Curricular Coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

Schmidt, William H.; Houang, Richard T.

doi:10.3102/0013189x12464517

Cited by 110 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Polikoff and Porter (2014) found that the associations between the alignment of teachers' instruction with state standards and/or assessments and students' achievement on state assessment were very weak. Concerns were also raised about the lack of teacher preparation and instructional support for the CCSS implementation (Gewertz, 2013;Kornhaber, Griffith, & Tyler, 2014;Schmidt & Houang, 2012;Welner, 2014). Davis, Choppin, Roth and Drake (2013) reported that a majority of middle school math teachers used textbooks adopted prior to the CCSS and cited a need for more support, including better-aligned curriculum materials and assessments.…”

Section: Research Framework and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Davis, Choppin, Roth and Drake (2013) reported that a majority of middle school math teachers used textbooks adopted prior to the CCSS and cited a need for more support, including better-aligned curriculum materials and assessments. Schmidt and Houang (2012) suggested that the congruence between states' mathematics standards and the CCSS (Mathematics) might help raise the states' NAEP math performance. Boser and Brown (2016) also reported that many of the states that took a more robust standards-based approach to school reform showed the larger NAEP test score gains.…”

Section: Research Framework and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state standards, school practices, and student achievement

Lee

2017

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the trends of the U.S. states' reading and math proficiency standards before and after the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and explores their impact on school practices and student achievement. Drawing on the 2003 -15 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grades 4 and 8 assessment and survey datasets, the study gives new insights into the CCSS policy challenges and outcomes. The states that adopted CCSS raised the rigor of proficiency standards for their student assessments, reversing 'race to the bottom' trend during the earlier period of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). However, the CCSS states failed to improve schools' alignment of ELA and math programs with state/district assessments and also failed to improve students' reading and math achievement more than the non-CCSS counterparts. The Common Core has helped America race to the top for performance standards, but not for performance outcomes yet.

show abstract

Section: Research Framework and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Framework and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state standards, school practices, and student achievement

Lee

2017

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, curricula in U.S. schools have traditionally been described as "a mile wide and an inch deep" (Schmidt, McKnight, and Raizen, 1997) and in which students are exposed to many topics but spend little time immersed in any particular mathematical idea or concept (Alberti, 2013). However, international comparative research has shown that countries with strong mathematics education programs tended to use curricula that share three key features: (1) focus (a small number of topics are covered in great depth), (2) coherence (major mathematical topics are linked within and across grades), and (3) rigor (conceptual understanding and procedure are given equal attention) (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005;Schmidt, McKnight, and Houang, 2001;Schmidt and Houang, 2012). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has also noted that these particular features are central to framing discussions about standards and building a high-quality curricula (NCTM, 2000), and next-generation mathematics standards, such as the CCSS for mathematics, have been designed with these principles in mind (Achieve and Education First, 2012;Alberti, 2013).…”

Section: Curriculum and Instructional Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematics Audit of the DoDEA Schools: 2014-2015

Karam¹,

Stecher²,

Tsai³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1272Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark. Cover: Constantinos/Fotoliaiii PrefaceThe Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) operates 181 schools to educate military dependents. The schools are located in 11 foreign countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. DoDEA is committed to providing a high-quality education for the dependents of military and civilian employees. The Community Strategic Plan for school years 2013-2014 through 2017-2018 commits DoDEA to implement the Common Core State Standards in mathematics (to which DoDEA refers as the College and Career Readiness [CCR] standards). Efforts to change from the 2009 DoDEA mathematics standards to the CCR standards began in earnest during the 2014-2015 school year, with the CCR mathematics standards to be rolled out in elementary schools starting in school year 2015-2016 and scaled up the following school year to middle and high schools. This study was designed to support the transition to the new standards by examining the extent to which DoDEA's existing mathematics program was consistent with best mathematics education practices and by offering suggestions for improving the implementation of the CCR standards in mathematics. Some of the recommendations, such as aligning the CCR standards with new assessments, appear dated because, by the time the report was completed and reviewed, DoDEA had already taken some steps. The study employed a qualitative approach to examine the existing mathematics program and the initial efforts DoDEA was taking to align the mathematics program and practices with the CCR standards in mathematics.This research was sponsored by the DoDEA and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office ...

show abstract

“…During the past de cade, 45 U.S. states and the District of Columbia adopted the Common Core State Standards for mathe matics and En glish language arts (ELA), which have been judged as both more coherent and more rigorous than previous standards (Porter et al, 2011;Schmidt and Houang, 2012). While 24 of those states have since made changes to their standards, analyses suggest that most of these states have retained standards closely aligned with key tenets of the Common Core State Standards (Korn, Gamboa, and Polikoff, 2016;Achieve, 2017;Norton, Ash, and Ballinger, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%