(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Link here, quote below:
Previous issues of the BCR presented models to classify states by their implementation of CCSS. States that are not followers of CCSS have been reluctant to embrace the changes in curriculum and instruction that are encouraged in those standards. The models also show that CCSS implementation is associated with a change of less than a single NAEP scale score point in both fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. Critics blamed Common Core for disappointing NAEP scores in 2015. The good news for Common Core supporters is that nothing in the analysis supports that charge. The bad news is that there also is no evidence that CCSS has made much of a difference during a six-year period of stagnant NAEP scores.
Of course the Brown Center could be mistaken somehow. Maybe this was somehow worth either fighting for, or else getting bent around the axle over against. If you would like to make an opposing case either way the Jayblog comment section awaits! Otherwise Brown Center gets the benefit of my doubt and I am filing this entire subject away in the part of my wee little brain with all the other stuff that is:
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
“Changes in curriculum and instruction that are encouraged in those standards”? I’m confused. Everyone knows CC is only a set of standards and changing the standards has nothing to do with curriculum and instruction!
Changing to CC standards has made a huge difference to curriculum and instruction. Ask teachers to tell you the differences. Just the amount of “informational” reading alone that David Coleman mandated (without any evidence to support his diktat) makes for a huge change in what kids are reading from K-12.
Just because CC advocates keep claiming that they are only standards and have nothing to do with pedagogy or the curriculum doesn’t mean they were truthful or know what they are talking about. Why have most teachers/school districts been complaining they haven’t had enough time or money to implement these standards? Sandra Stotsky
Apologies in advance for the flippant (and obvious) joke, but has there ever been a point in time when teachers and districts weren’t complaining about a lack of time and money?
None of us can do anything about the former, but as for the latter, my kids’ district (NYC DOE) is spending $26,151 per student this year. If Common Core implementation forced them to dig under the couch cushions the problem might lie elsewhere.
I agree with Tim. The problems lie elsewhere with the extent of teacher complaints about the need for more PD (something they have never valued highly, anyway). The major point was whether CC induced changes in curriculum and pedagogy, and everyone knows they did. Whether those changes should have triggered the need for vast and seemingly endless amounts of PD or special training in teacher prep programs is another matter.
If Jay’s take about standards being a pdf file floating serenely on the cloud undisturbed by those troublesome downloads were a stock, it would be up sharply today in heavy trading.
Only if the market for understanding education were as rational as the stock market.
We are in our 3rd year dutifully implementing CC. While I expect our students will perform better this year than last, we’re at least a couple of years away before we start to see tangible impact, as is the case with any initiative. The rule of thumb is 5 years before you see results, and we haven’t reached that point yet.
If CC was disconcerting to teachers then frankly I question what we were doing in the classroom prior to CC. If you weren’t having students read non-fiction texts, like maybe your TEXTBOOK before CC, what were you doing? If your students weren’t applying and assessing the utility of the mathematics and justifying their approaches before CC what were you doing?
I haven’t had one PD that was CC-themed that’s impacted my teaching positively, if at all. Whatever we need to do to ‘get our scores up’ we can develop organically. I have HS seniors right now whose parents still thank me for their HS math success, even though in 8th grade they thought I was the teacher from hell. Test scores will never show that, and I can live with that.
By the time 5 years has rolled around, it will have been too late for local school boards to salvage the wreck CC has made of their public schools. Gates want 5-10 years of peace for the public schools to reach the point of no return. That’s why he’s pouring big bucks into MBAE (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE) for a Foley Hoag-prepared lawsuit and a “front” a coalition to convince voters not to vote YES on the ballot question to get rid of CC.
http://newbostonpost.com/blogs/the-mbaes-false-talking-points/
A less than one point gain with maybe some more to come (I’m from Missouri on that one but let’s see) is certainly a disappointment for proponents, but the river flows both ways because it isn’t the apocalypse foretold by fever dreams by opponents either. Far from a great leap forward or a wreck it looks like TOmato, tomaTO as of now.
!!Y*A*W*N!!
Enjoy a long sleep. Once NAEP’s math tests in grades 4 and 8 are changed (in the works already), possibly to show “historic gains,” no one will ever know that an apocaypse occurred.
should be “apocalypse”–even my keyboard is groaning.
resulted in “a less than one point gain”. Interesting choice of words.
A one point loss and a two point loss are both less than a one point gain.
I can agree that CC resulted in a less than one point gain.