In crafting a set of learning goals that nearly every state in the nation has embraced, the architects of the common-core standards effort sought to import from abroad key lessons about what top-performing countries teach their students.
To distill and articulate those goals, the common-core writers tried to balance the rigor, coherence, and focus they saw in the standards of high-achieving countries鈥攁nd U.S. states鈥攚ith the American tradition of respecting states鈥� and districts鈥� freedom to choose what they teach. All but four states have adopted the standards, taking the United States closer than ever before to having one shared set of academic expectations.
The , have their patrons and their detractors. Some see them as an admirably rigorous blueprint for the demands of work and college, while others argue that they ask too little, or too much, of students. Arguments persist about whether the standards鈥攁nd common tests being designed with federal funds鈥攚ill dictate curriculum and whether they reflect the right lessons from around the globe.
The organizations that propelled the Common Core State Standards Initiative, which represent governors and state schools chiefs, aimed to make the standards comparable to those of high-performing countries. Whether they succeeded is still being debated. But the common standards represent a major U.S. endeavor to learn from abroad.
鈥淭he common-core effort is a great example of leveraging lessons from other countries,鈥� says Andreas Schleicher, who oversees analysis of education indicators at the , the Paris-based group that administers the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, and analyzes its results. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about trying to understand what drives the success of other systems and adapting that to your own national context.鈥�
Blending Models
The lead standards writers examined other countries鈥� standards or curricula, as well as international comparisons done by researchers, the Washington-based policy group , and by the groups that administer such tests as PISA; the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, or PIRLS; and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS. They also drew on lessons from home, studying states with widely respected standards in one or both subjects, and research that reflects the skills and knowledge employers and higher education faculty find lacking in young people, from building solid arguments and working in teams to using math to solve real-world problems.
The math team started with an established knowledge base built by researchers such as Michigan State University鈥檚 William H. Schmidt, showing that American math standards covered more topics, in less depth, than did those of international high-performers such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea, and repeated topics year after year.
According to William G. McCallum, a University of Arizona math professor who co-led the writing of the math standards, the writers drew on math standards from those countries and others, including Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and New Zealand, and states such as California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.
Chief among their goals was to craft standards that concentrated deeply on a few key concepts at each grade level and progressed from grade to grade in a logical way that reflected how mathematical knowledge builds, McCallum says.
In elementary school, for instance, the standards in high-performing Asian countries emphasize measurement, geometry, and number and operations, de-emphasizing concepts that would distract from that focus, such as collecting data and using it to build charts and graphs, he says.
Instead of topic strands that include every topic at every grade level, the standards writers created domains that span a limited number of grades, such as fractions for grades 3 to 5.
鈥淭he message is that you鈥檙e done with this in grade 5, and you鈥檙e moving on to the next thing,鈥� McCallum says. 鈥淩ather than broad strands that go all the way through and sample everything, never quite bringing anything to completion, you focus on given things at given times.鈥�
The writers also sought to synthesize thinking, internationally and at home, about the habits of mind students must acquire to be proficient in math. The 鈥渕athematical practices鈥� section includes such skills as 鈥渁ttending to precision,鈥� applying math to everyday problems, and critiquing others鈥� math arguments.
A particularly thorny area of the standards was algebra, McCallum says. The writers found that countries took varied approaches to the timing of content typically associated with an Algebra 1 course, he says. They 鈥渉ad to look at what was ambitious but also possible,鈥� in consultation with states whose experts were collaborating on the standards, according to McCallum.
Although a few states, such as California, want all 8th graders to take Algebra 1, the writers decided to 鈥渟trike a balance,鈥� crafting guidelines that 鈥済et into serious algebra in 8th grade,鈥� without requiring classic Algebra 1 elements such as quadratic equations, he says.
That choice, among others, stoked an argument that the common standards don鈥檛 meet international or university-preparation levels.
鈥淚t鈥檚 absolutely a mistake not to require all of Algebra 1 [content] in 8th grade. They鈥檝e got very little of Algebra 2 in there,鈥� says R. James Milgram, a professor emeritus of math at Stanford University. He served on the , but refused to approve them, in part because in his judgment they did not meet their own stated criteria of being 鈥渃omparable to the expectations of other leading nations.鈥�
鈥淚n most high-performing countries, calculus is a high school graduation requirement,鈥� Milgram says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 almost a joke to think students [who master the common standards] would be ready for math at a university,鈥� much less an elite one such as Stanford, where calculus is 鈥渃onsidered remedial.鈥�
Seeking 鈥楾akeaways鈥�
In crafting the English/language arts standards, the writing team studied standards or curriculum from Finland, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario; and the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria, among others, alongside those of U.S. states such as California and Massachusetts.
Joanne Eresh, a Pittsburgh-based consultant, helped lead the international comparison work on the literacy standards. Along with colleagues in math, she had begun the comparison work several years earlier at Achieve, which works through its American Diploma Project to upgrade states鈥� academic standards. The comparisons expanded under the common-standards initiative when Achieve began playing a central role in that project.
In literacy, Eresh found that many higher-performing countries place a greater emphasis on listening and speaking skills and on students鈥� ability to build arguments from evidence. Those emphases dovetailed with U.S. surveys of employers and college faculty, who find students weak at skills such as making oral presentations and writing persuasive, well-founded essays, she says.
As a result, the common standards zero in on students鈥� ability to draw evidence from text and use it to mount arguments. They define sets of speaking and listening skills, such as 鈥減ropelling conversations by posing and responding to questions that probe reasoning and evidence.鈥�
Another lesson from abroad, Eresh says, was the level of demand in the books recommended in countries鈥� standards or required in their curricula.
鈥淭hey more often were books that are far less straightforward, with symbolism, or that juggle multiple plots, than what students read at a given grade level here,鈥� she says. A 鈥渟taircase鈥� of increasing text complexity was built into the common standards.
Some countries鈥攍ike some U.S. states鈥攃reate detailed lists of recommended readings. In countries that administer a national gateway exam that carries high stakes for students, such as England, where the 鈥淎-level鈥� exams influence college admission, 鈥渞ecommended鈥� readings can unofficially become 鈥渞equired鈥� readings if they are widely known to appear on the test, Eresh says.
鈥楨xemplar Texts鈥�
The common-standards writers built that illustrate the range and types of reading students should do to master the literacy skills in the standards, says Susan Pimentel, one of the team鈥檚 lead writers. Only four texts are required reading in the standards: the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln鈥檚 second inaugural address.
鈥淭he idea of putting together a required reading list for the nation is just a nonstarter,鈥� Pimentel says. 鈥淲e talked with the states to see how they felt about it. And they weren鈥檛 interested.鈥�
There is no nationally mandated exam in U.S. schools, but two groups of states are in the early stages of designing voluntary, shared assessments for the common standards. Once those are in use, in about three years, every state in each consortium鈥攎ore than 20 are currently in each鈥攚ould use the same assessment. Many are keeping close tabs on the development of those tests, since they are likely to wield considerable power over what is taught.
A host of questions have been raised about the effort to import lessons from abroad when shaping U.S. standards.
Nations vary widely in the selection of reading and other language arts material that finds a home in the curriculum. In some cases, these are required texts; others show up on lists of recommended titles; and still others are offered as examples of literature that can satisfy academic standards and curricula.
| In the United States, students in states that have adopted the Common Core State Standards are required to read the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and President Abraham Lincoln鈥檚 second inaugural address. Readings suggested for 11th or 12th grade include As I Lay Dying, by William Faulkner; The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell; and 鈥淎 Raisin in the Sun,鈥� by Lorraine Hansberry. |
|
| In Ontario, Canada, J.D. Salinger鈥檚 The Catcher in the Rye is on the list of approved readings for grade 11 English classes. | 
|
| New South Wales, Australia, requires 9th graders to read 鈥淭he Lady of Shalott,鈥� by Alfred Lord Tennyson, a poem based on Arthurian legend, and at least one work by William Shakespeare. | 
|
| In Hong Kong, students taking the English-literature section of a required secondary school exam must pick from an eclectic basket of selections, ranging from Shakespeare鈥檚 鈥淥thello鈥� and short stories by James Joyce and Edith Wharton to the iconic 1974 Hollywood film 鈥淐丑颈苍补迟辞飞苍鈥� and poems by Sylvia Plath and Langston Hughes. | 
|
| In England, required reading for the national English-literature exam taken by many 16-year-olds includes Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck; To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee; and Lord of the Flies, by William Golding. | 
|
Sources: Common Core State Standards; International Reading Association; National Center on Education and the Economy
Sandra Stotsky helped shape the highly regarded standards in Massachusetts, and, like Milgram, a fellow member of the validation committee, refused to endorse the standards鈥� international comparability. She notes that leaders of the common-standards initiative now describe them as being 鈥渋nformed by鈥� other countries, not 鈥渂enchmarked鈥� to those nations鈥� standards.
鈥溾�楤enchmarking鈥� means you use a set of agreed-upon criteria for judging something,鈥� says Stotsky, a professor of education at the University of Arkansas, in Fayetteville. 鈥淭o be 鈥榠nformed鈥� by other countries鈥� standards means simply that they were read. Some other countries are light years ahead of what the common standards require for college readiness.鈥�
Systemic View
Dane Linn, the director of the education division of the , which spearheaded the common-standards initiative with the , says the international-comparison work was not a search for a 鈥渙ne-to-one match鈥� between U.S. and foreign standards, but a blend of 鈥渕ultiple models,鈥� including key ideas from other countries鈥� standards, as well as important takeaways from research and U.S. states鈥� standards.
What鈥檚 taught in schools is important, many experts say, but all parts of a country鈥檚 education system, including teacher training, assessment, and parental support, have to be harmonized to be effective.
鈥淣ational standards could be right, but they鈥檙e not sufficient,鈥� says Gary W. Phillips, who oversees large-scale assessment projects as a vice president at the Washington-based American Institutes of Research, and served on the advisory board for Quality Counts 2012. 鈥淵ou can look at high-performing countries鈥� standards, but it鈥檚 possible that some of the lowest-performing countries are doing some of what they鈥檙e doing, too. You have to look at an entire system, all of its elements. But none of it will work without the full commitment of an entire society to education.鈥�
Grover J. Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, conducted a study that found that standards鈥攖he broad statements of academic goals鈥攈ave no measurable impact on school improvement, but that curriculum鈥攚hat鈥檚 taught week to week in classrooms鈥攄oes. Still, no one has isolated the effect of either one on countries鈥� international-exam performance, says Whitehurst, a former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 research arm.
Phillips says he is examining many dimensions of countries鈥� education systems for their impact on performance on international exams. But he has found that simply having a national curriculum bears no relationship to performance.
Transforming academic standards into curriculum can take differing forms from country to country, but most high-performing ones leave schools and teachers considerable discretion in determining curriculum and accompanying materials, says Schleicher of the OECD.
Some set academic expectations at the national level, and others leave that work to states. What鈥檚 common to top-achieving countries, Schleicher says, is that their academic expectations are clear, high, and shared, and they are connected to 鈥渁 deliberate chain of policies and practices鈥� that ensure they are reflected throughout the system.
Finland, Canada
Finland, widely known for its rigorous, nationally set expectations, states those goals in spare terms at the national level, leaving its highly trained teachers to decide how to complete the picture. In Canada, which often ranks high on international exams, each province exerts control over its standards, curriculum, and tests, but the provinces鈥� chief education officers work together through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, to examine education data and discuss academic expectations, says Andrew Parkin, the director general of the council.
Australia, even though it scores high on international tests, chose to move from a decentralized to a national approach on curriculum and assessment. Its national exams are now in their third year, and states and territories are adapting their curricula to them, says Ben Jensen, the director of the school education program of the Grattan Institute, a think tank in Victoria. A national curriculum is being phased in.
鈥淲e went in this direction to get some national consistency, because there is so much variation [in academic outcomes] from state to state,鈥� he says.
However hotly debated, the U.S. common standards now represent the academic goals of nearly every state in the country. But a long road lies ahead to translate them into curriculum and instruction.
Because of popular opposition to one mandatory curriculum, as well as legal restrictions on the role of the U.S. government in curriculum, the outcome is likely to feature a marketplace of curricula and instructional materials crafted by private-sector developers, philanthropically backed groups, federally financed state consortia, and states and school districts. And that scenario has prompted some to question how well such a range of materials will reflect the standards they are designed to embody.
Whitehurst, of the Brookings Institution, says that difficult tradeoffs are involved when managing the alignment of standards and curriculum.
鈥淭he more opportunities you have for leaks in the bucket between the standards at the national level and what teachers are doing in the classroom, the less likely you are to find any effect鈥� of those standards on learning, he says. 鈥淗aving 15 curriculum choices is good from an innovation and choice perspective, but there will be less alignment between the standards and what鈥檚 being taught.鈥�
