviews that are the basis for the final report were conducted by two teams of highly-respected subject-matter experts—one for ELA and one for math—with deep knowledge of the content standards in their respective fields. Below is a summary of the results of those reviews:

No set of ELA standards received a perfect score, though the Common Core earned a 9 out of 10 (see Table 1), reflecting the consensus among reviewers that they are a “strong” set of standards that states can and should continue to implement.

  • Our reviewers also rated seven states’ ELA standards “good,” and worthy of implementation with “targeted” revisions: Indiana, Kansas, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
  • In contrast, five states were deemed to have “weak” standards—Arizona, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—that should be significantly revised before schools devote more effort to their implementation.
  • Finally, two states, Missouri and Virginia, have “inadequate” ELA standards that should be completely overhauled.

As with ELA, no set of math standards received a perfect score. However, both the Common Core and Texas’s standards earned a 9 out of 10, reflecting (again) the consensus among reviewers that they are “strong” and worthy of implementation.

  • Another three states—Indiana, Tennessee, and Virginia—have math standards that were rated “good,” and worth implementing with “targeted” revisions.
  • In contrast, five states’ math standards were deemed “weak,” meaning they should not be implemented without “significant” revisions: Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.  
  • Finally, one state, Pennsylvania, has “inadequate” math standards that need to be completely re-written.

Specific recommendations for all of these states, as well as broader guidance for the majority of states that have kept the Common Core and a detailed discussion of recent trends in ELA and math standards, can be found in the report. Read it now.

Table 1. State Standards Summary

ELA Overall Rating Math Overall Rating
Common Core ELA Strong Common Core Math Strong
Indiana Good Texas Strong
Kansas Good Indiana Good
New York Good Tennessee Good
North Carolina Good Virginia Good
Oklahoma Good Minnesota Weak
Pennsylvania Good North Carolina Weak
West Virginia Good Missouri Weak
Arizona Weak Nebraska Weak
South Carolina Weak Oklahoma Weak
Texas Weak Pennsylvania Inadequate
Nebraska Weak    
Tennessee Weak    
Missouri Inadequate    
Virginia Inadequate    

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Standards
Tags: Arizona Common Core English studies Indiana Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska New York North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas West Virginia
+11 More Show Less
DOWNLOAD PDF

David Griffith is the National Research Director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he manages or authors reports on various subjects including charter schools, …

View Full Bio

Victoria McDougald is the chief of staff at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where she manages external partnerships, leads strategic initiatives and projects, and oversees Fordham’s outreach and messaging to outside audiences, including policymakers, educators, the media, and others in the education-policy world. She previously served as Research Manager on Fordham's research team, where she helped develop and conduct…

View Full Bio
Solomon Friedberg
Diane Barone
Juliana Belding
Andrew Chen
Linda Dixon
Francis Fennell
Douglas Fisher
Nancy Frey
Roger Howe
Tim Shanahan

Report Materials

Foreword & Executive Summary

9.19.2018

Related Resources

view

Solid math standards: Necessary...but not sufficient

Solomon Friedberg 8.22.2018
NationalFlypaper
view
High Expectations

The State of State Standards—and the Common Core—in 2010

Sheila Byrd Carmichael, W. Stephen Wilson, Kathleen Porter-Magee, Gabrielle Martino 7.21.2010
NationalReport
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]