A draft of grade-by-grade common standards is undergoing significant revisions in response to feedback that the outline of what students should master is confusing and insufficiently user-friendly.
Writing groups convened by the and the are at work on what they say will be a leaner, better-organized, and easier-to-understand version than the 200-plus-page set that has been circulating among governors, scholars, education groups, teams of state education officials, and others for review in recent weeks. The first public draft of the standards, which was originally intended for a December release but was postponed until January, is now expected by mid-February.
鈥淭eachers, experts, and states have all said to us, 鈥楶lease pay attention to design so that it鈥檚 clear to the end-user what the standards are.鈥� So we鈥檙e trying to both get the standards right and prepare a document that teachers around the country are going to find useful,鈥� said Dane Linn, the director of the education division of the NGA鈥檚 Center for Best Practices.
鈥淲hat we need to end up with is a document that adheres to our criteria of 鈥榝ewer, clearer, higher,鈥� and a document in which teachers clearly see what the standards are.鈥�
The draft鈥攁ctually three documents鈥攗nder revision describes the skills and knowledge students need in each grade from kindergarten through high school. One of the documents focuses on , another on , and a third on the literacy skills students in middle and high school need to apply to the study of history and science.
The , led by the CCSSO and the NGA, aims to establish high expectations for all students. Forty-eight states have signed on to support the standards effort.
A set of 鈥渃ollege and career-ready鈥� standards, describing the proficiencies needed by the end of high school for good jobs or higher education, was released last fall after expert input, revised after it garnered more than 1,100 public comments on the CCSSO鈥檚 Web site, and is still undergoing revision.
Once state and expert feedback has been gathered and fully incorporated into the K-12 draft, it is to be posted for public comment as well, before undergoing further changes.
Draft copies of the K-12 standards, obtained by 澳门跑狗论坛, and interviews with some of those who gave and received feedback, provide a glimpse into the notoriously difficult process of distilling vast landscapes of content and skill into useful forms that satisfy audiences with differing needs and views.
Aware that disclosure of early drafts could stoke controversy, Mr. Linn and others guiding the effort emphasized that each successive draft is a work in progress, and they cautioned against drawing fixed conclusions at this point.
A mid-January draft of the K-8 math standards is organized around 鈥減rogressions鈥� that span several grade levels, such as fractions, geometry, or probability, and lists core concepts and skills needed for each grade level in a particular topical area.
The high school math section organizes the standards not by grade level, but by areas outlined in the college and career-ready standards, such as expressions, coordinates, and statistics. Each has lists of mathematical practices and topics, which in turn cite core concepts and skills.
An English draft from mid-January describes the strengths students need at each grade level in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language development or use, including observing craft and structure, conducting research, and understanding the nuance of words. Those strengths are applied to different types of texts, including narrative, informational, drama, and poetry.
What students should know and be able to do in each of those areas of English is divided into 鈥渟tandards鈥� and 鈥渃ore standards.鈥� Examples of texts, and descriptions of how to determine grade-level-appropriate complexity, are included.
Rounds of written feedback, conference calls, and face-to-face meetings on the draft standards identified a number of things that needed changing.
Of the participants in the feedback and revision process who were interviewed for this story, most requested anonymity because they were charged with working in confidence. They said the largest chunk of the current revamping involves making the English standards easier to understand. Many reviewers faulted the draft for not making it clear which elements were the standards themselves and which were other ideas or principles.
鈥淭here were some things that were impossible to make out in there,鈥� one reviewer said.
Mary Jane Tappen, Florida鈥檚 deputy chancellor for curriculum and instruction, who led a state team reviewing the standards, said that overall, her team was 鈥渧ery pleased鈥� with both the draft English and math standards. But the group thought that the language in the math draft should be clearer, and that the English document should be 鈥渃ondensed so it鈥檚 more user-friendly for the teacher.鈥�
The English standards would be easier for teachers in a more streamlined version, said Jeffrey M. Nellhaus, the deputy commissioner of education in Massachusetts. 鈥淭he structure of the [English] standards is very hard to explain to anyone,鈥� he said.
The K-8 math standards are 鈥減retty strong right now,鈥� Mr. Nellhaus said, but the high school math portion needs refining. He said he is not convinced that organizing that section by topical area is the best way to present high school math standards.
鈥淗ow are those going to be organized by course or [by] integrated grade-level courses?鈥� he asked.
Massachusetts supports the idea of common standards and believes the drafts are 鈥渙n the right path,鈥� Mr. Nellhaus said. But the current drafts 鈥渘eed to undergo some fairly substantial improvement,鈥� he said, 鈥渂efore we are going to feel comfortable with them.鈥�
Another reviewer said the English standards should parse the different skills students need when reading the same type of text for varying purposes. For instance, he said, reading a novel for literary criticism requires different skills from reading it for pleasure.
That reviewer and others noted that grade-to-grade sequencing needed refinement in some places as well, such as asking students to 鈥渃ompare鈥� two texts at one grade level and 鈥渃ontrast鈥� them at another.
A source at the American Federation of Teachers said the union would like to see more clarity of language and grade-by-grade specificity, 鈥渟o a teacher could pick it up and teach to it.鈥� The group also spotted grade-sequencing problems in some places, the source said, such as requiring a math skill in one grade level without prerequisite skills in the previous grade level.
Progress Seen
A number of those who have reviewed successive drafts see improvements.
James D. Marshall, who helped the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association develop standards in the 1990s and has worked with several states to craft theirs, said he was concerned that a December draft of the English standards didn鈥檛 offer a complete enough description of how to assess a text鈥檚 complexity. That concern was resolved when he saw a January draft, which did a much better job, said Mr. Marshall, the associate dean for academic programs at the University of Georgia鈥檚 college of education.
鈥淭hey鈥檝e made some very good progress,鈥� he said.
Another reviewer said newer drafts do a much better job than previous ones of detailing the differing skills students need to read in various disciplines.
One area of revision in the math standards is making sure that each grade鈥檚 skills build properly on the previous grade鈥檚, Mr. Linn of the NGA said.
Another, according to one reviewer, was grappling with whether the math draft is 鈥渙verly ambitious鈥� in what鈥攁nd how much鈥攊t asks of students at some levels. Both that source and another working on the English draft said the writing groups are figuring out whether to move certain skills up a grade level or two.
A math professor who reviewed the draft as part of a panel discussion said that its 鈥渃larity and flow鈥� needed improvement, that skills and concepts needed better matching, and grade-to-grade progression needed smoothing. Also, he said, the document needs to be a bit clearer for key audiences.
鈥淭he consequences of a good or bad draft are very big in terms of what teachers, textbook writers, and assessment people get out of them,鈥� said Bert Fristedt, a University of Minnesota-Twin Cities professor who served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. 鈥淭he draft needs to have better readability for those people.鈥�
Several reviewers said writers and reviewers of the math draft were trying to work out possible differences between the skills that should be required of all students, and only of those aiming for college majors or careers in math or science
Said one participant, 鈥淟et鈥檚 just say there鈥檚 a bit of a tension there.鈥�
