Fordham Report Hails the Common Core’s Standards in Early Math

The Common Core standards are “clearly superior” to what most states are expecting of their students, according to a report released today by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute that gave an A- to the mathematics standards and a B+ to those in language arts.

 

The math standards for the elementary grades were called out for being particularly strong.

 

Given recent studies showing the need for more focus on math in the early years, the math review is good news, particularly for states that will be adopting the Core or changing their own standards in the next few years to align more closely with these expectations.

 

 “The Common Core standards are exemplary in many ways,” the report says. The K-8 standards, it says, avoid “many of the common pitfalls” in setting standards, like incoherence or distracting content. The report points out:

 

The high school standards in math did not receive such high praise. The report called them disorganized. (This echoes a Fordham review in March that looked at an earlier draft of the standards.)

 

The report said that the language arts standards have more flaws, like an “overwhelming focus on skills over content in reading” but that despite the imperfections they are still “far superior” to what is expected in most states and provide a “sturdy instructional framework.”   It also noted that “the useful examples included in the March draft (about the progression of specific phonological aware­ness skills, for example) have been moved to the the standards’ Appendix A, making it somewhat less likely that teachers will use these critical examples as a guide for instruction.”

 

(As we’ve discussed here at Early Ed Watch, an early draft of the language arts standards for the K-3 grades sparked controversy in part because child development experts worried there was too much emphasis on rote reading skills by the end of kindergarten. As shown in the reference to the appendix on phonological awareness skills above, several changes were made in the final version that may assuage critics, though debates will surely continue over emphasis on critical phonological awareness skills and when and how they should be mastered.)

 

Comparisons of states’ performance will make great fodder for inter-state competitions and speculation about how difficult it may be for teachers and schools to get accostomed to the common standards, whicha at least 25 states have so far decided to adopt as their own.

 

The Common Core Project is led by a coalition of nearly all 50 states. It sets expectations for what all children, in each grade K-12, should be able to do by the end of each year of schooling. The Fordham report reviewed the quality of the standards and then compared them to states’ own standards, which, in many cases, looked pretty pathetic, with lots of Cs to go around. The report’s reviewers did say, however, that they were surprised that some often discounted states were within shouting distance of superior quality. But only three — California, Indiana and Washington, D.C. – were deemed better than the Common Core in language arts and none exceed the Core in math.

 

The Fordham report is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the philosophy behind strong standards and the importance of implementing them well.  It is also, strange to say, a pleasure to read, offering clear, empathetic prose and helpful historical context.

 

As the Fordham report says, states have “mucked it up” for too long, allowing poor standards and even poorer implementation to put students on a track to failure.  This report sounds a strong note of hope that, at least on the standards front, things may be turning around. But the boost to American public education can only come when states take measures to ensure that students are learning from knowledgeable teachers who know how to use content-rich materials and who are working from a rigorous curriculum based on these standards.