[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING OUR COMPETITIVENESS:
COMMON CORE EDUCATION STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 8, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-732 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 8, 2009................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Hon. John Kline, Senior Republican Member, Committee on
Education and Labor, prepared statement of................. 53
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Cathy, vice chair, St. Mary's County, MD, Board of
Education.................................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Kubach, Douglas, Pearson Assessment & Information............ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional submissions:
``Thoughts on an Assessment of Common-Core
Standards''........................................ 54
Pearson response to Race to the Top, Internet address 64
Ritter, Hon. Bill, Jr., Governor, State of Colorado.......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Wilhoit, Gene, executive director, Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO).................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Additional submissions:
Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement........ 64
News release, June 1, 2009, ``Forty-Nine States and
Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative'' 66
``The Common Core State Standards Initiative''....... 67
``The Common Core State Standards Initiative,''
frequently asked questions......................... 68
IMPROVING OUR COMPETITIVENESS: COMMON CORE EDUCATION STANDARDS
----------
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Payne, Scott, Woolsey,
Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis, Hirono, Altmire,
Clarke, Fudge, Polis, Tonko, Titus, Chu, Petri, Castle, Ehlers,
Guthrie, Roe and Thompson.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Calla Brown,
Staff Assistant, Education; Alice Johnson Cain, Senior
Education Policy Advisor (K-12); Denise Forte, Director of
Education Policy; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred
Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Sharon Lewis, Senior
Disability Policy Advisor; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel;
Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk;
Lillian Pace, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education; Helen Pajcic, Education
Policy Associate; Kristina Peterson, Legislative Fellow,
Education; Rachel Racusen, Communications Director; Alexandria
Ruiz, Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Daniel Weiss, Special
Assistant to the Chairman; Kim Zarish-Becknell, Policy Advisor,
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities; Mark
Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority
Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, Minority
General Counsel; Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director; Alexa
Marrero, Minority Communications Director; Ryan Murphy,
Minority Press Secretary; Susan Ross, Minority Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; and Linda Stevens,
Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Miller. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order.
This morning our committee meets to hold the second in a
series of hearings looking at how we can improve our global
competitiveness through State-led adoption of common core
standards that are internationally benchmarked.
At our first hearing in April, we learned about the State-
led effort to improve academic standards in our schools.
Witnesses told us about the momentum and the support from not
only the education community, but business leaders and
stakeholders from across the political spectrum. I am glad to
see bipartisan support come from Members of Congress.
Today, we will hear from our panel about the significant
progress that has been made since that hearing. Forty-eight
States have now signed on to this initiative. They agree that
this State-led effort is critical to regain our role as a world
leader in education. They know that we must ensure that all
students are prepared for success in college or a career. I
couldn't agree more, and we need to do everything we can to
support this effort.
One of the problems we have encountered with No Child Left
Behind is that the law required every State to set its own
academic standards and use assessments aligned to those
standards. Without a unified set of strong expectations, many
States, unfortunately, chose to lower the bar, creating
essentially a race to the bottom. The result is that the
standards to which students are held varied widely from State
to State. The quality of education a student may receive is
left up to the ZIP Code, and it is a matter of geographical
luck.
Having 50 different standards in 50 different States
undermines the American education system. In this system a high
school diploma doesn't guarantee that a student has mastered
the academic tools that they will need to compete in today's
world. All students should be challenged to develop the complex
skills and knowledge they need to succeed in jobs in the
future, to be college ready and to be workplace ready.
We are in the process of rebuilding our economy and
restoring our competitiveness. That means that focusing not
just on the immediate job creation, but what we can do to build
a solid economic foundation for generations to come.
Today's students, our future workers, need to be prepared
for jobs in high-growth industries, to innovate, and to think
creatively to help solve the great challenges of the next
generation, but we are still lacking academically compared to
other high-performing countries. American students lag about a
year behind students in top-performing countries in math. Even
our best students perform worse in math than their peers in 22
other countries. Only 1.3 percent of our 15-year-olds in this
country performed at the highest level of math on international
assessment tests. Yet at the very same time we see States like
Massachusetts and Minnesota that run right with the best-
performing countries in the rest of the world, outperforming
countries such as Norway and Sweden. And so this wide range of
performance is very troubling when you are trying to maintain
and build a world-class economy and competitiveness.
In the top 10 countries, up to 7 times as many students
were performing at the highest level. It is clear we have a lot
of work cut out for us.
An important step in this State-led effort is the common
core of internationally benchmarked standards that can prepare
all children in this country to achieve and succeed in this
global economy. The historic investment we made with President
Obama's Recovery Act was a great start. Secretary Duncan's Race
to the Top Fund is already helping spur reform in standards and
assessments without yet having spent a dollar. This gives us a
reason to be optimistic that we will see a seismic shift in the
education that this country needs.
A recent survey from the Center on Education Policy showed
that States are confident they can meet the assurances required
by the Recovery Act, especially to create and adopt rigorous
academic standards.
I commend the Governors, the chief State school officers,
Achieve, ACT, and the College Board and all of the partners in
the common core initiatives for their leadership. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can ensure
that all students in every State and every grade get a world-
class education that fully prepares them for colleges and for
careers.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
This morning, our Committee meets to hold the second in a series of
hearings looking at how we can improve our global competitiveness
through a state-led to adopt a common core of internationally
benchmarked standards.
At our first hearing in April, we learned about the state-led
effort to improve academic standards in our schools.
Witnesses told us about the momentum and support from not just the
education community, but business leaders and stakeholders from across
the political spectrum.
I was glad to see bipartisan support from Members of this
Committee.
Today we will hear from our panel about the significant progress
that has been made since that hearing. Forty-eight states have now
signed on to this initiative. They agree that this state-led effort is
critical to regain our role as a world leader in education.
They know that we must ensure that all students are prepared for
success in college or a career.
I couldn't agree more and we need to do everything we can to
support their effort. One of the problems we have encountered with No
Child Left Behind is that the law required every state to set its own
academic standards and use assessments aligned with those standards.
Without a unified set of strong expectations, many states chose to
lower the bar--creating a race to the bottom.
The result is that children in Mississippi may not be pushed with
the same rigor as children in Massachusetts. The quality of education a
student may receive is left up to their zip code. It's a matter of
geographical luck. Having 50 different standards in 50 different states
undermines America's education system.
In this system, a high school diploma doesn't guarantee that a
student has mastered the academic tools they will need to compete in
today's world.
All children should be challenged to develop the complex skills and
knowledge needed to succeed in the jobs of the future.
We are in the process of rebuilding our economy and restoring our
competitiveness.
That means focusing not just on immediate job creation, but also
what we can do to build a solid economic foundation for generations to
come.
Today's students--our future workers--need to be prepared for jobs
in high-growth industries, to innovate, and to think creatively to help
solve our next great challenges.
But we're still lacking academically compared with other high-
performing countries.
American students lag about a year behind students in the top-
performing countries in math. Even our best students performed worse in
math than their peers in 22 other countries.
Only 1.3 percent of 15 year olds in this country performed at the
highest level in math on an international assessment test. In the top
10 countries, up to seven times as many students were at the highest
levels. It is clear we have our job cut out for us.
An important step is this state-led effort for a common core of
internationally-benchmarked standards that can prepare all children in
this country to achieve and succeed in this global economy.
The historic investments we made in President Obama's Recovery Act
were a great start.
Secretary Duncan's Race to the Top Fund is already helping spur
reform in standards and assessments without yet having spent a dollar.
This gives us reason to be optimistic that we will see the seismic
shift in education that our country needs.
A recent survey from the Center on Education Policy showed that
states are confident they can meet the assurances required by the
Recovery Act, especially to create and adopt rigorous academic
standards.
I commend the Governors, chief state school officers, Achieve, ACT,
the College Board, and all of the partners in the common core
initiative for their leadership.
I look to hearing from our witnesses about how we can ensure that
all students, in every state, in every grade, get a world-class
education that fully prepares them for college and careers.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Miller. With that, I would like now to recognize
Mr. Thompson, the senior Republican this morning on the
committee.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
We are here today to take a closer look at the Common Core
State Standards Initiative and how coordinated efforts to
strengthen academic standards can enhance American
competitiveness.
The common core initiative is being developed through the
joint leadership of the National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School
Officers. The goal of the initiative is to provide a voluntary
research and evidence-based set of standards for mathematics
and English language arts. I want to emphasize the word
``voluntary'' in that description.
While the common core is still under development, I don't
believe anyone involved in the initiative intended for it to
become the one and only set of academic standards in the United
States. For that reason, I would like to focus my remarks this
morning not on the quality of the standards themselves, but on
what the Federal Government is doing with those standards.
Secretary Duncan has not been shy about his intention to
dramatically reshape education through the Race to the Top
Fund. One key component in the Race to the Top guidelines is
the requirement that States participate in and adopt a set of
common academic standards. The Department has even gone one
step further, offering to provide funding to help States
develop assessments based on those common standards. The only
common multistate academic standards that I am aware of are
those being developed through the common core initiative;
therefore, it stands to reason that any State wishing to
receive funding through the Race to the Top program will be
mandated to adopt the common core and to test its students
based on those standards. In other words, the common core is
being transferred from a voluntary, State-based initiative to a
set of Federal academic standards with corresponding Federal
tests.
I know I can speak for the committee when I say that we
applaud the Secretary's enthusiasm when it comes to education
reform, yet we have been particularly troubled by this aspect
of the Race to the Top guidelines and the ramifications of
Federal involvement in academic standards. We know academic
standards vary widely from State to State, and some States have
set the bar too low, leaving their students unprepared to
compete on the world stage; yet other States have risen to the
challenge of setting extremely rigorous standards and holding
their students accountable to these high expectations.
The common core has the potential to support those States
whose standards are falling short, but mandatory adoption could
have the unintended consequence of lowering the bar for States
and local communities that have voluntarily established
standards even more rigorous than those developed through the
common core.
I also have questions about what role parents and local
education officials will play if the common core becomes a de
facto national curriculum. As a former school board member, I
can attest that school boards have been active in the
development of academic standards and assessments. We care
about the kids that we serve. This allows parents, teachers,
and communities to have a voice in what our children are
taught. A voluntary common core could serve as a baseline to be
modified and enhanced based on local needs, but by mandating
adoption of the common core, the Department of Education could
undermine the ability of local educators to shape and customize
what gets taught in individual classrooms.
The common core initiative is an important tool in the
effort to strengthen academic standards, but it is only one
element of what should be a much broader strategy on the part
of States and local communities working in partnership with the
public and private sectors to enhance American competitiveness.
I applaud the efforts to develop a voluntary set of rigorous
academic standards; however, they must not be undermined by
Federal intrusion. I look forward to discussing these concerns
with the witnesses today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Miller. I thank the gentleman.
Before we get to our first witness, I want to talk a moment
of personal privilege to thank Alice Johnson, who is sitting
here to the left of me, who has been with this committee since
2003. Alice will be leaving us shortly for a wonderful
professional opportunity in the field of education. But while
she has been on this committee and served this committee, she
has been relentless in the pursuit of excellence on education
on behalf of children and parents and teachers, and the entire
education community. She has responded to the needs and the
requests of our Members on both sides of the aisle to try to
ferret out the best policies and answers and information that
can be available to us. She rarely takes ``no'' for an answer.
And if you ask a question, you will probably get an answer back
in a matter of a few moments, almost it seems like. As crazy as
my requests have been from time to time to look at some issues,
she has always responded to them.
She will be joining the Hope Street Group, and I think they
will be very fortunate to have her professional talents, her
good cheer, her personality, and her willingness to assist
others and to impart information to others.
On behalf of the committee, Alice, we want to thank you so
very much, wish you well, and tell you how much we appreciate
all of the service you have given to this committee over the
last several years. Thank you so much.
The side benefit of this is she is going to get to spend
more time with her husband Frank, and Shawn and Luke. I know
they are looking forward to it.
Thank you.
Our colleague Mr. Polis is going to introduce our first
witness.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Bill Ritter was elected as Colorado's 41st
Governor in the year 2006. He and his Lieutenant Governor
Barbara O'Brien, who has also appeared before this committee
and was one of the original authors of our State charter school
law, are leading the efforts on statewide education reform both
at the K-12 level and the higher education level. They have
created a P-20 Education Council to bring together stakeholders
from across the education continuum. They have created a jobs
cabinet and, in partnership with lawmakers, the State board of
education and educators, are working to reform standards.
Prior to becoming Governor, Mr. Ritter served as the
district attorney of Denver for 12 years. He earned his
bachelor's degree from Colorado State University and his law
degree from the University of Colorado. He served on the Denver
Public Schools Commission on Secondary School Reform, and
recently was named the Chair of the National Governors
Association Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
Most importantly, he is married to a former schoolteacher,
Jeannie, and their eldest child goes to college in my
congressional district, University of Colorado in Boulder, and
their youngest child is a junior at Denver East High School.
It is my honor to introduce our Governor from the great
State of Colorado, Governor Bill Ritter.
Chairman Miller. Governor, welcome to the committee. Thank
you so much for your involvement on this issue, and also for
taking your time to come and to give us a bit of a progress
report on how it is going.
What we will do is when you begin speaking, there will be a
green light. You will have about 5 or 6 minutes to impart the
points you want to make to us. There will be an orange light
that will tell you you have a minute left. When you are done,
we will open it up for questions. I know you have some time
constraints, so we will try to get through as many people as we
can. When you have to leave, we understand that, so let us
know. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RITTER, JR., GOVERNOR OF COLORADO
Governor Ritter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Thompson and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify to the Common
Core State Standards Initiative. On behalf of the National
Governors Association and as the Chair of the Education, Early
Childhood and Workforce Committee, I am honored to be with all
of you today.
Our economy is now truly global. Competitiveness of our
education system absolutely must reflect this. To maintain
America's competitive edge, all of our students need to be well
prepared, ready to compete not only with their American peers,
but also with students from around the world. The State-led
development of the common core standards is a critical first
step to bring about real and meaningful transformation of State
education systems to benefit all students.
I appreciate firsthand how important this effort is to the
competitiveness of State workforces, and similarly how
important it is to ensure that it remain in the hands of the
States. In 2008, I pushed for the development of State-level
policy that would align K-12 and higher education standards
with the goal of ensuring that all students are ready for entry
into postsecondary education or the workforce upon exit from
high school. We called this effort the Colorado Achievement
Plan for Kids, or CAP for K, and it represented the first time
Colorado's education systems worked together in earnest on
common student-oriented policies. It was truly game-changing
education policy in my State. For the first time, we shifted
our collective attention from annual assessments and simple
punitive accountability policies to a focus on relevancy,
student growth, and an expectation that all students,
regardless of their station in life, should be prepared for
college and career by the time they exit from high school.
From my firsthand experience, I caution that this work
takes time to implement well. After nearly 2 years of
concentrated effort and deliberate outreach, we are just now at
the point of State-level adoption. Next we will turn to
developing a new system of assessments, and then to supporting
local school district adoption and classroom implementation. We
have been moving at near light speed to develop, adopt, and
implement these new standards and assessments, but the tools
will not be ready for use until 2012.
Although there are 48 States and territories involved in
the effort to develop common standards, it is important to
respect that each is in a different place regarding its
readiness to adopt and implement the common core standards.
I am confident that this process has a great chance for
success, but adoption of new standards is simply a step toward
meaningful education reform. So I return to the critical point:
The common core standards initiative is and must be a State-led
effort. Adoption of the common core is and must be voluntary
for States.
A decision to adopt will be made in every State by State
and local leaders working with teachers, parents, businesses
and citizens. To develop the standards, NGA and the CCSSO have
been using the best available evidence both nationally and
internationally. The first round of stated options should be
considered version 1.0. Future and ongoing revisions are
inevitable and necessary. Moreover, future research will inform
improvements and expand the body of evidence.
States are already planning for the sustainability of this
work and the possible development of standards in additional
subjects. Congress can support participating States by setting
high expectations for results and allowing Governors to lead.
Give us the clear authority to experiment, innovate and define
how to get the work done. Governors need your leadership and
assistance. The Federal Government has a critical supporting
role to unleash the power of State-led action. Common core
standard initiative is just a tip of the iceberg on the power
of State-led action.
In the next few months, we expect to begin working on the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Ideally, this effort would replicate the State-Federal
partnership that I just described. Work must remain on
assessments, accountability, human capital, research and
development, and so much more. Governors are committed and
eager to work with the committee on this reauthorization.
So again, Chairman Miller and members of the committee, on
behalf of the Governors across the Nation, I really appreciate
the opportunity to address you today, and I am happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The statement of Governor Ritter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor, State of
Colorado; Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee,
National Governors Association
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the Common Core
State Standards Initiative. On behalf of the National Governors
Association and as Chair of the Education, Early Childhood and
Workforce Committee, I am honored to be with you today.
Our economy is now truly global, and the competitiveness of our
education system must reflect this. To maintain America's competitive
edge, all of our students need to be wellprepared and ready to compete
not only with their American peers, but also with students from around
the world. The stateled development of common core state standards is a
critical first step to bring about real and meaningful transformation
of state education systems to benefit all students.
I know through my experience upgrading Colorado's state standards
how important these decisions are to setting the path for our state
education's progress.
Update on Common Core State Standards Initiative
Since my colleague Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue testified before
this committee in April 2009, states have made marked progress in
improving our education systems compared to international benchmarks.
Fortyeight states, two territories and the District of Columbia have
joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative, which charges the
National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) to jointly develop common core standards in English
language arts and mathematics by February 2010.
I believe that this initiative has a high probability for success.
Several major national organizations, including the Alliance for
Excellent Education, the American Association of School Administrators,
the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the
Council of Great City Schools, the Hunt Institute, the National
Association of State Boards of Education, the National Education
Association, the National Parent Teacher Association, and the State
Higher Education Executive Officers are supporting the initiative.
Endorsing partners also include businesses such as GlaxoSmithKline and
the Intel Corporation.
The stateled common core process is intended to produce ``fewer,
clearer, and higher'' standards that are researchand evidencebased as
well as internationally benchmarked. In preparing these standards, we
drew examples from the most competitive states in the nation. The goal
is to ensure that all students who meet these new standards will have
the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in college and a career,
thereby improving the nation's competitiveness in today's global
economy.
On behalf of participating states, NGA and CCSSO are taking
responsibility for the production of the standards. These organizations
have solicited the input of a number of leading experts and
practitioners to assist in the development of collegeand
careerreadiness and K12 standards for English language arts and
mathematics. In addition, the organizations have sought input from
states, content groups, educators' associations, and the general
public. This feedback will be used to refine drafts and ensure that the
standards are informed by the best research and practice. Finally, a
validation committee of independent national experts--all of whom were
nominated by state and national organizations' leaders and confirmed by
governors--will conduct a final review of the standards process and
products.
The final draft of the standards will be released in February 2010.
A public draft of the college and career readiness standards was
released in September 2009; NGA and CCSSO received nearly 1,000 survey
responses to these standards. All the public comments are being
reviewed, and work groups will determine the revisions necessary to
respond to the comments received. The first public draft of the K12
standards will be available in January 2010. A detailed description of
the development process as well as information about individuals and
organizations involved in the process is available on
www.corestandards.org. A summary chart explaining the process is also
enclosed with this testimony.
State Adoption of Standards
Once the standards have been finalized, states will decide whether
to adopt the English language arts and mathematics standards for the
students in their states. Let me stress this important point: The
adoption of the stateled and developed common core state standards is
voluntary and allows for public input. States that choose to adopt the
standards will be responsible for demonstrating that they have adhered
to the terms of adoption. This is and must remain a stateled effort.
The appropriate authority in each state, working with state and
local leaders, teachers, and parents, will make the decision whether to
adopt the standards. For many states, a state board of education will
make this decision; in other instances, the chief state school officer,
governor and/or legislature may play a role in the decision. The
stateled process of adoption will take time and will vary from state to
state. The NGA/CCSSO process gives states up to three years to adopt.
State Leadership for Education Improvement
Governors recognize that the adoption of a strong set of academic
standards is just an initial step toward upgrading state education
systems. States have both the authority and the responsibility to
provide students with a highquality education, and many states are
already deeply engaged in efforts to raise standards, advance teaching
quality, and improve lowperforming schools. International benchmarking
provides an additional tool for making that process more effective,
offering insights and ideas that cannot be garnered solely from looking
within and across state lines.
Governors are encouraged that many states have begun to move
forward on the first of five bold recommendations included in the
Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a WorldClass
Education report issued by the National Governors Association, the
Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc. The highlevel
advisory group that participated in the development of this report,
including Colorado's chief, Commissioner Dwight Jones, unanimously
agreed to five statelevel action steps:
Upgrading state standards by adopting a common core of
internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for
grades K12 to ensure that students are equipped with the necessary
knowledge and skills to be globally competitive;
Leveraging states' collective influence to ensure that
textbooks, digital media, curricula, and assessments are aligned to
internationally benchmarked standards and draw on lessons from
highperforming nations and states;
Revising state policies for recruiting, preparing,
developing, and supporting teachers and school leaders to reflect the
human capital practices of topperforming nations and states around the
world;
Holding schools and systems accountable through
monitoring, interventions, and support to ensure consistently high
performance, drawing upon international best practices; and
Measuring statelevel education performance against global
benchmarks by examining student achievement and attainment in an
international context to ensure that, over time, students receive the
education they need to compete in the 21st century economy.
With a set of common standards in place, states may be in a
position to move forward with several of these important
recommendations.
NGA will soon release a publication proposing an approach to a
common and comprehensive state assessment system that would maximize
alignment with the common core standards; allow for comparisons across
students, schools, districts, and states; and form the foundation for a
new accountability system, while ultimately providing information that
supports effective teaching and learning and prepares students for
college and postsecondary careers.
Federal Government Support
While governors believe states must lead the international
benchmarking and common state standards development effort, the federal
government can play a critical role to support statelevel reform
efforts--specifically, one that is less restrictive and mandatedriven
and more encouraging of innovation.
Through the creation of the Race to the Top Fund, Congress and the
Administration took the first step in shifting the focus of federal
policy from a punitive, mandatedriven compliance system toward a
federalstate partnership that supports stateled innovation. For
example, the Race to the Top Fund competition provides carrots--not
sticks--to voluntary state adoption of common standards. Moreover, the
federal government also wisely recognized that standards must be led
and developed by states, for states. For this reason, I would like to
thank this committee, the U.S. Department of Education, and the
Administration for recognizing governors' requests to extend the
timeline for adoption of state standards as part of the Race to the Top
application. Governors appreciate the acknowledgement of states'
individual contextual adoption requirements.
Moving forward, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act will be a critical opportunity to rethink and evolve the
new federalstate partnership and capitalize on the power of stateled
innovations to improve education. Much work remains, and governors
stand ready to work with the committee on this important
reauthorization.
Conclusion
In this time of economic difficulty, we recognize more than ever
the importance of educational preparation to the wellbeing of our
citizens, our states, and this nation. Thank you for your ongoing
interest and support for a stateled process to develop a common core of
state standards.
______
Chairman Miller. You raised the issue which I think many of
us on this committee have heard or have discussed with
education leaders in our own States, and that is sort of the
constant question of how to meld our current standards with the
changes we will have to make. Many States would argue that
their standards may be better, higher, whatever the adjective
is that you want to use, and other States' clearly are not
sufficient. How does that melding process take place so we end
up with a common standard, we end up with an internationally
benchmarked standard so we know how our students are doing
compared with our competitors in a very competitive economy?
Governor Ritter. One of the things that should be
recognized, like you mentioned and I mentioned, 48 States are
participating in that. That participation alone is helpful in
knowing where the standards fall out relative to what States
already have in place.
Secondly, the ambition has always been that the standards
be set high, and that we not do what we have done in other
situations where we set the standards lower in order to make
sure that there is achievement and progress as defined by law.
Really these standards are rigorous, and the intention has
always been not to back off on rigor. We believe at the end of
the day they will be fairly rigorous.
It is interesting, we were in the process--apart from the
National Governors Association process, the State of Colorado
was in the process of forming our own content standards, and
when we received the first draft from the policymakers, there
was very much sort of an early alignment, because States are
thinking the same way about this. And there is a fair body of
evidence about what rigorous standards look like.
For our purposes, we believe there will be more alignment
than you might expect when you have 48 States working on it
because of the body of evidence that has been built up about
what is necessary to be rigorous and benchmark it
internationally.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
One of the tensions in No Child Left Behind is that because
we took the States as we found them when we passed the law, the
challenge really is to meet how your children are doing against
your State standards, be that what it was, and States have
changed their standards back and forth. But when you go to try
to hold districts and States accountable, they very often say,
we have higher standards, so it is more difficult for the same
number of students to make AYP as in another State. You
constantly hear this back and forth, that the system isn't fair
because of the differences in State standards that exist to
date. And it raises a lot of political tensions because the
theory is that ``we should be given some leeway because our
standards are higher. That State is doing better because their
standards are lower.'' It is an interesting political
discussion, but it doesn't tell us where we should be in terms
of the performance of students against what standards.
But I assume as States make the decision, should they make
the decision, to participate, that argument sort of goes by the
wayside, and if you have an ability to have a good growth
model, we will be able to determine whether States across the
country are making the kind of progress that is necessary.
Governor Ritter. Mr. Chairman, I think that is correct,
because the starting point is that we believe it is important
for our students to compete globally, compete with other kids
across the world. So we start with the notion what is it going
to take for them to do that. You have to look at the
concentration of higher ed degrees as just one measure of that,
but in order to get to the place where we can compete there, we
have to look at the K-12 system and ask, how are kids doing in
terms of how they come out of high school, what numbers are
graduating, what percentage, and then what remediation is
necessary for kids when they enter higher ed? And all of those
things are part of where you want to wind up in terms of
defining it.
For our purposes, a common set of standards that are
internationally benchmarked allows us to think about that end
point, where we want kids to end up. And then, as you said,
growth-modeling that where you change the standards, but you
also change the assessments and the way to assess that and then
model it, see how kids are doing along the spectrum, and there
is more commonality among States in doing that. You have a
better way to answer the question about how these kids will do
when they compete on a global level or compete even among other
States. There is a real ambition on the part of the Department
of Education to ensure that there is benchmarking among States
as a way for us to measure as well. So I think it does do away
with some of the complaints that our State might be different,
and therefore we are being punished unfairly by what was in the
past No Child Left Behind.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Ritter, thank you so much for coming here and
providing your testimony today and your leadership on early
childhood education as part of the association. I very much
appreciate it.
I have heard from a number of States that have high
academic standards that they support the common core
initiative, but may not adopt its final standards because their
own existing State standards are higher, somewhat related to
the conversation you just had. Right now it is too early to
know since the standards are still under development, yet these
States will be penalized for not adopting common standards if
they choose to compete for the Race to the Top.
The Department is, in effect, encouraging some States to
lower their State standards, which I think is an extremely bad
idea. I am not sure that you have talked to the Department
about their involvement within this initiative. Why would they
decide to put this requirement in the Race to the Top? What has
been the response to these concerns raised by these States?
Governor Ritter. I have actually spoken with the Secretary
about Race to the Top. And, again, in my role as the Chair of
the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee at the
National Governors Association, we have had these
conversations.
First of all, I think the ambition here is that States look
at content standards as an important part of reform, and that
if States have standards that they have set higher than what
might ultimately become the common core standards or when we
are ready for States to look at them to adopt them, I think
that is a good problem to have.
We did talk with the Secretary about this notion that there
must be some kind of compliance with the standards in order to
compete in the Race to the Top, and it is clear to me that you
don't have to have identical standards, but you do have to have
some level of compliance in order for you--I think you are
going to have to--as a State going to have some level of
compliance because of this ambition of developing content
standards.
I think we were the first State in the country--and I think
Texas is maybe second or may have done it kind of
contemporaneously with us--the first State in the country to
actually rework all of our content standards. This is something
that the Department of Education has as an ambition,and one of
the ways for States to be able to compete is to understand that
important role. If you leave it out altogether, it doesn't
necessarily get done, and I think that is what the Department
of Education is trying to focus on. I am not trying to speak
for them.
What I can tell you is we as Governors think it is
important that this process was State led, and we have had the
participation we have had from States, and we do know there are
States that may have participated and at the end of the day may
not adopt. But the fact of the matter is we have what we
believe is a great evidence-based product that States can look
to and know to get us to a place where we are comfortable
saying it is something we can benchmark against
internationally.
Mr. Thompson. I certainly support your commitment that
these are--the setting standards, for the States to do that and
making it voluntary.
As a former school board member, I am always, I guess,
curious to see within the process as these are being developed.
I know they are still under development. As opposed to a Race
to the Top, I have always defaulted to raising, developing each
child's individual potential, and while we have children that
certainly are destined for a 4-year college program and that
kind of academic preparation, we have children who are going to
do extremely well in trade school or technology training or
community college. Some of those we are preparing just to go
into the workforce, or those who may choose go into the
military and serve the country and develop a trade or a skill
there.
Based on your interaction looking at this program, is the
program that flexible to be able to address the needs of each
individual child's potential as opposed to a cookie-cutter
approach, which is kind of what the Federal Government has
imposed on our States and local school boards up to this point?
Governor Ritter. The first part of this common core
standards initiative has been about two things: math and
English language arts. We have developed the common standards
with those two things and have not gone to the other parts of
the education system because we had to start somewhere, and I
think there is not right now agreement necessarily on whether
or not you can develop common standards on vocational and
technical education.
I will tell you, Governors, I think, understand the
importance of technical and vocational education. We passed in
Colorado this past year a concurrent enrollment bill that
allows students to stay in high school and get both a high
school diploma and an associate's degree, and I think we are
the first State in the country to make that available
statewide. Those associate degrees very much can be out of a
vocational or technical discipline.
It was important for us as part of thinking about how to
get kids to graduate from high school to give them some
additional light at the end of the tunnel, and these common
standards won't change that. What they have changed is the
fundamentals that are necessary to be able to get through a
high school program and then really to be able to manage some
type of a college curriculum. Whether it is a junior or
community college, you have to start with math and English
language arts in order just to have the fundamentals in place.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. McCarthy.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Governor, for being here and
testifying.
As you were testifying, I was thinking about a couple of my
schools back in my district. One school is certainly in a very
diverse community. I have toured that school for a couple of
years now. From seeing the principal, the superintendent, the
teachers and students, they have all set higher standards for
all of them. And I think one of the important things that we
learned from this particular school was that everybody expected
them to do better, these parents, which we know is probably the
most difficult part, trying to get the community involved with
the students' life.
My district is changing on a yearly basis. I have several
schools that are failing, constantly failing. One school was
taken over from the State almost 5 years ago, still no
improvement. I am trying to think where does this all start?
I know my State is changing from the Board of Regents on
what they are going to be doing as far as the teaching colleges
in our State. Many feel our teachers are graduating not with
the knowledge that they need to be able to teach. And what
always blew my mind is that the youngest teachers start with
kindergarten, first, second, and third grade, and yet we know
that is the most important time to reach these students.
Also, the diversity of language in many of our States now,
I certainly see in my district, some districts have to teach
eight or nine languages and deal with the children on trying to
get them through. With the younger students we are doing fine.
Junior high and up, we end up losing our students. That is a
shame because they end up going into gangs.
I see where my State is going, and I see where you are
certainly talking about the flexibility. Many of us thought
Leave No Child Behind, we were actually going to look at the
child, individually, and then work with that child to meet
their best potential. So I guess what I am looking at as we go
for Race to the Top, it is a nice title, but I still have
concerns are we going to be able to do this.
Your State has taken a lead. All Governors should be taking
a lead mainly because it is profitable for the State. If you
have well-educated students in your State, you will have
businesses come to your State, technology come to your State.
It is good for the country.
One other thing. I belong to what they call the NATO
Parliamentarians, and education is one of the big topics we
always talk about. And yet I hear from ministers of education
constantly that they talk about our students, even though the
scores are a little lower, that our children are the most
innovative, and how do we teach everything that we want to do
in a 7-hour day? That is where I guess I am going.
I certainly applaud Colorado for doing what you are doing,
but with that being said, I think we have a lot on our plate. I
agree that States have to be flexible.
The other end, I hope we don't leave out those children
with special needs and children with language difficulties. And
I guess how are we going to be dealing with that into the
future?
Governor Ritter. Thank you.
Let me just say a couple of things. The National Governors
Association Chair chooses a theme, and 2 years ago, maybe 3,
the theme was innovation. How do we in America remain the
innovators? That is what distinguishes us from other places
around the globe and can help us compete. If you talk about
innovation, the conversation gets back to the education system.
It just did. Every conversation we had, everybody who appeared,
the private sector CEOs came in, and at the end of the day they
talked about how important it was for us to maintain an
education system that inspired innovation.
Our thinking in Colorado is not that much different from
other States in the country, which is that it is not just one
thing. Content standards are a helpful way to think about
changing from stem to stern the tools that teachers might have,
to say how do we ensure that the right fundamentals are in
place?
But for us in Colorado, at-risk kids who were on a waiting
list to go into State preschool programs were not getting an
opportunity. Once they turned 5, if they were on a waiting
list, they didn't wait. They went into kindergarten without
preschool. Quite frankly, we have had the State program long
enough to know that we can more than double the graduation rate
of at-risk kids if we put them into a quality preschool. That
is like one thing that is going to have a payoff in 14 years,
but not for 14 years when we begin to see those kids who are
now 3 years old graduating from high school.
Full-day kindergarten is also important in this mix.
Looking at standards that were developed for 3- and 4-year-olds
was part of our thinking. We also looked at middle schools
where they have difficult issues, challenges of kids not being
proficient in many respects, and trying to put additional
counselors into those middle schools to help them with what is
necessary to get them to a place where they are more successful
in high school.
And then we have done a variety of things as it relates to
high school and aligned our standards with higher ed, and all
of that is a quick summary of things we have been working on,
because we really do believe there is not just one thing. I
think as a country we have to view it that way.
I would say as it relates to special needs kids, I think in
this country we think the right way about special needs kids. I
believe the right amount of dollars are being invested. There
could probably be some more things that would be helpful, but
there is some flexibility with respect to what school districts
can do with the money that flows to them for special needs. But
my sense is that we try very hard to accommodate special needs
kids in the public school districts of America and do a pretty
good job.
We have been working on this for three legislative
sessions, and it is clear to me how many different things you
need to bring together in order at the end of the day to make
it about student learning.
Teacher effectiveness, you mentioned that as well, and we
are working with our schools that educate teachers who are
going into the public school system. We are working with higher
ed to ensure that we have the right way of instructing them and
then asking questions: How do we retain the good ones and
ensure they are quality teachers? Those are all part of a
fairly, I think, difficult conversation sometimes, but a fairly
important conversation if you are going to really get at
student learning.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Castle.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, you have obviously talked at length about the
common core standards, and I think there are 48 States involved
in this, including my State of Delaware. If they are adopted in
some way or another, that could be good. But I am a little
concerned about the assessments. You mentioned the assessments,
but you didn't go into any details on it. Would there be common
assessments that would be developed at the same time, or would
each State be allowed to have its own assessments? How is that
being looked at by the NGA and chief State school officers, et
cetera?
Governor Ritter. Going back to our experience as a State
where we developed common standards and believed it was
important to retool the assessments so that they measured how
you were doing against those standards, and we are in the
process of doing that right now, but I believe it would be
important to retool the assessments for those States that want
to participate and adopt common core standards. They are going
to have to do that.
Mr. Castle. Do you think they would be common so everybody
would have more or less the same assessments?
Governor Ritter. I think so. I shouldn't speak for the
National Governors Association because I haven't been a part of
that conversation with the National Governors Association; but
my sense is, yes, it should happen. This is not--and I don't
want to make it sound like it is--easy, but at the same time,
like I said, when we developed our standards, and we saw the
first draft coming out of the National Governors Association
and the CCSSO, those standards very much looked like what we
had already put in place. And I suspect that is true of
assessments as well.
There is a lot that we do in this country that involves
common assessments. It is not a foreign concept. If you think
about the ACT or the SAT or things of that nature, it is just
that we haven't done it in a fashion that, number one, uses the
technology that is now available to us, or that allows us to do
it on an ongoing basis. But absolutely I think we have the
ability to develop common assessments that States can adopt or
not adopt that help them measure against the progress of the
standards.
Mr. Castle. I am concerned about how the States will react
if there are common standards as well as the assessments, and
all of a sudden you are in a State that may be ranked 45th, as
opposed to fifth, and you may say, I don't want any part of
this. The concept, to me, makes a lot of sense. It is like the
NAEP tests make a lot of sense to a degree, but Governors are
very wary of that as well.
It concerns me that you are going to have trouble getting
all the States to cooperate and agree on this. If you start
having something where people can look at it and rank it, which
in many ways I think it would be good because it forces the
States that are not doing well to do more, but I am not sure
how happy the Governors and legislators are going to be in
those States.
Governor Ritter. I think we all agree the education system
has to improve. The public education system in America has to
improve. We have to graduate more kids than we currently do.
Those kids should need less remediation to go to college than
they currently do. We need to do a better job benchmarking
internationally. If that is your aspiration, we need to be
willing to submit to the hard realities that some States are
going to do better than others, and then put in front of them
some aspiration how to get to a better place. I think this
notion of allowing States to benchmark among themselves is also
very valuable because you can group yourself with other States.
Again, you want it to be a competition that is about being
rigorous and about inspiring schools to do better.
My dealings with educators, not just in my own family, Mr.
Polis mentioned that I was married to a schoolteacher, but my
dealing with educators is largely that they want to do better
and figure this out. I think the same is true of Governors and
legislators.
Mr. Castle. I tend to agree, and I think your answer is
very properly idealistic. But if you are a Governor who is
going to come in with low rankings and wants to get reelected,
watch out trying to get them signed up and be involved with
this. I think political concerns can get in the way of it all.
I hope it doesn't, but that is a part that concerns me a great
deal.
My other concern is what, if anything, do you think
Congress should be doing to react to this? I have been
following this and following what Governors have been saying,
et cetera. Right now you developed the standards and
assessments anyhow. Whatever we do with No Child Left Behind,
which will involve some fundamental changes next year probably,
do we just leave it up to the States as we do now to develop
the standards and assessments, and within that context you can
do what you have to do to follow the course that you are
following at this time?
Governor Ritter. I just took a swing through the eastern
part of my State. It is very rural. We had discussion with
educators about some of the difficulties they continue to have
with No Child Left Behind. Part of it was the punitive nature
of that. Some of the goals that were set are going to be hard,
if not impossible, to achieve, and they look at being punished
by that if nothing were to change.
And so in discussing this very thing, the Governors and
with my own policy people, what can Congress do and what can
the Federal Government do to assist us, I think the Federal
Government has a role in helping us continue to set goals. We
need to do a better job. We have to look at our graduation rate
and say that is not acceptable in a 21st century world to have
25 percent of the kids drop out of high school. What is the
goal going to be?
I think the Department of Education is doing a very good
job of setting goals of the number of kids that must graduate
from college, and backing that up saying, if that is the case,
how do you get those kids into a 4-year program? What does that
mean for graduation rates? And in order to change the
graduation rate by 2020, what are the things that you have to
do today? That is the most helpful thing.
I think the punitive aspects of No Child Left Behind have
actually received a greater focus from school districts than if
we had said, this is the goal, how do we organize around this
value or goal, and then look at best practices that we at the
National Governors Association are pretty proud of and say,
what kinds of best practices then help us move toward that
goal?
I know that sounds pretty idealistic, but we are doing this
in a concrete way in Colorado where it is very much goal-
oriented. We set an ambition for ourselves to cut the dropout
rate in half in 10 years from 2 years ago, and that gives us an
organizing goal, an organizing value, and that makes a
difference to educators when you articulate that.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, very much.
First, I would like to congratulate you, Governor Ritter,
for being selected as Chair of the NGA's education committee
this past July. Your appointment recognizes Colorado's major
education reforms that you and Lieutenant Governor O'Brien have
initiated since taking office in 2007. In this position with
the NGA, you can help shape the national dialogue over
education reform that President Obama and this Congress have
launched with a bold vision and a strong commitment to
excellence and opportunity for all.
I want to thank you for providing this update on the State-
led development on common core State standards, which is an
essential component in our Nation's effort to transform our
education system so it provides all students with the skills
and knowledge needed to successfully compete and thrive in the
global economy.
As Governor you spend a lot of time working to bring new
businesses to Colorado and helping existing companies grow,
something that is high on the agenda of all of our Governors,
particularly as our Nation faces a recession. Promoting green
energy jobs and strengthening Colorado's competitiveness both
in the U.S. And internationally has been a major focus of your
administration. Can you please discuss with us the importance
of a high-quality education system and a highly skilled
workforce in your economic development efforts and
conversations with domestic and global businesses? How do you
think the common core standards initiative will help improve
our innovation and economic growth both as a Nation and for the
States who adopt internationally benchmarked standards?
Governor Ritter. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I have ever had an economic
development conversation with a company that didn't ask
questions about our education system, or before they spoke to
me at least there were other conversations about that.
Certainly partly people care about how their own kids will be
educated. If they move into a State or will be moving employees
in, they want to market that State based upon the education
system. But they also care about the readiness of the
workforce.
I think there are a lot of businesses in America, small
businesses, moderate or middle-sized and big businesses, that
are concerned about workforce readiness and the level of
training that is needed once they hire people, because the
education system in some respects has not provided the levels
of education necessary. Again, remediation is what we call it
when a person enters into higher ed and needs to go back and do
things over that they should have learned in high school, but
that is also a concern on the part of employers. So we are very
proud. We have the second highest concentration of higher ed
degrees of any State in America in Colorado. That is something
that is very impressive to employers.
We have been focusing on what we call 21st century
industries with sustainable jobs: clean energy, aerospace, bio
science, life science, and then information communication
technology. Those are industries that are part of our focus.
Those are all fairly intense industries that require--for our
part require a workforce that has something beyond just a high
school diploma, and even in the skilled workforce, some kind of
additional training.
We have partnered with community colleges to find ways to
ensure that they are participating in our training of these, of
this part of the workforce. We brought in Danish companies. We
had recently a German manufacturer of solar inverters who
decided to come to Colorado. It is the first place in the world
that they are going to make solar inverters outside of Germany,
and it has everything to do with a variety of factors, not the
least of which is our education system.
Mr. Polis. I am glad to hear that our efforts in education
reform are leading to tangible improvements and jobs in
Colorado and the economy, and are a major selling point that
you as Governor and other promoters of Colorado use in bringing
businesses to Colorado.
In your testimony you mentioned that your experience
upgrading Colorado State standards was critical. I want you to
describe some of the key efforts in Colorado to increase rigor
in our schools and also to better align K-12 and postsecondary
education. Specifically, I would like you to discuss how the
work of your P-20 Education Coordinating Council that you
established helped pave the way for Colorado to become one of
the first States in the Nation to align its academic policies
from preschool all the way through higher education.
Governor Ritter. Our starting point was the appointment of
this P-20 Council. And with all due respect to educators, we
thought it was important to have subject matter experts help us
develop policy. We thought it was important to sort of remove
ideology from the debate and form a bipartisan group of people
who would really work in the world of preschool through
postgraduate work. That is the 20 in P-20; 4 years after you
have completed a college degree, if you are still in some kind
of an advanced degree program, we really think about how to
align standards.
We had the first meeting in the history of the State of
Colorado between our Commission on Higher Education and the
State board of education to adopt these standards. We had never
met before to really ask the question: How do we align
standards? So we said it wasn't just what you got K through 12,
but ensured that there was participation by the higher
education system to say, you want to manage your curriculum in
your first year of college, this is what is necessary when you
graduate.
Thirty percent of our kids graduating from Colorado high
schools needed remedial help; whether it was a junior college,
a community college or a 4-year college, 30 percent of those
kids needed remedial help. So for our purposes, we aligned
based upon the recommendations of the P-20 Council about really
how to do that.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Miller. Just for the information of the Members,
Mr. Guthrie and then Ms. Chu will ask questions of the
Governor, and then the Governor will have to leave. We are
expecting a vote relatively shortly, but we will try to get the
second panel in place, and we will begin the questioning with
those who haven't had an opportunity to question in this round.
Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask one
quick questions.
Thank you for coming. I was in the State legislature, and
it is where the rubber meets the road in education. There were
a couple of minutes in the introduction about setting
performance-based goals measured against global benchmarks.
What kinds of global benchmarks and what kind of process are
you setting? Have you already started working on those
benchmarks? And just the process, just elaborate. That is all I
will be asking.
Governor Ritter. I think the Chairman alluded to the fact
that we know where we stand in terms of proficiency as it
relates to other States and other countries and how those
students performed in math and science and different language
abilities. We can then look at ourselves and benchmark it
against other countries and ask the question, how do we do a
better job? How do we get more kids who are proficient in math
or who perform at the highest levels in math? That is the kind
of benchmarking that we are talking about. That data is there.
The data is available. We already in some respects are able to
benchmark against that, and so then the question is how do we
measure progress as we use those standards?
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu. Governor Ritter, your testimony mentions how the
Obama administration is providing carrots, not sticks, to
encourage States to toughen academic standards. However,
California standards are already rigorous. If California were
to adopt the proposed standards, there is the possibility that
students wouldn't be able to meet the requirements for
admission to California State University and the University of
California. I know that you said you would want to have the
highest standards, as I learned from your earlier discourse,
but how would your initiative address States with higher
standards?
Governor Ritter. Again, the Department of Education has to
decide what it ultimately wants to do with these common core
standards. For us it has been a State-led process that has
involved 48 out of the 50 States, including California, in the
writing of those. We demanded rigor. They are not fully
completed yet, so I am not sure how States can come in and say
that our standards are higher than these standards, but at the
end of the day, they can adopt them or decide not to adopt
them. What we are trying to do is set a high bar, and we
believe that that has been part of our process is finding a way
to set a pretty high bar, rigorous bar, that pulls States up.
So not being familiar with the California standards or able
to say--I guess not being able to accept the premise is what I
am saying, we have tried to make it so these standards are such
that States don't fall above them, that they actually are a
good measure of where States should find themselves when they
are considering it. And at the end of the day, it is absolutely
voluntary on the part of the States to see if they want to do
that or not.
Even in my discussions with the Secretary, they are not
demanding 100 percent compliance with these standards. They are
asking that there be some kind of substantial compliance if you
are going to get Race to the Top money. But Race to the Top,
while it is important, it is one thing. If States have done a
better job of adopting standards than what we are doing at the
National Governors Association, I say that is a really good
problem to have.
Ms. Chu. It sounds to me like you have taken a substantial
role in upgrading standards in Colorado. What was the greatest
challenge in doing so?
Governor Ritter. In Colorado, it is very much a local
system. It is based upon local school districts. In a
population of 5 million people, we have 175 or 178 school
districts, and ensuring that you take into consideration the
special needs of those school districts. There are very
different characteristics in those, and to adopt a common set
of content standards that really can be something implemented
in each of those districts is going to require a great deal of
work, and that it why I said it takes some time to do that.
That has been our greatest challenge is to ensure that it is
something that works for all 178 school districts.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, following up on Mr. Polis' question, can you say
a quick word about how competitive the United States can be
internationally in business if we continue to languish at the
bottom in math and science and education?
Governor Ritter. I think the Lumina Foundation maybe has
done the best work on this. The Lumina Foundation looked at
where we were when my generation--and I am 53 years old--my
generation sort of came out of college, and 37 percent of us
had higher ed degrees. My son's generation, he is 23 years old.
Those 25 to 34 years old, 25 percent of them have a college
degree. We have actually lost ground. We are the first
generation to have another generation beyond us lose ground in
concentration of higher ed degrees.
Meanwhile, Japan is over 50 percent. South Korea is over 50
percent. Most Scandinavian countries are at where we are or
have exceeded where we are. So we can't continue to lose ground
against other countries in terms of how well educated our
population is without also losing a competitive edge. I think
that is a way to think about this. It is absolutely important
for us to focus on what the end game is, and the end game is
that other places in this world, there are more students
receiving college degrees than when my generation came out of
college. And in order for us to really maintain our competitive
edge, we have to solve that issue. We don't solve that issue
without solving the issue of what is happening in K-12 with
respect to our dropout rate, but maybe more importantly with
respect to how we are working with the fundamentals and our
inability to really compete because of our math and English
grades.
Mr. Scott. And because when the corporations make their
decisions, they look at that, and if we don't show good
numbers, they are going somewhere else.
Governor Ritter. Absolutely. They very much care about
that.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned the study of the waiting list on
preschool and the effect on graduation rates. Did that study
also show the cost-effectiveness of preschool compared to the
cost of remedial education on crime and welfare?
Governor Ritter. What it showed--it was a children's
campaign study, and they may have based the information on
something else, but it was in a publication that was called The
Colorado Children's Campaign, and it showed the lost earned
income for dropouts, for school dropouts. Again, I can't quote
the figure off the top of my head, but it looked at this and
said if a student drops out, compared to a student who
graduates, this is the income you lose. That is what the earner
loses, but then the State revenue that is piled on top of that
because of an inability to tax that lower income; and then the
necessity for really a variety of services that the State
expends, whether social services or even criminal justice
services, because a person is a dropout and therefore is at
greater risk of having those intersections with the State
government.
Mr. Scott. It did include the future costs of crime,
welfare, and remedial education?
Governor Ritter. It did, I believe.
Mr. Scott. If we can get a copy of that, I would appreciate
that.
Governor Ritter. Okay.
Mr. Scott. There seems to be some religion. Sometimes I
think I am the only one on this panel who really thinks there
really ought to be a national standard. What is the advantage
of having each State home-bake its own standards and
assessments rather than there be a--since we are competing
internationally, why can't we have--or what is the advantage of
having the 50 States do their own rather than a bare core
national standard that, if a State wants to, it can exceed, but
it needs to come up with at least the basic standard?
Governor Ritter. I don't think there is an advantage. That
is why we are involved in this process of having 48 States pull
together to develop a common core standard, because we think an
approach that allows 50 different States to have 50 different
standards and 50 different assessments will not get us to the
place we need to get to to compete internationally.
So for our purposes, a common core standard is what should
be, at the end of the day, drawn up, and then allow States to
decide whether to participate or not.
Mr. Scott. Does the common core include things other than
the math and science and English? How about conflict
resolution, physical ed and general culture kind of things?
Governor Ritter. At this juncture it really does not. We
started with math and English language arts. That is the
starting point. I guess what else is amenable to the
development of a common core standard is an open question, but
we appreciate this is the starting point, these two
disciplines.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Governor. Thank you very much
for your time and your expertise on this. We look forward to
the results. We wish you and the other Governors all the best.
Governor Ritter. Thank you to the members of the committee
and to you, Mr. Chairman, for the time and opportunity.
Chairman Miller. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Our next panel, if they would come and
take their seats, we will begin with Gene Wilhoit, who became
executive director of the Council of Chief State School
Officers in November, 2006. He has served as a program director
for the Indiana Department of Education; administrator in
Kanawha County, West Virginia; and special assistant to the
U.S. Department of Education. Mr. Wilhoit has also served as
executive director of the National Association of School Boards
of Education, and director of the Arkansas Department of
Education, and deputy commissioner and commissioner of the
Kentucky Department of Education.
Doug Kubach is the president and CEO of Pearson Assessment
and Information. Mr. Kubach joined Pearson Assessment and
Information in May 2001 as senior vice president for strategy
and chief technology officer for Pearson Education. In 2003, he
was appointed president and CEO of Pearson's assessment and
testing business, which has become the leading assessment and
information system provider in the U.S. education market.
Formerly Mr. Kubach was the chief technology officer for
McGraw-Hill Education, senior executive of Harcourt school
division.
Cathy Allen is from St. Mary's County Board of Education in
Maryland. Cathy Allen has been on the board of education for
St. Mary's County Public School for 9 years, having served both
as vice chair and chairman of the board. She is the current
president-elect of the Maryland Association of Boards of
Education and has served on numerous committees on that board.
We welcome you today to the committee. We look forward to
your testimony. Unfortunately, at some point we will be
interrupted by a vote, but hopefully we will quickly discharge
our duties and return here.
Again, the lighting system is the green lights come on, and
you have 5 minutes. An orange light comes on, and you have a
minute to wrap up, and then we will go to questions after all
of you have testified. Thank you so much for taking your time.
Mr. Wilhoit, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF GENE WILHOIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF CHIEF
STATE SCHOOL OFFICES
Mr. Wilhoit. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Thompson, and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be
with you today. All of us know that there have been efforts in
the past to come to commonality around standards, and those
have not been successful. So why should this one be more
successful than the past, I think, is an important question. I
would say this is fundamentally different in ways that will
assure success.
First of all, as the Governor has indicated, this remains a
State-Led effort. And as a former chief in two States, it is
important in our conversations among the chiefs that it remain
so.
Secondly, we have said to the States from the very
beginning this is voluntary; and if a State does not want to
comply, they may choose not to do so. But we are pleased that
48 States and two territories are currently engaged in the
process.
Third, we are aiming higher with these standards than we
have attempted in the past. And by that, we are again
attempting to make these standards higher because we know that
there is tremendous disparity among the States in terms of
expectations. Secondly, we are trying to make them clear so
that a teacher in the classroom and an administrator in a
building will be able to read those standards and understand
them. And we are also attempting to make them more direct and
fewer, because what we have done in many States, as you read
those standards, is expand the expectations.
And well-meaning and hard-working teachers are attempting
to teach to all those standards, and in doing so we are losing
the deepness of understanding that students have in covering
all of that.
So these are higher, clearer, fewer standards than we have
before. And as the governor said, we are internationally
benchmarking these against the other countries. We are not only
including content here, we are talking about the cognitive
capacities that these students are going to need to be
successful in this new world economy.
And, finally, we are building on the idea that we will try
to put as much evidence on the table as possible in terms of
coming up with these standards. I will say, frankly, that there
is not enough evidence out there as we go through this process
in 2009, but we have changed the way in which we are setting
standards, trying to make sure that we make a direct link
between the experiences students have at K-12 and the ultimate
success they have in careers and in colleges.
So this is different. This will assure success, we think,
in the future. It is an intensive process. We have been open
and transparent. We have had all educational organizations who
are interested give us direct comments. We have had members of
the unions, we have had the administrators, the local boards
all engaged in conversations with us. We have had the civil
rights community providing advice. We have had university
professors who are well known and respected in the field to
provide advice. That is highly complex and diverse and,
frankly, very dynamic in terms of the work that we are engaged
in. But we do feel that out of that process, in addition to
having over a thousand individual comments come in to us about
the nature of these standards, we are coming up with the best
effort we have had as a country. So we feel good about that.
And what we are now attempting to do is move this to a point
where this State-led effort will lead to a process of adoption
by the States.
We have a two-part document that has been created. The
first part is a statement about what we call readiness
standards for college in mathematics and English language arts.
What are the expectations for a student to know and be able to
do to enter a credit-bearing course, not remediation, in
college and be successful in that course? And that is a
question we have asked higher ed to answer for us. It is a
question we brought to organizations who have expertise and
knowledge about it, like the ACT and the college board, other
organizations like ACHIEVE through the American Diploma
Project. We have reached out to others to answer that question.
We have had a validation committee of national individuals,
respected individuals who are answering that question.
And then we are asking those individuals to give us a sense
of what those readiness standards would look like if we began
to articulate those into learning progressions through the K-12
experience. If we know what and can agree upon what those
readiness standards are, what would it look like at a third-
grade level for a teacher to look at those standards and be
clear about what is expected and what happened at the second
and the first grade prior to that, and then what would be
expected of that student as that student moves through the
learning process. So it is a two-part document, the readiness
standards being very open and transparent about what we expect
for success, and then an articulation of those standards
through the learning experience.
We have, at this point, produced those learning readiness
standards. We put them out for public comment. We have received
advice. We are now in the process of finalizing and revising
those statements. We have put in the hands of the States those
K-12 learning progressions. They are now providing us feedback.
Friday was the deadline for the States to do so. They have done
that, and we are weeding through the numerous and very
thoughtful presentations that are being made by the States.
Every State has been given an invitation to provide that sort
of feedback, and we are asking other individuals to do the
same.
We have a validation committee that will be reviewing all
of this, and our goal is still by the end of January to have a
document that can be shared with the country in terms of our
expectations. So it is moving forward according to schedule.
We see direct benefits for this at every level for the
students and the system who are now very mobile, not only
within States, but across the country, in being able to set
some expectations that they can follow as they move throughout
their career. It should not matter where a student goes to
school. Those same expectations should be held for every one of
them.
For the parents, there is a hopefully a set of statements
which are much clearer than what we have had in the past. You
can actually read those and interpret them and understand them
and understand the role that you, as a parent or guardian, play
in that educational process.
For teachers, this will be the first time we have put in
front of them a set of very clear statements about their roles
and responsibilities, and broken this down in a way that an
individual teacher would be able to understand and know what
contribution that teacher can make to the process.
And for universities, this is a statement about readiness.
It is a commitment on the part of K-12 to send prepared
students into the higher education system, but also to say to
the higher ed community: We have a lot of work ahead of us to
align what you are doing at the university system with K-12
experience.
That leads us to, I think, this final issue I would like to
talk about, and that is the Federal role. We do believe this
has its strength because it is a State-led initiative. We want
it to remain a State-led initiative, but we do feel that there
is a Federal role in supporting this kind of work. And I think
that comes, first of all, in the area of research. We need more
practical research on what is going on in classrooms around the
implementation of these standards, because we know this is only
a first step.
When we get standards in front of individuals, we then need
to develop assessment systems, program supports, and support
for our teachers, and we need support in multiple ways. The
Federal Government can support that kind of.
Chairman Miller. If you can wrap up.
Mr. Wilhoit. That is it.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Wilhoit follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to speak today about the state-led common
core standards initiative directed by the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA).
We know that efforts to produce common education standards have
been tried and have failed many times before. However, this current
effort is fundamentally different as standards are in place in all
states, states are frustrated by the inability to make fair and
accurate comparisons and they see the benefits that can come from
collective state action and have determined to drive this initiative
themselves. Currently, forty-eight states, two territories, and the
District of Columbia are voluntarily engaged in this initiative and
this is why our collective state work is going to succeed. Further,
while developing these core standards in English language arts and
mathematics, our goal was not just that they be common across states,
but that they reflect certain principles: be higher, clearer, and
fewer; be internationally benchmarked; include both content knowledge
and skills; be evidence and research based; and prepare students for
college and career. This initiative is, and has been since its
inception, a state-led, voluntary effort and by following these
principles we are developing better, higher standards that will support
all students, parents, and educators.
Over the past three years, the members of CCSSO who lead state
education agencies have been taking strong, innovative steps to reform
and improve our nation's system of education. When I became executive
director of CCSSO over three years ago, the leadership and I embraced a
policy agenda based on our states no longer tolerating incremental
reform but taking the lead in making bold changes. I believe this
effort being voluntarily led by the states on behalf of all of the
nation's children does just that.
In 2007, international comparisons through the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) indicated that American
children were ranked well below their peers in leading education
countries like Finland, Singapore, Korea, Australia, and Canada. CCSSO,
along with NGA, vowed to change these looming statistics. In December
of last year, after much research and discussion with our members, we
released a report with Achieve Inc. on international benchmarking and
made our first priority the creation of better, higher core standards
that are common across states like those high performing countries.
Many of our members had already begun efforts along this line with the
American Diploma Project and were seeing commonalities emerge. This
current state-led effort builds on that and expands it to ensure that
all children regardless of zip code are taught to the same high
standards that prepare them for college and career and allow them to
compete with their peers around the globe.
States have told CCSSO what they need, and we have developed a
process that will best support their needs, and ultimately the needs of
all students across this nation. Our process is thorough and
transparent; we have engaged a tremendous number of stakeholders and
interested parties: individual teachers, national organizations,
teachers' unions, as well as members of the general public. I am here
today to give you complete confidence that states are taking the lead
to develop the best standards our country and our states have ever
seen. We are committed to the highest quality and our process will
result in standards worthy of all of your states' students.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative Explained
I will highlight three important points as I talk about this
initiative. First, by keeping this a collective and state-led
initiative, we are able to ensure that high standards are applied to
each and every student and that will form the basis for many other
educational reforms. Second, we are adhering to four foundational
principles and a transparent process to develop these standards.
Finally, we believe that there are clear benefits of shared standards
to all students, parents, and teachers.
I. Collective State-Led Education Reform
Throughout this work, we remain cognizant that the states have the
primary responsibility to provide an equitable and adequate education
for every child in this country through our 57 public education systems
(including the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of
Defense Education Activity, and all five extra-state jurisdictions),
and it is each state's right to determine and define what each student,
in each grade level, should know and be able to do. This means that
each state defines what its standards are, how those standards will be
taught by teachers, and how student learning will be assessed. Through
collective state action, we will produce a high-quality set of learning
outcomes that the states agree will ultimately produce strong student
outcomes while still allowing flexibility for local districts to
innovate to get all students to these goals, including English language
learners and students with disabilities. We do not believe we would be
able to serve all students if this was not a collaborative, state-led
process. The establishment of common core standards is a first step
toward bringing about real and meaningful transformation of our
education system and toward the ultimate goal of preparing all children
for college, work, and success in the global economy. We are very proud
that 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have
signed onto the Common Core State Standards Initiative.
We also realize that better, common core standards are only the
first step in a longer reform process. However, the standards lay the
groundwork for states to continue collective education reform. Even
those states that are thought to already have high standards are able
to benefit from this work in a variety of ways. With the common core
standards adopted, states may take on the process of developing shared
assessments, which, among other benefits, would potentially lead to
tremendous cost savings at the state level. The standards also allow
states to be aligned in how they prepare teachers and how they advance
the teaching profession. Further, teachers can have the instructional
supports and materials that are aligned to these core standards in
order to be effective in teaching them. We are working with several
organizations to make sure that these materials will be produced in an
effective and open way to allow access to all teachers and schools.
With common core standards, states can continue their collective reform
efforts in nearly all facets of the education system.
II. Common Core Standards Development Principles and Transparency
As mentioned earlier, even before development of the standards
began, this initiative has been driven by the following four
fundamental principles to ensure better, common state standards that
all students should meet to be college and career ready.
Our first principle involves the design of these common standards
to be higher, clearer and fewer. Each one of these design elements is
crucial. Higher standards raise the bar to prepare students for
international competitiveness. Being committed to higher standards
ensures that no state involved in this process will have to lower its
standards by adopting the common core. Clearer standards allow parents,
students, and teachers to understand exactly what is expected of
students as they advance through the system. Fewer standards allow
teachers in the classroom to focus on topics in a much deeper way. One
challenge that we consistently hear from educators about current
standards is that there are too many to cover in the school year. We
are focusing the standards in order to maximize student learning.
The second principle is that these standards will be
internationally benchmarked. American students are entering a global
economy that requires them to compete with students from across the
world. Through our development of the common standards, we have looked
at other high achieving countries' standards to ensure that we are
using the best standards in the world. By doing this, we are creating a
set of standards that will allow our students to be internationally
competitive when they leave our public schools.
The third principle is that our standards development process is
being driven by evidence and research. In the past, standards were
based largely on personal judgment. By allowing personal judgment to
determine what concepts are in or out of standards, the process often
becomes a negotiation, rather than a reflection on what the evidence
and research tells us about the connection between K-12 experiences and
success in higher education and promising careers.
The final principle is to align the common standards with college
and work expectations. By preparing all students to be both college and
career ready, all students are able to be competitive in their post-
secondary education and/or career choice. Focusing on all students
being prepared for college and career is absolutely critical to the
long-term success of our country. Having a set of expectations that are
clear to students, parents and educators about what it takes to be
college and career ready, the states have taken a major step forward in
producing students who are ready for the world.
Now that I have described the principles that guide our state-led
work, I want to speak a bit about the process. CCSSO and NGA committed
to their respective memberships that we would honor and keep this
process as transparent and open as possible. In April 2009, over forty
states met to discuss the possibility of creating common core standards
in English language arts and mathematics grounded in these principles.
By the end of the conversation, 48 states signed on to be a part of the
standards development work. Since then, a tight timeline for the
standards development process has been fully underway. The first step
in our process was to develop college and career readiness standards in
the fall of 2009, and then, back-map those standards through K-12,
grade-by-grade in early 2010. Using experts and practitioners from
across the nation and throughout the world, we have remained true to
our original timeline. We have developed the initial version of the
college and career readiness standards, which was released in September
of this year. These standards have already been reviewed by states, the
public, and a range of national organizations and experts. Based upon
the college and career readiness standards, we have begun the
development of the K-12 standards which are currently being reviewed by
states and others. The development of the K-12 expectations will be
complete in early February 2010 once the states and the public have had
a chance to weigh in.
Once developed, states will begin the process of adopting and
implementing the standards. We have defined adoption of the common core
standards as the following: a state must adopt one hundred percent of
the common core standards; in addition to one hundred percent of the
common core, states are able to add up to an additional fifteen percent
at their discretion; and, the standards authorizing body within the
state must take formal action to adopt and implement the common core.
Ultimately, states are responsible for demonstrating that they have
adhered to this definition of adoption and states are expected to
within three years fully implement the standards by developing
instructional supports and aligning assessments.
III. Benefits of Common Standards: Students, Parents, and Teachers
Not only are the common standards a positive development for all
students because they help prepare them with the knowledge and skills
needed to succeed in college and careers, but, common standards for all
students provides consistency in high expectations for learning across
the nation, regardless of in which state the student lives. Having
common standards is a critical issue for many students who may have
different expectations depending on where they live and which school
they attend. These standards will allow students to more easily
transition from one state to another without losing valuable learning
time adjusting to different standards. Given the mobility of the
student population in the United States, common standards is essential.
Also, having higher, clearer, and fewer standards makes it very
apparent to students what we expect of them so that they can take part
in being accountable for their own learning.
For parents, common standards are a positive development because
they help them understand exactly what their children need to know and
be able to do at each step in their education. With clearer and fewer
standards, parents will be better positioned to facilitate
conversations with their child's teachers about what they should be
learning and how they can reach their goals creating even more
accountability in system.
Finally, common standards are critical for teachers as it makes it
clear what is expected of their students from year to year. It also
allows for more focused educator training and professional development.
Strong training of our teachers is paramount, and common standards
allow for teacher preparation programs and ongoing professional
development to be focused on these key objectives.
The Federal Role
To preserve the integrity of this work, it is imperative that this
remains as a state-led initiative. However, even while remaining state-
led, there are avenues in which the federal government can offer
support and ongoing research. Federal law needs to reward this kind of
state leadership, not just with funding for assessments, professional
development, and other supports, but also by codifying a new form of
state-federal partnership that promotes innovation and values state
judgment on accountability, particularly in terms of the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The
current accountability system established under the No Child Left
Behind Act will undercut movement toward high standards. By adopting
the common core standards, states are voluntarily raising the bar for
all students and should be allowed flexibility as they implement them.
Conclusion
As stated previously, there have been previous failed attempts to
create a set of common expectations for students in the United States;
however, this time states are at the forefront, leading this successful
work. Given that international assessments are demonstrating that the
United States is falling behind in key measures, the states are
collectively and aggressively acting to create better, common core
standards which will set the high bar for continuing the hard work of
taking all students to college and career ready levels. This is
challenging work. We also recognize that having common standards is the
necessary starting point, and that there is much work ahead. Now is the
time to take action, and the states are responding with thoughtful
commitment and collective leadership.
I welcome any comments or questions regarding this state-led
initiative, the principles we are adhering to, our transparent process,
and how this effort will benefit each and every student, parent, and
teacher in our educational system.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee
today. I submitted a more formal statement for the official record.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Kubach.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS KUBACH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PEARSON
ASSESSMENT AND INFORMATION
Mr. Kubach. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Congressman
Thompson, and all the members of the committee for the
invitation to be here today.
Pearson is the global leader in educational assessment and
education technology, drawing on our expertise in large-scale
assessments, longitudinal data systems, and instructional
support systems, we are actively working to inform the public
dialogue about high-quality standards and assessments. We share
the administration's and the committee's goals of improving
student learning, increasing college readiness, and our global
competitiveness.
In my testimony today, I will focus on three key points.
The first point is that to successfully develop and implement
higher quality standards, diverse education stakeholders will
be required to collaborate and cooperate in new ways. For
example, Pearson is collaborating with ETS and the College
Board, two organizations with a shared longstanding commitment
to investing in education research and development. Together,
we are exploring how innovative approaches and best practices
in high-quality assessments can contribute to a new common core
standards assessment system. Our joint paper is being submitted
for the record along with Pearson's full written response to
the Education Department's recent request for input on the Race
to the Top assessment program.
The second point I would like to make is about the role of
annual assessments as the foundation for a quality management
system for public education. We are proud of the role that we
play in helping 30 States implement valid, reliable, and
efficient systems. We believe that transparency into student
performance is essential to achieving lasting education reform.
Nothing is more fundamental to ensuring transparency than
accountability systems based upon annual assessments of
individual student achievement and providing parents and the
public with the results.
It is only through annual assessments that we know what
progress we are making in providing equal access to a quality
public education for all children. It is the only way for
parents and educators to know whether curriculum and
instructional practices are working, what is effective, and
what needs to improve. It is the only way for parents,
policymakers, and administrators to know whether schools are
effectively serving students, holding teachers and school
leaders accountable for making progress, and improving student
outcomes.
Here, I would like to make a special point about assessment
systems developed in connection with No Child Left Behind. Both
the Federal Government and the States have invested significant
amounts of time and money into these systems which rely
primarily on paper-based, multiple choice assessments. With all
of the resources provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and Race to the Top, we have a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to go paperless. And that is my final
point this morning, the unprecedented opportunity we have
before us to go online to improve learning.
Now is the time for States to build out the infrastructure
and capacity for online assessments, online management system,
online content instructional delivery systems.
Online assessments will allow us to do some truly
revolutionary things. For example, we can use a wider range of
performance-based tasks such as multi-step problems,
simulations, and inquiry-based investigations. We can use new
language evaluation technologies that automate the scoring of
open-ended oral and written responses. We will have less
cumbersome assessment progresses and faster delivery of
results, allowing more real-time adjustments and instruction.
We will get greater use out of our longitudinal data systems
through improve data timeliness and data quality. And, we will
be able to offer a wider range of accommodations for students
with disabilities and for English language learners.
Online assessments better reflect the world of college and
work that students will live in. Also note that the emerging
common course standards in both math and English language arts
define constructs that can best be measured through the use of
technology. New assessment innovations allow to go beyond
traditional tests to measure complex tasks like problem
solving, critical thinking, and analysis, or making inferences
within and across core subjects. Advances in technology,
coupled with advances in assessment design, make it possible
for us to obtain a richer and more nuanced picture of what
students know and can do than ever before.
In closing, we are committed to developing assessment
systems that provide accountability data and actionable
information to students, parents, teachers, administrators, and
policymakers. Improvements in innovations and assessment
methods and technology, coupled with the development of higher
standards focused on both content and skills, will allow us to
better measure student performance and ultimately to improve
student learning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
participate in this conversation with you and your colleagues.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Kubach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas Kubach, Pearson Assessment & Information
Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and all the
members of the committee for the invitation to be here today. I am
Douglas Kubach, President & CEO for Pearson's Assessment & Information
group.
Pearson is the global leader in educational assessment and
education technology.
Drawing on our expertise implementing large-scale assessments,
longitudinal data systems and instructional support systems, we are
actively working to inform the public dialogue about higher quality
standards and assessments. We share the Administration's and the
Committee's goals of improving student learning, increasing college
readiness and global competitiveness.
(1) Collaboration for the greater good
In my testimony today I will focus on three key points. The first
point is that to successfully develop and implement higher quality
standards, diverse education stakeholders, such as state consortia, the
US Department of Education, non-profit and for-profit entities, K-12
and higher education leaders, and assessment developers, to name a few,
will be required to collaborate and cooperate in new ways. For example,
Pearson is collaborating with ETS and the College Board, two
organizations with a shared, longstanding commitment to investing in
education research and development. Together, we're exploring, not for
individual gain, but for the benefit of our students and our nation,
how innovative approaches and best practices in high-quality
assessments can contribute to a new Common Core Standards assessment
system. Our joint paper is being submitted for the record along with
Pearson's full written response to the U.S. Education Department's
recent request for input on the Race to the Top Assessment program.
(2) Preserving Accountability, Increasing Transparency
The second point I'd like make is about the role of annual
assessments as a foundation for a quality management system for public
education. We are proud of the role that we play in helping 30 states
implement valid, reliable and efficient assessment systems. We believe
that transparency into student performance is essential to achieving
lasting education reform.
Nothing is more fundamental to ensuring transparency than
accountability systems based upon annual assessments of individual
student growth and achievement and providing parents and the public
with the results.
It is only through annual assessments that we know what progress we
are making in providing equal access to a quality public education for
all children. It's the only way for parents and educators to know
whether curriculum and instructional practices are working, what's
effective and what needs to improve. It's the only way for parents,
policymakers and administrators to know whether schools are effectively
serving students, holding teachers and school leaders accountable for
making progress in improving student outcomes.
Here I'd like to make a special point about assessment systems
developed in connection with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Both the
federal government and the states have invested significant amounts of
time and money in these systems, which rely primarily on paper-based,
multiple-choice summative assessments. With all of the resources
provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Race to
the Top we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to go to paperless
testing.
(3) Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity to ``Go Online''
And that is my final point this morning: The unprecedented
opportunity we have before us to ``go online'' to improve learning. Now
is the time for states to build out the infrastructure and capacity for
online assessments, online management systems, and online content and
instructional delivery and reporting systems.
Online assessments will allow us to do some truly revolutionary
things. For example* Wider use of performance-based tasks such as
multi-step problems, simulations, and inquiry-based investigations;
New language evaluation technologies that automate the
scoring of open-ended oral and written responses;
Less cumbersome assessment processes and speedier delivery
of results--allowing more real time adjustments in instruction;
Greater use of longitudinal data systems through improved
data timeliness and quality;
Wider range of accommodations for students with
disabilities and English-language learners.
Online assessments better reflect the world of college and work
that students will live in.
Moreover, the emerging Common Core standards in both Mathematics
and English Language Arts define constructs that can best be measured
through the use of technology. New assessment innovations allow us to
go beyond traditional tests to measure complex tasks like problem-
solving, critical thinking and analysis, or making inferences within
and across core subjects. Advances in technology, coupled with advances
in assessment design, psychometrics and cognitive models, make it
possible for us to obtain a richer and more nuanced picture of what
students know and can do than ever before.
In closing, we are committed to developing assessment systems that
provide accountability data and instructionally actionable information
to students, parents, teachers, administrators, and policymakers.
Improvements and innovations in assessment methods and technology,
coupled with the development of common standards focused on both
content and critical thinking skills, will allow us to better measure
student performance and ultimately improve student learning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
this conversation with you and your colleagues. I look forward to
answering your questions.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Allen.
STATEMENT OF CATHY ALLEN, VICE CHAIR, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD,
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ms. Allen. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Thompson, and
members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity
to speak to you today regarding common core standards. As you
noted, I am a member of the St. Mary's County Board of
Education; I have been so for 10 years. I am also president of
the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, and I am here
to share my perspective not only as a local board member, but
also the concerns of local school boards across the Nation.
St. Mary's County is it located at the southernmost tip of
Maryland 60 miles south of the Nation's capital. We have over
17,000 students enrolled, supported by over 2,000 teachers.
Student performance on the Maryland school assessments in
mathematics, reading, and science is in the top quartile and
outranks statewide data in every grade level assessed. We have
implemented a broad range of innovative programs to prepare our
students for the highly competitive 21st century workforce.
I share this pride to demonstrate that our school district
remains committed to improved academic achievement for all
students. My colleagues throughout the Nation recognize the
importance of rigorous academic standards to ensure that
students enrolled in our public schools are competitive in the
global society. With the passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and the accompanying Race to the Top fund and
the proposed innovation grants, we will be able to further
intensify our efforts.
With respect to common core standards, local school boards
believe that such standards should be developed by States
individually or collectively by groups of States to achieve
this goal. Local school boards also recognize that the Federal
Government must play a role. However, the Federal role must be
one of partnership and support to States, not only in terms of
funding for those students with the greatest needs, but also in
serving as a clearinghouse to share and promote best practices
regarding actions to overcome shortfalls in student
achievement.
Consistent with the language of the formal resolution
adopted this year by the National School Boards Association
Delegate Assembly, we believe the Federal Government should
support State and local efforts to provide students with an
education that is focused on the skills and knowledge needed in
the global world of the 21st century by finding multiple
education entities, including regional education entities, to
develop models for voluntary adoption for those purposes, to
support funding for research, and for States and developing and
implementing standards; to ensure that the National Assessment
of Educational Progress, NAEP, and international tests do not
exceed their intended use; and to refrain from requiring or
coercing the use of these standards by States in developing
their own standards for high stakes accountability purposes.
More specifically, local school boards across the Nation
oppose making any of these activities mandatory on States or
local school districts, or as a condition for the receipt of
other Federal aid. And, we oppose efforts to involve the
Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to develop
mandatory or model national content standards or to mandate the
development of common content standards among groups of States.
Local school boards are well aware of the ongoing efforts
by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief
State School Officers on Common Core Standards, and we will
continue to support State-led common core standards that
includes sufficient flexibility in operations to address unique
challenges of local communities. The National School Boards
Association applauds their work in assembling an important
first step, the draft common core standards in English,
language arts, and mathematics. We believe that the groups have
bought clarity to a widely varied and disparate set of State
standards.
However, local school boards do have some reservations with
what appears to be greater coercion from the Federal Government
in adopting such standards. As an example, the Department of
Education's Race to the Top program will award competitive
grants to States that have worthy school reform plans. This
Race to the Top component effectively would favor States using
these common standards. The proposed requirements for
innovations grants recently released by the Department of
Education suggests support for similar consortia-led approaches
to developing assessments. The proposed expansion of this
approach raises some serious questions that will have to be
sorted out.
Again, we believe that this system of common standards and
any proposals for a system of assessments must remain
voluntary, and States and local school districts must have the
capacity to successfully implement the standards. Local school
boards urge Members of Congress to keep in mind that real
progress is being made and will continue to be made at the
local level with local school boards, administrators, and
teachers working together to establish clear goals aligned with
a rich curriculum and comprehensive instructional plan.
In summary, local school boards in Maryland and across the
Nation support the notion of common core standards, voluntarily
developed by groups of States, as distinguished from and
preferable to a national or Federal entity. Federal funding for
the activity, provided it is not in the nature of a mandate or
coercion such as a condition for receiving grants in aid
funding for ESEA, or title I, individual States or groups of
States developing assessments for common standards but oppose a
national test, the NGACCSSO process and the progress it has
made on standards to date with our full support, but pending
the ultimate outcome, and any other valid process undertaken by
other groups of States.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cathy Allen, Vice Chair, St. Mary's County, MD,
Board of Education
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to have this opportunity to share
with you a local school board perspective regarding the implications of
common core standards. I currently serve as Vice-President of the St
Mary's County, Maryland Board of Education, and I am in my ninth year.
St. Mary's County is located at the southernmost tip of Maryland,
60 miles south of the nation's capital. We are best known for our world
class technology corridor that supports the operations of the Patuxent
Naval Air Station (NAS). We have over 17,000 students enrolled and
supported by over 2,000 teachers. At St. Mary's County Public Schools
we are committed to improved student achievement. Student performance
on the Maryland School Assessments in Mathematics, Reading and Science
is in the top quartile and outranks state-wide data in every grade
level assessed. In reviewing alternate Maryland School Assessments for
the 2008-2009 academic year, our students continue to rank in the top
quartile, and exceed the Maryland-wide performance in each grade level
tested.
Additionally, we have implemented a broad range of innovative
programs to prepare our students for the highly competitive 21st
century workforce through a unique program of study emphasizing the
core areas of mathematics and science with an infusion of technology
and engineering. This STEM program is offered to all SMCP students and
housed at three schools: Lexington Park Elementary School, Spring Ridge
Middle School, and Great Mills High School. The proximity of these
three schools to the Patuxent Naval Air Station and the technology
corridor make them ideal sites.
I share this pride to demonstrate that our school district remains
committed to improved academic achievement for all students. My
colleagues on the St. Mary's County school board as well as other
school boards throughout the state recognize the importance of rigorous
academic standards to ensure that students enrolled in our public
schools are competitive in the global society. With the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the accompanying Race
to the Top (RTTT) Fund, and the proposed Innovation Grants--we will be
able to further intensify our efforts.
As you are aware, research indicates there is strong consensus
among state education officials and local school board members to
ensure rigorous standards, strong curricula aligned with those
standards, and valid and reliable systems of assessments that fairly
and accurately reflect the performance of students, schools and school
districts. With respect to common core standards, we believe that such
standards should be developed by states individually or collectively by
groups of states to achieve this goal.
We also recognize that in order to further ensure global
competitiveness the federal government must play a role. However, the
federal role must be one of partnership and support to states--not only
in terms of funding for those students with the greatest needs, but
also in serving as a clearinghouse to share and promote best practices
regarding actions to overcome shortfalls in student achievement.
Additionally, we believe that the federal government should increase
incentives to states and local school districts to create constructive
remedies, and provide technical support to the states to assess those
state standards.
In order to better understand what specific role the federal
government should play related to state-led common core standards,
consistent with the Resolutions adopted this year by the National
School Boards Association (NSBA) Delegate Assembly, we believe the
federal government should:
support state and local efforts to provide students with
an education that is appropriately focused on the skills and uses of
knowledge needed for success in the global and technological world of
the 21st century by funding multiple education entities, including
regional education entities, to develop model standards for voluntary
adoption for those purposes;
support 1) funding for research; 2) financial assistance
to states or groups of states, when requested, to assist them in
developing and implementing standards around the skills and uses of
knowledge that students will need in the 21st century; and 3) direct
financial assistance to states or groups of states, when requested to
assist them in developing and implementing content standards; and
ensure that the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) and international tests do not exceed their current use
to provide comparative data through sampling and oppose requiring or
coercing the use of these standards by states in developing their own
standards for high stakes accountability purposes.
Additionally, we, as other local school boards across the State of
Maryland:
oppose efforts to make the aforementioned activities
mandatory on states or local school districts or as a condition for the
receipt of other federal aid; and
oppose efforts to involve the federal government directly
or indirectly (e.g. through an entity over which it can exercise
control) to develop mandatory or model national content standards or to
mandate the development of common content standards among groups of
states.
We will continue to support state-led common core standards that
include sufficient flexibility in operations to effectively and
efficiently address the unique challenges of local communities.
We are well aware of the ongoing efforts by the National Governors
Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO)
on common core standards. We are aware that, with the exception of
Texas and Alaska, the states have entered into a memorandum of
understanding signed by the Governor and state superintendents
declaring their intent to adopt common standards in language arts and
mathematics within three years. We are also aware that draft common
standards were released that define the knowledge and skills students
should have to succeed in entry level, credit-bearing, academic college
courses and in workforce training programs.
We join the National School Boards Association in applauding the
work of the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State
School Officers for their work in assembling an important first step--
the Draft Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and
Mathematics. We believe that the groups have brought clarity to a
widely varied and disparate set of state standards.
However, we do have some reservations with what appears to be
greater coercion from the federal government in adopting such
standards. As an example, the Department of Education's $4.35 billion
Race to the Top program will award competitive grants to states that
have worthy school reform plans--including the adoption of college and
career ready common standards developed by a substantial number of
states. This Race to the Top component effectively would favor states
using the CCSSO/NGA common standards. Additionally, the proposed
requirements for Innovations Grants recently released by the Department
of Education suggest support for similar consortia addressing
assessments.
Further, this proposed expansion of the consortia-driven concept to
the adoption of assessments raises serious questions that will have to
be sorted out. For example, should there be a common assessment or
should individual states or groups of states develop their own? If
there is a common assessment, who should develop it? What will be the
grade by grade timetable for phasing in the changeover? What will be
the resource needs of local school districts, such as technical
assistance and funding for professional development, curriculum
alignment, new course material and new reporting requirements? How will
school districts and schools be held accountable during the transition
as test scores are likely to be negatively impacted as teachers and
students adjust to the changes? After all, as good as standards and
assessments are, they won't have the desired effect unless school
districts have the capacity to implement them and have a fair chance.
These questions are only the tip of the iceberg.
How this nation deals with standards and assessment is a major
policy issue. Such proposed federal requirements, in our view, would
enlarge the federal role and its relationship to the state and local
levels. Our concern, like many local school boards across the nation,
is that the effort to date is being led by the executive branch without
the specific level of legislative direction that would ordinarily be
expected for measures of this magnitude. We believe that this system of
common standards and any proposals for a system of voluntary
assessments must remain voluntary.
In addressing standards, St. Mary's County, Maryland Board of
Education urges you to keep in mind that it will be only at the local
level, with local school boards, administrators and teachers working
together, that we establish clear goals aligned with a broad and rich
curriculum and instructional plan, and a climate fostering student
achievement, that real progress will be made.
In summary we support:
the notion of common core standards voluntarily developed
by groups of states (as distinguished from, and preferable to, a
national/federal entity);
federal funding for the activity, provided it is not in
the nature of a mandate or coercion (such as a condition for receiving
grant in aid funding for say ESEA Title I);
individual states or groups of states developing
assessments for common standards but oppose a national test;
the NGA/CCSSO process and the progress it has made on
standards to date with our full support pending the ultimate outcome;
and
any other valid process undertaken by other groups of
states.
Finally, we want you to know that NSBA, representing local school
boards through their state school boards associations, has also been
clear in working with the NGA/CCSSO project and in its official
comments on the Race to the Top requirements that local school
districts will need to have the capacity to successfully implement the
standards. This means both funding and technical assistance for
professional development, as well as curriculum and course material
alignment.
Additionally, NSBA has also been clear that during the year of
implementation, transition accountability rules will need to apply,
recognizing that test scores will likely be lower in the adjustment
year. This will especially be true if the current NCLB framework is
still in place.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
______
Chairman Miller. We will begin our question with Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting discussion.
You know, as we look at the need to advance stronger standards
and assessments, and Mr. Wilhoit, I heard you talking about
improved standards, vastly improved. What is the difference
between what we might realize today and those that we are
advancing, you are advancing for the future?
Mr. Wilhoit. There have been a number of efforts in the
past to set standards around, first of all, content only. And
what we have ignored in many of those is the idea of
application of that content. We are finding out from the
business world and from international competitors that not only
are they asking students to master essential knowledge, they
are asking those students to apply that knowledge in higher
level cognitive ways than we have done in the past.
So simply being able to State what a content recall is is
one level of knowledge. Another is, what does a student do to
apply that knowledge to an unknown solution? What does a
student do to take existing knowledge and apply it? So I think
one major shift here is that we paid a lot of attention not
only the content but the application of that in terms of
student learning.
Secondly, I think many of the State standards have been too
low in the past, and what we have found is that, in essence, it
has created a great deal of confusion by parents and by
citizens, and that is, that on one set of assessments by a
State standard you may be deemed proficient, and then we hear
from another set of standards that you are very woefully
needing improvement. So this should bring us together in a
greater cohesion around expectations.
Mr. Tonko. I like the emphasis on cognitive skill
development because it is important, but I also know like, as
an engineer, that we are dreadfully low on the numbers that we
are producing for science, tech, international and math, and
this is an international problem. So how can we best address it
if we do it State by State? There has such transiency to
college grads today. They will go coast to coast looking for
jobs. How do we accomplish this when we go State by State
participation or community by community? Does that not hold us
back?
Ms. Allen. If I might respond to that question, Mr.
Chairman. I can speak to what we are doing in St. Mary's
County, and I know that it has widespread application across
the State and the country.
We are home to the premier test and evaluation base for the
Navy, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. Outside of the
gates of that base that is filled to capacity with very highly
talented, highly qualified engineers and research scientists we
have three schools, an elementary, a middle, and a high school
that have implemented a very comprehensive STEM program,
science, technology, engineering, and math, that is in
conjunction with the engineers on that base. They spend time in
our classrooms working directly with our students. The students
are spending time on the base working on current projects that
the base is undertaking. And while not every community may have
a naval air station in it, there are certainly various
industries that are in many of our communities that would have
equal value in providing hands-on application and a
collaborative approach to the teaching of such subjects and
make it much more applicable and understanding to the students.
Mr. Tonko. But, still, the standards that are needed out
there for cognitive skill development and educational skills
are universal in terms of supplying the needed workforce out
there in the future. And I just don't understand how we can do
that without some sort of universal approach with high
standards that need to be responded to.
Ms. Allen. And the National School Board Association as
well as NAEP and my board do support common core standards, as
I noted in my presentation, but we are waiting to see what the
application of that is and how it all falls out.
Maryland spent 2 years developing very high standards and
implementing those at a cost of over $2 billion over the last
six years. We have spent a great deal of time and energy in
implementing this and in bringing it down to the classroom
level with all of the requisite textbooks involved, the
assessments, and so forth. To now take that and set it aside
when we have reached so far would be quite a challenge.
Mr. Tonko. Also, the goal of education is to speak to the
future and be ahead of the curve. How do we take that changing
scene where many suggest it is going to be team efforts at the
workplace, dealing with these cognitive ideas of coming up with
solutions, while we develop a system that measures individuals?
How do we incorporate that team concept in its assessment also?
Mr. Wilhoit. There are ways in which those issues can be
measured, but not through the current kinds of assessments that
are being provided through the State assessments for
accountability purposes.
If we are going to measure those, we are really going to
have to move down to the classroom level, and that is going to
have to count as part of the evaluation. One of the problems we
have had in terms of implementation of the current
requirements, State and Federal requirements, is that we have
counted on the summative test to determine accountability
solely. And when you do that, you remove capacity of States to
measure those kinds of skills. So one of the changes that we
are going to have to think about is not just improving a
summative test but developing assessment systems that allow
decision-making and build the skills of teachers at the local
level to measure those kinds of very important skills. You are
right. When we talk to business and industry, they do talk
extensively about the ability to work in a team to be able to
solve problems, to able to play an important role in the
problem-solving process.
But, again, if we don't charge local educators with that
kind of responsibilities and give them the kinds of tools to
help assess whether students are able to perform in those kinds
of ways, then we will fall short of our ability. That is where
transforming a set of very good standards could fall apart if
we are not very mindful about how we develop assessment
systems.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. I have a common question for the three of you,
and it comes from Mr. Kubach's closing statement. I will quote
him. He said: ``Improvements in innovation and assessment
methods and technology, coupled with the development of higher
standards.'' And then he goes on, focused on both critical and
content and thinking skills.
But, Mr. Kubach, you, in your written testimony, it says
``common standards.'' You said higher standards. And that is my
question: How do we assure that common standards remain the
higher standards when you have got 48 States, you have got all
the feedback coming in now of--where is the assurance that we
are not going to slide to the very lowest denominator on this
one? And one little aside. How do we ensure that we have art
and music in our children's lives when we are working on math
and reading? So start wherever. Start with you, Mr. Kubach. Why
did you change that word?
Mr. Kubach. Well, I think, first, to address the issue of
how do we ensure that the common standards remain high. I think
it starts with having the evidence base, as Gene Wilhoit has
described, and the development of the standards. It also means
that we need to develop a way to internationally benchmark
these standards so we can ensure that our standards are in line
with the highest performing countries in the world.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, who says that these--I mean, who gets to
make the decision of what is the higher standard versus a lower
common standard? Mr. Wilhoit?
Mr. Wilhoit. We have built into the process a very highly
interactive conversation about maintaining high standards.
Again, the dynamic that is underway right now in the process
is, how do we hold on to these critical principles that we have
had, and yet accommodate the kinds of input that people are
giving us, input from States as well as other individuals?
I can say that the pressure in the interactive process is
on maintaining high standards. Most of the people providing
input at this point are saying, let's maintain the high ideals
that we have for these standards, and are offering advice about
how that can be done. So I expect revisions in the mathematics
standards that will even raise them higher than the draft we
have on the table. And I think that conversation English
language arts is one where we are pushing us to define more
specifically the kinds of skill development that students are
going to need. And so I have been really pleased that people
are pushing on this upward trajectory in terms of high
expectations.
Now, that is going to create pressure at two ways on the
States. There are States that have very high standards at this
point that we have made a promise to, that no State would be
asked to lower its current standards to participate in these
standards, in the common standards. And we have also been very
frank with the other States that it is going to require some
changes, and will require both higher levels of expectations of
educators in those States, but also there is a conversation
with the public that is going to have to be had about the need
to improve over time. And that is where we are going to have to
give these States some time to move from where they are to
where they need to be.
Ms. Woolsey. I think we should let Ms. Allen, because I am
going to run out of time here.
Ms. Allen. I don't believe that Maryland would ever sign on
to common standards that were below the high standards we have
already spent so much time and money implementing.
That said, we all--and it doesn't matter if you are in
Maryland or California or Minnesota or Florida. We all expect
to educate our children to the highest standards. We all
understand the necessity of our children being able to
effectively compete in a global society.
Ms. Woolsey. So tell me then, where does art and music come
into the program?
Ms. Allen. Art and music is a very full and rich part of
the curriculum in St. Mary's County. We have found innovative
ways to bring them and maintain them, and we would hope to
maintain them throughout. It is something we will be looking
at.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Kubach.
Mr. Kubach. I also agree, what we don't want to do is just
focus on the common core. I think it is an important
foundation, but art, music, science, history, social studies,
all of the subjects are important, and we don't want to have a
system that ends up narrowing the curriculum.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. Tierney. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
that 48 States are participating in drawing up these standards.
I suspect many of them are at the table defensibly, but
nonetheless they are at the table. Having your bureaucrats draw
up standards and then having your legislature adopt those
standards are two very different things. And so I think,
looking forward, we have to take into account all those
political dynamics that occur at the State level.
I don't see how you are going to make this work without
some sanctions. And we know, as Ms. Allen said, States don't
want sanctions. I am not sure carrots are enough, though,
because right now in Nevada you have got a big fight going on
about whether or not to repeal the law about having test scores
be used in teacher evaluations just so we can qualify for the
Race to the Top. So I would like to hear more about how we are
going to get beyond that.
And the second thing I would be curious to know, I have
heard a lot about working with colleges and universities to see
what you need to do to make K-12 better so students can succeed
and graduate, but I haven't heard a lot about what those
colleges of education are going to do to better teach the
teachers or future teachers how to deal with these new
standards and meet the standards once they are out into the
field.
So if you might address those two questions.
Mr. Wilhoit. I will take the latter first.
We have had some very serious conversations. In fact,
yesterday I had a conversation with the New England States
college and university system came together to talk about what
they could do differently in support of and being full partners
in this. So those conversations are going on.
This means, first of all, that there is going to be a clear
set of expectations around what teachers should know. So it
naturally follows, if students need to know certain things,
then teachers need to have certain capacities to deliver that.
And it means greater emphasis on data systems, being able to
interpret information, being able to intervene in the lives of
students who need special assistance. Teachers need those kinds
of skills that many of them are telling us they don't have
right now. So it means kind of a redesign of many of the
preparation programs we have in place. It also will mean a much
stronger relationship between the university resources and what
is going on in the schools as the teachers are trying to
implement a much stronger support structure for those teachers
than we have right now.
Mr. Kubach. This really is a large effort, and it goes way
beyond just adopting the standards and having assessments that
are in line with those standards. It really does start with the
preparation of teachers and how they are evaluated. It goes
into the curriculum, training of teachers, what is going on in
the classroom, our methods, instructional methods. So it is a
very comprehensive system that needs to be addressed, and it is
going to take time. And I think we are going to need some
patience as this is implemented State by State.
Ms. Allen. I would say to you that sanctions don't work. We
have had them for years, and things haven't gotten better. So I
think we have to do something differently.
With respect to teacher education, it is an ongoing
dialogue, and it has been a matter of great concern to local
boards of education through all of our advocacy groups for a
very long time, and it is, the discussions continue. And I
think that whatever happens with the common core standards,
whatever they ultimately look like, that may have an impact on
teacher education. But when you talk to the experts in teacher
education, they talk about the basics of understanding and how
to deliver that model more so than they talk about the
specifics of what those standards are.
Ms. Titus. Colleges of education I have often found are
very hard to get to change their approaches and very
bureaucratically bound has been my experience in higher
education.
Just one other quick thing. I think standards will and
probably should change over time. You are going to get new
technology, hopefully you are going to add new subjects. I
would add geography to that list of art and music as something
that students need. But are you building in any mechanism for
the ability for the standards to change over time, or are you
just going to wait 10 years and have to do the whole thing all
over again?
Mr. Wilhoit. No. This is an issue that we are struggling
with on a regular basis. We know that this is the best we can
do in 2009 and 2010. We have confidence, we have had an
extensive process. But we also know that we will fall short. We
know that we will learn a lot as we attempt to implement. We
know that there will be research put on the table. And so we
are accommodating that process and encouraging it. We have even
had conversations with foundations and with the Federal
Government about supporting this kind of research of
implementation and school level, something that is very helpful
to us as we begin the revision process.
We don't know in the future what sort of entity might be
created to sustain this effort, but we think something will
need to be created. We think, obviously from our point of view,
that there needs to be a very strong voice of the States and
that entity as it moves forward. But, again, we have not
settled on exactly what that might look like.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I am late for
the meeting. US Air had a little different problem for me this
morning. I am going to yield my time to Mr. Thompson. I
apologize for missing your testimony, but I will read it. Thank
you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Roe.
Ms. Allen, first of all, congratulations on the STEM
program that your district has. It sounds like a very exciting
use of local expertise and resources combined to meet the needs
of the children, the kids. My first question really has to do
with that. What role did the local school board exercise in
creating that opportunity?
Ms. Allen. The local school board recognized the need for
engineers, for growing our own. St. Mary's County, being a
rather rural place on a peninsula, it doesn't necessarily have
the pizzazz that some other places do. And it is a beautiful
destination, but you have to get people there to convince them
that it is a beautiful destination.
We have wonderful children, wonderful people in our
community. There is no reason why they are not talented enough
and skilled enough to be able to have high-paying jobs on the
base. So we have done a number of things. The Navy reached out
to us. We have a higher education center that provides graduate
degrees on site there as well. And through a collaborative
process between the local board, our superintendent, our
Congressman, Steny Hoyer, the higher ed center, and the Navy,
we came together to discuss what was it going to take in order
to make sure we were growing our own. And that developed into a
very comprehensive STEM program. It begins in fourth grade.
Students apply, countywide, based on their math scores, their
assessments. They provide a writing sample. They must have
recommendations. And they are screened to determine their
interests and their ability. It is a very diverse group of
individuals who are participating in this program.
Mr. Thompson. So it sounds like a program that really, if
it wouldn't have been for the local school board, the local
leadership is what created that opportunity.
Ms. Allen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Which is great. In that light of role, what
role did the local school boards have, yours and others that
you represent as part of your leadership with the State School
Board Association, to your knowledge, have in the development
and implementation of Maryland State standards in reading and
math? And what role did local school boards have in the
development of the state's assessment?
Ms. Allen. We were invited to be a part of a stakeholder
process, we were invited to give our input. Whether that input
was acted upon is a matter of debate, one I am sure that you
can understand having been a school board member yourself.
Are we completely happy with the efforts? No. But we are
happy with the fact that our students are increasingly
successful. We still have areas that need attention, and we are
continuing to work on those areas.
Mr. Thompson. And what role are local school boards having
in the common core standards initiative, those developments?
Ms. Allen. I know that Mr. Wilhoit mentioned that local
boards were involved. My knowledge does not extend to that, so
I will have to defer on that question.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Wilhoit, can you speak to that question?
Mr. Wilhoit. We have been interacting with the national
association throughout this process, engaging them in the
process. We have provided support to them. We have had open
invitations for them to participate, and they have done so. And
we have had local board members, individual board members
engaged in the feedback work and in terms of responding to the
standards as we have brought them forward. We have had an open
invitation to all the education constituency groups.
Mr. Thompson. Open invitation. What has been the success of
their response and engagement in the process? How much have
they actually contributed to the development of those
standards?
Mr. Wilhoit. I would have to be more specific for you, and
I could get that to you.
Mr. Thompson. I would appreciate that. If you would provide
that in writing. And based on our time constraints, I would
yield back the balance.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. We are very interested in supporting
evidence-based school reform that truly positively impacts
student learning. And as we move toward these higher, clearer,
fewer common standards, and Mr. Wilhoit, you touched upon this
a little bit. How do we assure ourselves that these common
standards, once we get them--and I hope that we come up with
the appropriate assessments--that these are the standards that
truly are going to enable our students to be able to succeed in
school and in life?
Mr. Wilhoit. We have attempted to draw from the higher
education community their impression of what the essential
skills and knowledge would be, and we have incorporated those
into the standards. We have done so with the business
community, particularly in those areas where we have emerging
growth opportunities and rewards for students. So we built--in
essence, built the standards off of those expectations. So
there is a good reality check against success in terms of the
definition.
Whether those are ultimately the ones that will make the
direct tie, we are using evidence as best we can through this
process. As I stated earlier, there are gaps in that evidence
base that will need further investigation. We will have a
process of ongoing review and analysis to make sure that, in
effect, we are following up on the statements we have in front
of folks. And we will be learning from the local schools as
they try to implement, and from colleges and universities and
from businesses as they accept these students into their ranks.
But this is the first time that we have gone from just an
opinion sort of thing about what should be taught to more
strong evidence-based kind of process. Again, I would say all
of that with the stipulation that we have a lot to learn as we
move forward.
Ms. Hirono. I think that is really important, because one
of the areas that we know there is evidence that supports the
importance of this kind of experience for our children is
quality early education, and there is all kinds of evidence
that shows that it is the foundation for a child to succeed in
school and life. So the longitudinal information and evidence,
that may be one critical role that the Federal Government can
play in supporting that kind of research.
Mr. Kubach, you mentioned that this situation provides us
with an opportunity for us to use technology in assessing. I am
not a big fan of yearly testing, et cetera. I am learning that
tools, such as smart boards, is a really great way for teachers
in particular to be able to diagnose whether a particular child
is learning what he or she needs to learn. Is that the kind of
technology that you were referring to in your testimony?
Mr. Kubach. Right. What I am referring to is really
thinking about this as a system that doesn't just include the
annual assessments, but also includes resources and tools and
models of performance that teachers could use in the classroom
with students so that they can understand how their students
are doing relative to the expectations that they are going to
be held to at the end of the year.
In terms of the delivery of formative assessments in the
classroom, we see that there is an explosion of different kinds
of devices, whether they are smart boards or smart phones. And
there are enough standards in the technology world that we
should be able to deliver and work with any of these emerging
technologies.
Ms. Hirono. It seems to me that as we incorporate these
kinds of ability on the part of our educators to be able to
assess very quickly whether a curriculum is working on any
particular student, I think that is probably, in my view, more
important than the kind of testing that we have been doing in
this country. And, Ms. Allen, I saw you nodding your head. Is
that something that you are doing in your State, incorporating
more of these kinds of assessment tools to give immediate
feedback that results in the teacher being able to revise his
or her instruction?
Ms. Allen. Absolutely. In fact, we are doing two things I
would like to talk about. One are the smart boards. And the
recent infusion of Federal dollars has allowed St. Mary's
County Public Schools to purchase over 247 smart boards to be
utilized in our classrooms. When you walk into a classroom
where students are being assessed using a smart board system
where they have keypads and are able to answer questions
immediately and the teacher is able to see exactly what the
learning curve is for the students and who is getting it and
who isn't, that is of significant value. Add to that the fact
that that is the way children are bombarded today is by all the
electronics. That is how they learn. For us to ignore the fact
that that is what they are interested in and that is the way
they learn I think is for us to ignore a huge opportunity, at
our peril and their peril as well.
Ms. Hirono. And these smart boards are not exactly cheap,
so that is probably another way that the Federal Government
could provide assistance to the schools.
Ms. Allen. Absolutely. You are looking at about $5,000 a
board, I believe, and then there is teacher training in order
for them to be able to utilize as effectively as possible.
The other thing we are doing is using a data warehouse in
St. Mary's County that allows real-time data to be used, and
look at each child individually, outcome by outcome, to
determine how they are doing. And it has made a significant and
positive impact on the achievement of all of our students.
One other point I would like to make in response to
something that Mr. Kubach talked about, and that would be the
online assessments. Coming from an emerging rural area that has
limited broadband access, I would say to you, I am not sure
that there is a benefit in simply using a computer to record
your answers if you cannot at the same time be on-line and
sending that information to be evaluated immediately. And that
is a problem that is particular not just to St. Mary's County
but across the Nation.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the
delay in arriving. I had several other meetings that were
really urgent. I just want to bring up a different issue.
Earlier this year, I introduced as, I have for the past several
years, introduced a bill to provide a educational achievement
for kids called the Speak Act and Senator Dodd introduced a
companion bill in the Senate. The whole purpose was to try to
work with NAEP to provide national voluntary standards in
science, math, and reading. I would like to think that the
emergence of this potential act probably stimulated the States
to beginning the work that they have done. And more power to
them. If they wish to take on this task of creating voluntary
standards, so much the better.
However, one concern I have is, as I understand it, Mr.
Wilhoit, you can respond to this, I believe they are working
just on the reading, language arts, and math, and not science.
And yet, one of the biggest concerns is, how do we prepare our
kids for the jobs of the future? And you all, I am sure you
know all the statistics about how much better than other
nations are doing than we are informally on the OECD nations we
are usually near the bottom in science and math. And China
produces three to four times as many engineers per year as we
do. And it goes on and on.
What was the reason for not tackling the science standards?
Because I think that is equally important than math and reading
and in some ways more important. Let me just give an example.
If you don't get kids excited about science in elementary
school, they are not likely to take the advanced science
courses in high school. If they don't take them in high school,
they are in for a big shock when they go to the university and
say, I would like to be an engineer, because they face 2 years
of makeup work before they can even really get into the
engineering curriculum. And so I think it is very, very
important to get started with science in the elementary and
secondary schools. I appreciate any comments you can make.
Mr. Wilhoit. We would agree with the urgency of improving
science experiences for students at the elementary and high
school level and agree the importance of it. We simply started
with these two areas because that is about all we could handle
at this point. I would say to you that the science community is
very interested in a similar process around science standards,
and toward that end they are convening currently to bring
forward their consensus of what they think those science
standards could be. So there is activity going on within the
science community to bring forward something for States to look
at. It is just trailing in terms of its development. We are at
this point simply immersed in the work of these two content
areas.
Mr. Ehlers. And what do you think the chances are that your
work will carry on and use whatever is provided by the science
community?
Mr. Wilhoit. Well, I think this is a very healthy process
for us, unlike the one we just engaged in. It would be nice to
have that kind of consensus coming from the community. I think
it would make a smoother process for State consideration. But
there is an interest on the part of the States to address
science at some point, and so it seems to me it is a matter of
the community coming together with their recommendations and
then bringing it to work at some public process that the States
could engage in.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. You said you were somewhat sure.
Mr. Wilhoit. Yeah. And I would say that basically, at this
point, despite some concerns about adoption town the road that
this has been a successful experience. It has had--it has been
very dynamic, as I said. But I think, if the States can come
together around these two areas, we see success. I see no other
reason why we could not move forward in some of the other
disciplines. We have also had an interest in citizenship
education and interest in the arts, so there are some other
communities out there that are interested in promoting a
commonality across their content areas.
Mr. Ehlers. Two additional questions. One, I noticed Alaska
and Texas have not participated. Do you expect they will
participate once the standards are developed?
Mr. Wilhoit. We have had some direct interaction with the
folks in Alaska around us. They are watching this. We have had
direct statements that in Texas they probably will not
participate. So those things can change as we move forward. We
are treating everyone as equal partners. We are still engaging
those individuals who want to be a part of the process. So
there is no closed door to anyone on this.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. I would like to follow on some of what
Mr. Ehlers has been asking. Rather than lead you Socratically
through a long list of questions to establish the point that
perhaps not the only but the best way in today's schools to
develop critical thinking and independent thinking is through
science, science education.
I noted early on when you said that the emphasis in this
will be what students should know. I believe that is what I
heard you say. And you established this by going down the two
paths of talking to industries and people out in the world
about what they need, and then looking through the educational
process.
There is at least as much need for how students think to
develop--at least as much need to develop how students think as
there is to develop what students know, and science, it seems
to me, is a critical part of this. And so I would like to find
out how it is that science got put on the slower track in this,
just to follow up on Mr. Ehlers' questions.
Mr. Wilhoit. Just--I hope I said ``know'' and ``are able to
do,'' because I do think that both of those are critical
attributes. And being able to apply it is just as critical as
having content knowledge.
In terms of the development process, it was simply a call
on our part to take the two areas that were being emphasized in
terms of student performance at this time. There was no attempt
to eliminate science in the long run; it was merely a matter of
how many of these can we move forward at a single time. And I
think, in retrospect, two of them at this point was about all
we could have handled. And because there was such a strong
voice out there in terms of mathematics development, the fact
that many of our students were eliminated from the math
curriculum, that we were falling behind in terms of math
achievement, the fact that NAEP had been reporting more
continuously against English, language arts, and mathematics
sort of led us to that beginning point, again, with no attempt
to slight the other content areas.
Mr. Holt. So where is it in those two areas, in the reading
and the math, that students will learn to ask critical
questions about how ideas are developed and how they are tested
in empirical and verifiable ways how ideas get into the realm
of general acceptance? Where will they learn that in those two
areas?
And let me just finish with the footnote is, again, I think
the most effective way for students to learn this, I think, has
been demonstrated over and over is through science education.
Mr. Wilhoit. I would say that the general--conversation in
the science community at this point is really about how do we
merge the scientific inquiry methodology with the essential
knowledge, and how do those two come together in an important
conclusion that leads to a set of standards that we can all be
proud of and promote. So that conversation is going on in
science. A similar conversation is going on in mathematics and
in English language arts. That is, not only should students
know good literary work, but they should know how that literary
work compares to other literary work, how one draws conclusions
about an author's intent compared to the intent of another
author. How do we take a certain literary work and the
components of that literary work and apply it to a new piece
that a student might write. How does a student express oneself
in ways that bring meaning to that enterprise? In mathematics,
obviously, it is not simply learning the formulas or being able
to recite those formulas, but being able to take a mathematical
dilemma and solve that dilemma using prior knowledge and
bringing together content from other areas.
So each one of those disciplines brings to it both a
central content knowledge, a content base, and an application
process. It is unique in science, and it does push this to a
wonderful conclusion in science and one that we are looking
forward to working with.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To the panel, I proudly hail from the city of New York,
borough of Brooklyn. And in New York City, with one of the
largest, most diverse school districts in the Nation, we have
two types of diplomas; we have a local diploma and we have a
regions diploma. The academic standards required to obtain a
local diploma are not as rigorous as the standards required to
obtain a regions diploma. However, we are currently in the
process of phasing out the local diploma.
There is great concern in minority communities, in
particular, that once this happens, the already low minority
high school graduation rate will plummet even further.
Likewise, once national standards are instituted, many
educators predict that it will be the minority students who
will disproportionately suffer from the challenge and impact of
these new standards.
So here is my question. How should we address this
achievement gap?
Secondly, are there any discussions taking place that truly
integrate multicultural curriculums?
Finally, I think this question is especially pertinent in
light of the fact that by 2045, it is predicted that minority
students will be in the majority in most of the schools in
America. So I just wanted to get your response.
Mr. Kubach. One of the great advantages of moving to an
online platform and bringing that technology into the classroom
and using that technology to assess and diagnose and help
teachers and students move forward is that we can offer a much
broader range of options and accommodations. So, for example,
we can support English language learners in their native
language. We can provide materials and we can provide
activities and projects in a much richer set of approaches to
engage and capture kids' imaginations on those subjects.
Ms. Clarke. Let me just sort of add my take on multi-
cultural curriculums. It is not just necessarily about the
ethnicity or the person's language barriers, but it has to do
with a comprehensive look at all of the contributions that the
diversity of our Nation makes, and incorporating that wholly
into the curriculums.
If you look at American history today, there are
deficiencies. It does not speak to the whole of who
participated in American history. Certainly when students look
at the curriculum, if it is not reflective of their experience
right there, you begin with a deficit. I just wanted to add
that.
Mr. Wilhoit. Our sense is that the creation of common high
standards will bring to light the concern you raised. It will
be perfectly clear which students are not achieving and which
ones are, and what resources are behind certain students and
what resources are not.
So I think the potential here would be to take a set of
high standards and put them on the shelf or to take these high
standards and begin to think about how we remediate and deal
with the problems that exist in the system. It will make it
much more transparent about where the students are learning and
where they are not, and it will put some pressures on the
system that we don't have right now because we will get by this
argument about what does one student know and what one does
not. We will get to the issue of what resources need to be put
behind students to make them all successful.
Ms. Allen. If I may also respond, Mr. Chairman, we expect
that common core standards are going to be the be-all solution
for our students, we are mistaken. It is a multi-pronged
approach. It must be a multi-pronged approach. We cannot wait
until we are administering high stakes exit exams to discover
that our students aren't where they are supposed to be. It has
to start with quality, early childhood education, full day
kindergarten. Our students have to understand and know how to
read by the end of second grade because they learn to read by
the end of second grade. By the beginning of third grade, they
read to learn. They must be able to read to learn.
So I would say to you that there is not a single solution,
but it is something that is on the minds of every single school
board member across this country.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wonder if you can give me a sense of the urgency in this.
We talk about this all the time. We have looked at some of the
countries that come basically from the bottom to the top and
what their governments did to make those changes. I would like
to know from your perspective, and what role should we be
playing? I know people care deeply. I know that the Race to the
Top is one effort, and that's substantial now. In your opinion,
where is the urgency lacking as well and how can we move that
forward?
Mr. Wilhoit. I am not sure it is as much an issue of lack
of will as it is not knowing where to go. I think we have been
bombarded with lots of different solutions recently. We have
been forced, in a positive way, to realize that our country
needs to dramatically improve the opportunity for our children,
and we have made direct connections between that lack of
achievement and our economic circumstance in our future.
What we need now, and I think the sense of urgency around
the common standards, is a true one. I described it as
essential but insufficient in terms of our work that is ahead
of us. If we can develop this base of understanding and
agreement across the country among the States about what
students should know and be able to do, then we can get about
that task of development. But it will require considerable
effort in terms of development of curricula framework that
translate those standards so a teacher can then apply those
standards in a classroom.
It will take a redesign preparation program system in the
country. It will require new forms of professional growth that
we don't have currently in place. It will require significant
focus, attention and diligence to this task over the next few
years for us to get it done.
If we waiver on those issues, we will probably find
ourselves 5 to 10 years from now back to where we are now which
would be a crime for this country.
Mrs. Davis. Do you see those commitments based on resources
available today? It is important to have the resources and to
have the financial support, and on the other hand, we are never
going to have what we need.
Mr. Wilhoit. I think it is partially resources, but it is
also thinking about how we educate each child. I think there is
a major conflict right now. Our historic education school, as
we have designed it, is in conflict with the goals we set for
our children. So the attention, the energy in the future is how
do we design learning programs so that every child is
successful, and we may not be able to do it unless we change
some of the basic assumptions around schooling.
Mrs. Davis. I think the other concern that we see is the
way in which we approach subjects and the kind of depth with
which professionals are encouraged to deal with those topics.
We have a tendency to move through textbooks at a rapid rate,
and we are really not getting the depth. I think we know that,
we have been studying that, and yet do you see that reflected
in the standards and the discussions that are being held
throughout the country?
Mr. Wilhoit. Yes, definitely. This issue has been brought
to our attention by teachers very directly. We have asked them
to teach too many things in shallow ways. Students are not
reflecting the depth of knowledge they need to know. We have
not asked teachers to teach to mastery around those essential
knowledge and skills so that the students can move and progress
through the educational system.
There is a great awareness of that in the standards
development, and hopefully that will be reflected as a part of
the new document.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. We have a couple of moments, and we have
just a few more questions.
Mr. Kubach, in your statement on page 7 you raised the
question about whether or not the common core standards are
simply a summit of assessment or part of an integrated system.
With the smart boards and with online content being more and
more part of the education system, we really see the ability to
move up and down the assessment, if you will. If you are stuck
with a textbook and you have the questions at the end of the
textbook, you are stuck with the questions more or less. But in
this one, a student may not only recite the facts and
understand that they got the facts about that subject at that
moment, they may also be able to demonstrate that they
understand how those facts would be applied to a series of
problems and move back and forth.
A teacher may get, as Ms. Allen pointed out, real-time
feedback exactly what is taking place in that class, whether it
is the clickers or the pads, or what have you. But then to be
able to move to a more expansive assessment, to maybe pull a
teacher and students together in real-time to deal with those
deficiencies in however those concepts or material didn't get
translated. That is very different from today, but I also think
it is very promising.
But the blast against No Child Left Behind, and I think
quite correctly so, and I say that as a proud author of it, is
that we ended up putting a very high stakes outcome on a single
assessment. I think what you are suggesting to us is we need
not do that. We can be much better informed about what is
taking place in this school or this school district because of
these other ways of measuring what students are learning and
also be able to remedy deficiencies in real-time. We may end up
having a year of course assessment or end of high school
assessment, exit exams, however you want to do that, but you
now have, you keep talking about an online platform, it seems
to me you have the ability of really allowing teachers and
principals and others to move back and forth across the
knowledge base that students have to reinforce it, expand it,
or remediate it.
Mr. Kubach. You are absolutely right. There are a couple of
issues here.
First, there is a primary role that the summit of
assessments have when we are introducing these new common core
standards of really defining what the goal is. Until we define
that goal, the standards really will not be clear and we won't
be able to then show teachers and show students where they need
to be to truly be ready for college or ready for work based on
these international benchmarks.
That being said, if we can move the assessment system to a
technology-based platform and get out of paper, then we do have
the opportunity to manage a system across the year where there
are rich activities that are going on throughout the year,
where there is information that can be immediately fed back to
teachers so that they can adjust instruction and personalize
the learning experiences to help each individual child get to
the end goal.
Chairman Miller. Don't you also, in theory, have the
ability to have a student build their own portfolio, to
accomplish tasks that are consistent with the standards, and
accomplish projects consistent with the standards; online
curriculum test challenges, depth of knowledge, can all be
presented to them, and the students can challenge themselves.
And to build a portfolio that, in many ways, would be much
richer than whether they were reading at grade level at 4th
grade and that is the end of the assessment, and we don't know
a hell of a lot more about that student other than they made
AYP and we are worried about the kid next to them?
Mr. Kubach. You are absolutely right. One of the traps that
we fell into, with a paper-based system and the budgets
available, many States have eliminated lots of the rich
performance tasks from their assessment systems, and they are
really just implementing the least expensive kind of assessment
they can deliver which is a multiple choice, paper-based,
machine-scored assessment.
If we can move beyond that, we will be changing the focus
away from preparation to succeed on those kinds of assessments
to the kinds of rich experiences that you have been talking
about where children are demonstrating what they can do and how
they can apply knowledge in different ways.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Turning to my colleagues, I
would just encourage my colleagues on the committee to read the
paper that your collaborative effort put together on addressing
these assessments because I think they will see that many of
the criticisms and concerns, and very legitimate concerns we
have had about accountability under No Child Left Behind, are
really addressed in this in terms of where we can go in the
future, which I think is very exciting for teachers, parents,
and students in many, many ways in having that kind of body of
information about how their children are doing or students are
doing.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation to the panel for your testimony, and I am going to
yield to Mr. Castle.
Mr. Castle. I thank you for yielding.
Mr. Wilhoit, where are the chief State scholars with
respect to the common assessments? I understand the standards
and the commonality there, it has been explained today. But it
is still unclear to me about exactly what everybody is thinking
about assessments down the line, which is a necessary part in
determining where we are. I wonder if you have a position or
what you are looking at or what you are doing in that area?
Mr. Wilhoit. We have had a number of conversations, the
latest being a couple of weeks ago, about where the States are
against assessments. I think basically the point is we have got
to get past this constant conversation in the country about
which assessment really does measure student progress and get
by the differences that exist.
There is a desire on a part of a large majority of the
States to come together around commonality and assessments. How
that will come about is yet to be determined. There are some
individual areas of the country, New England States have
already had a good experience around a common assessment
program. That has been reported very positively. Other State
are looking at expanding that network.
There have been conversations in the Midwestern States
about a similar kind of assessment design, and there is this
conversation about how many States would like to come together
around a common assessment, around the common core standards.
And there has been a considerably positive response to those
areas. We are in those early phases of conversation and we will
see how it plays out, but there is a very positive environment.
Mr. Castle. I assume it would be on a voluntary basis?
Mr. Wilhoit. That is correct.
Mr. Castle. Mr. Kubach, if we had common assessments, then
you get to the whole area of security. If we go to the online
assessments, as you have advocated here, that may raise some
questions too as to the fact that they can be flashed all over
the country in a hurry, or whatever it may be. What are your
thoughts about that aspect of the assessments, the testing
process?
Mr. Kubach. That is a very important question, and security
is a really important concern. Security and data privacy is an
important concern as we move things online. I think there are
aspects of moving to an online assessment where they are
actually much more secure than the current system. So when the
current system, which is primarily paper based, we are creating
tests that are shipped all over the State in whatever State we
are working in, and are stored in schools, sometimes weeks
before the tests are given. Then after the tests are given,
they have to be packaged up and assembled in order to be
shipped back. So there are actually weeks when these
assessments are either sitting in a room at the school or they
are traveling by UPS or FedEx back and forth to the scoring
company. Those are all places where the tests can escape. And
in an online environment, there is actually much less
opportunities for that to happen.
Mr. Castle. I yield back to Mr. Thompson any time he has
remaining.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking
your time and expertise and all you are doing on behalf of this
effort. I continue to believe it holds out great promise for
our Nation's students.
Thank you. Members who want to submit an opening statement
can do so for the next 14 days.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning. We're here today to
take a closer look at the Common Core State Standards Initiative and
how coordinated efforts to strengthen academic standards can enhance
American competitiveness.
The Common Core Initiative is being developed through the joint
leadership of the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The goal of
the initiative is to provide a voluntary, research and evidence-based
set of standards for mathematics and English-language arts.
I want to emphasize the word ``voluntary'' in that description.
While the Common Core is still under development, I don't believe
anyone involved in the initiative intended for it to become the one and
only set of academic standards in the United States.
For that reason, I'd like to focus my remarks this morning not on
the quality of the standards themselves, but on what the federal
government is doing with those standards.
Secretary Duncan has not been shy about his intentions to
dramatically reshape education through the Race to the Top fund. And
one key component of the Race to the Top guidelines is the requirement
that states participate in and adopt a set of common academic
standards. The Department has even gone one step further, offering to
provide funding to help states develop assessments based on those
common standards.
The only common, multi-state academic standards I am aware of are
those being developed through the Common Core Initiative. Therefore, it
stands to reason that any state wishing to receive funding through the
Race to the Top program will be mandated to adopt the Common Core--and
to test its students based on those standards.
In other words, the Common Core is being transformed from a
voluntary, state-based initiative to a set of federal academic
standards with corresponding federal tests.
I've met with Secretary Duncan on several occasions and I applaud
his enthusiasm when it comes to education reform. Yet I am particularly
troubled by this aspect of the Race to the Top guidelines and the
ramifications of federal involvement in academic standards.
We know academic standards vary widely from state to state. Some
states have set the bar low--too low, in my opinion--leaving their
students unprepared to compete on the world stage. Yet other states
have risen to the challenge, setting extremely rigorous standards and
holding their students accountable to these high expectations.
The Common Core has the potential to support those states whose
standards are falling short. But mandatory adoption could have the
unintended consequence of lowering the bar for states and local
communities that have voluntarily established standards even more
rigorous than those developed through the Common Core.
I also have questions about what role parents and local education
officials will play if the Common Core becomes a de facto national
curriculum. Traditionally, local school boards have been active in the
development of academic standards and assessments. This allows parents,
teachers, and communities to have a voice in what our children are
taught.
A voluntary Common Core could serve as a baseline, to be modified
and enhanced based on local needs. But by mandating adoption of the
Common Core, the Department of Education could undermine the ability of
local educators to shape and customize what gets taught in individual
classrooms.
The Common Core Initiative is an important tool in the effort to
strengthen academic standards. But it is only one element of what
should be a much broader strategy on the part of states and local
communities working in partnership with the public and private sectors
to enhance American competitiveness.
I applaud the NGA and the CCSSO for their leadership. Their efforts
to develop a voluntary set of rigorous academic standards must not be
undermined by federal intrusion. I look forward to discussing these
concerns with our witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
______
[Additional submissions by Mr. Kubach follow:]
Thoughts on an Assessment of Common-Core Standards
Stephen Lazer, Vice President, Assessment Development, ETS; John
Mazzeo, Vice President, Statistical Analysis & Psychometrics Research,
ETS; Jon S. Twing, Executive Vice President, Assessment & Information,
Pearson; Walter D. Way, Senior Vice President, Psychometric & Research
Services, Pearson; Wayne Camara, Vice President, Research &
Development, The College Board; Kevin Sweeney, Executive Director,
Psychometrics, The College Board.
draft (november 16, 2009)
Preface
The College Board, ETS, and Pearson have formed a collaboration to
explore how innovative approaches and best practices in high-quality
assessments can be applied to the creation of a common assessment
system. Our objective is to work with states to develop an assessment
system that will improve learning. We propose to design an integrated
system that can provide accountability data, instructionally actionable
information, and can inform teacher professional development and
evaluation. Combined, we have extensive experience in the research,
development, and delivery of a wide variety of assessments. We have
worked within and across all 50 states and have worked together
collaboratively for many years. Our expertise includes the development
of innovative computer-based assessment systems and student growth
measures, and the application of a wide range of item types and scoring
approaches to provide timely feedback to teachers and students.
This paper is an attempt to raise key assessment design questions
and discuss some ideas for a systematic high-level assessment design
that satisfies many of the needs expressed by stakeholders. It is meant
only to begin discussion, and not to serve as a firm and fixed
recommendation.
Introduction and Summary
American educators stand at a moment of unprecedented opportunity.
With opportunity, however, comes risk: decisions we make may well
affect the course of assessment in the United States for years to come.
Advances in technology, coupled with innovative assessment task design
and advanced psychometric and cognitive models, make it possible for us
to obtain a richer, more intelligent, and more nuanced picture of what
students know and can do than ever before. While the historical
opportunity to change the direction of education is real, so are the
challenges inherent in any change in assessment paradigm. At the heart
of this challenge is one point that is too often missed in these
discussions: Different stakeholders will set diverse priorities for an
assessment system. Some of these stakeholders value snapshots of what
students know and can do at fixed points in time and consider the use
of these data for accountability purposes as the highest priority.
Others value obtaining multiple points of data that can be used to
evaluate schools and teachers systemically. For some, instructionally
actionable data at the student level for the purpose of improved
instruction is the main system goal, while others are more interested
in data at higher systems levels for auditing or ``return on
investment'' type of decisions. Most want formal assessments to be as
short and inexpensive as possible, while others would trade some cost
and time efficiency to have more authentic, complex, and reliable
tasks. Some stakeholders require data that are unambiguously comparable
across states and districts, while others would rather see some
substantial state and local control over the content of assessments.
No single assessment, not even an integrated assessment system, can
optimally serve all possible purposes. Any assessment design is
therefore a compromise. Tests that provide optimal instructional
feedback may not be the best way to get an overall snapshot of what
students have learned over the course of a school year. The need for
formative information is not necessarily consistent with the need for
data that can be used to evaluate teacher or school effectiveness.
Tasks that model good instruction are not always consistent with
desires for tests to be as short as possible and for scores to be
returned immediately. The desire for comparability of data across
jurisdictions stands in tension with wishes to allow those
jurisdictions and their teachers and curriculum specialists substantial
and variable input into the form and content of assessments. The need
for low operational cost may be at odds with many other goals of the
system. Efficiency in the long term involves investments in technology
and human capital in the short term.
Policymakers should consider the three principles following from
this discussion:
First, we should think of systems of assessments rather
than individual tests, as this is likely the only way to satisfy the
various information needs identified by stakeholders.
Second, we are at a moment when new technologies and
assessment methodologies provide us an unprecedented opportunity to
satisfy many perceived needs in a carefully structured integrated
system.
Third, we must realize that, even in a complex system, we
will need to choose among competing and conflicting priorities.
This document represents an attempt to create a high-level
framework for an assessment of common-core standards. We arrived at
this framework in the following way: First we considered a series of
questions regarding the likely design requirements of such an
assessment system. Then we considered various factors and made
judgments about competing priorities. This led to a high-level
assessment model, along with a discussion of various matters that
require further research and more thought. Different decisions about
priorities would certainly result in different assessment designs, and
we tried to point out places where alternate decisions might have such
impact. For this reason, this document is meant to begin a conversation
about not only these priorities but all aspects of such an assessment
design and is not intended to provide the answer or solution. This is
also meant to be a high-level design document. We will prepare
additional documentation that will discuss, in greater depth, topics
such as elements of the assessment system that are designed to provide
instructionally actionable information, exercise types that can be
used, how scoring might be accomplished, the special needs of high
school testing, the assessment of students with disabilities and
English-language learners, and how the assessment system might measure
student growth.
Executive Summary
The bulk of this document describes how we answered the key design
questions and explains our suggested assessment framework. Before
moving to this discussion, we have included an executive summary of
what we believe to be key design elements of a forward-looking
assessment system:
1. The educational system needs both accountability and
instructionally actionable data, and no single test will be optimal to
provide both. Therefore, we believe that the goals of this new effort
will be best served by an integrated assessment system that includes
summative and formative or interim elements built to a common
framework. If the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds
support only the development of the summative elements of the system,
we should ensure that the system and system infrastructure are designed
to work with formative and interim elements designed and developed by
others.
2. The system must measure common standards and must allow for
state-to-state comparability on the common standards. To accomplish
this, the new summative measures should have a set of common components
assessing the common standards, and produce scores and performance
indicators that are comparable across states. However, the system
should also allow states to augment this core with materials of their
choosing to produce separate state-specific information.
3. The summative portions of this battery will need to include, at
a minimum, end-of-year tests for grades 3 through 8 in both math and
English language arts (ELA) at the elementary and middle-school levels.
At high school, the system may include either ``end-of-domain'' or
``end-of-course'' assessments. The elementary and middle-school tests
should support growth modeling and across-grade comparability. The
assessments should also support within-grade proficiency standards.
While we believe these end-of-year and end-of-course/domain assessments
should be part of the system, we also believe we should consider using
data collected over the course of the year as part of the summative
system (see point 9 below).
4. Assessment designers will likely need to incorporate
international benchmarking and facilitate comprehensive alignment
efforts, although the methods for accomplishing these goals have not
yet been determined.
5. The tests should be delivered on computer or other similar
technology. Student mastery of emerging standards can likely not be
measured based on paper assessments alone. Further, summative
assessments should make use of adaptive administration, although
adaptive models will need to make allowances for the full range of item
types needed to measure emerging constructs, including those that will
be scored by humans. We envision that such a system will ultimately
support the on-demand needs of a personalized education system.
6. The development of assessment tasks will be based on an
Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) process that involves experts and
stakeholders. To measure the intended constructs, the tests will likely
need to use a range of tasks and stimulus materials, and will need to
include more than traditional multiple-choice questions. Important
decisions will need to be made regarding how constructed-response
questions are scored, though we picture a mixed model that uses
technology and professional (e.g., teachers and other subject matter
experts) scoring that is supported by assessment technology
infrastructure. Such a system will also provide opportunities for
professional development.
7. Compared to current summative tests, items and tasks should be
created based on an improved understanding of learning and development,
both to promote better interaction with formative elements of the
system as well as to provide models consistent with good instruction.
8. Tests should be as accessible as possible to students with
disabilities and English-language learners, and designers should make
use of technology to improve such accessibility.
9. Certain forward-looking ideas should be considered that may or
may not be ready for operational implementation at the time of initial
rollout of the new system. Perhaps most important among these
considerations is that summative assessments may not be single-testing
events but could augment end-of-year tests with data collected over the
course of the year.
10. We should have careful plans in place to validate assessment
scores and claims made based on them, as well as a long-term research
agenda to continuously improve the efficacy of the assessment system
for its intended purposes.
Discussion
The pages that follow detail the process through which we arrived
at the general parameters listed above.
1. Should we consider the test of common-core standards as simply a
summative assessment or as part of an integrated system that involves
interim and/or formative components as well as summative assessments?
As previously stated, no single assessment can be optimal to serve
all possible needs. It is possible that the United States Department of
Education (USED) will use the Race to the Top (RTTT) grants to focus on
the development of summative assessment systems. Summative assessments
will remain a key element of an educational quality-management system,
and one of the main goals of this effort is to improve the quality and
efficiency of our summative systems. However, without questioning this
goal, we believe that American education would be best served by an
integrated system where summative and interim or formative components
are built from common frameworks and cohere as an information provision
system. The system, taken as a whole, should provide both
accountability and instructionally actionable information without
unduly or unrealistically burdening any given component (for example,
summative tests should not be expected, on their own, to provide in-
depth instructionally actionable data). It is not necessary for the
USED common assessment grants to pay for the development of formative
elements. It is essential that the summative systems be designed to
work in tandem with these formative elements.
There are a number of reasons to favor an integrated system. First,
formative and summative components will likely both function better if
built to work together. Specifically, they should be built to meet the
same skills standards and to a common assessment framework. They should
be constructed using open technology standards and assessment
frameworks so that material can flow from one set of instruments to
others. Second, an integrated system should relieve pressure from the
summative tests to serve a purpose for which they are not ideally
suited: to provide in-depth, reliable, and valid instructionally
actionable data. This is particularly true at the level of individual
standards, where coverage on any summative test will be, by necessity,
limited (even in cases where, as we propose, flexible or adaptive
administrations or multiple administrations throughout the school year
can be used to get better information at this level). Attempts to
provide such data from a summative test will increase pressure to
lengthen tests--pressure that will become especially important since we
believe the system should exploit technology for delivery. An
integrated system should prove far more likely to meet the varied goals
people have set for the assessment.
While the ability of summative measures to provide formative data
is limited, one could, in a carefully designed and integrated system,
view summative assessments as providers of information to formative
systems, particularly for students who have ``outlier performance'' in
some area. In these cases, summative data might focus teachers on areas
where more testing or diagnosis seems indicated. This could involve
thinking across grades. For example, a summative result at grade 5
could identify students who appear to be struggling in certain areas.
Based on the specific nature of the results, the system might identify
``diagnostic intake test'' components that would be administered at the
beginning of grade 6. These would not go to all students but only to
those whose grade 5 results had indicated the need for further testing.
There are, of course, a number of different models for how an
integrated assessment system might provide instructionally actionable
information. An integrated system can include formal elements like
interim assessments, which are given throughout the year to get a
snapshot of how students are doing in mastering the required skills, or
diagnostic adaptive assessments, which provide more in-depth
information on the gaps in student learning or performance. Both
components could utilize banks of performance tasks/assignments and
scoring rubrics available for teacher use. While this paper focuses on
summative elements of the new system, we plan to address different
models of providing instructionally actionable information in a future
paper. However, any of these models assumes certain educational system
requirements, including the ability to deliver various assessment
components via computer, an automatic way of linking assessment results
with enrollment and teacher information, and a series of connections
between assessment results and curricular materials.
Formative assessment components of an integrated system may be
excellent areas to allow for customization, differentiation, and local
education agency involvement in development. While there are common
standards, to the extent that districts and states use different
curricula to address the common standards it is possible that they will
prefer to incorporate different formative systems within their
instructional programs.
As mentioned above, this paper focuses on summative components of
the assessment system. One open question is whether accountability data
will come solely from single summative tests, or whether data gathered
over the course of the year can be part of a formalized accountability
system. In the latter case, we can possibly increase the amount of
instructionally actionable data that comes out of summative systems
(although not to the point where it obviates the need for formative
systems) and improve the quality of the summative data. This will be
addressed briefly below and will also be the subject of a follow-up
discussion.
2. What sort of general design should the assessments that make up
the summative system have?
We believe these tests should have at least two major components,
although it is likely federal funding will address only the initial
one. Our understanding is that states may augment the common-core
standards with 15 percent of their own standards. Thus the common-core
assessment system must provide data on the common standards that are
strictly comparable across states and must allow states to measure
state-specific content as needed.
Because there will be both common-core standards and state
additions, the tests would likely have at least two major components.
The first would be the test of common-core standards. This would be
consistent across all participating states, districts, and schools.
Note that we do not mean the same exact test form is required but
rather the same assessment. The common components of the test will be
designed to yield state, district, school, and individual results on
the common-core standards and will not include state-specific
augmentation. The second component could be composed of state-specific
content or augmentations. Such augmentations could focus solely on the
up to 15 percent of unique state-specific standards that are in place
or provide additional measures or coverage of common-core standards.
These augmentations would be analyzed in tandem with common-core items
to yield state-specific results.
Why do we believe that the common-standards components of the
summative measure should not be customizable, and that state choices
should be located in state-specific sections? Comparability of results
on the common-core standards and test development efficiency will be
high priorities of the system. Comparability across states and the
economies of scale will be enhanced if there is a common assessment of
the common standards. Other designs are possible if the ability of
states to customize the common-core assessment is viewed as desirable,
but these will likely threaten comparability of results and will lead
to higher cost.
In system terms, the approach we recommend means adopting a single
national delivery package and permitting states (or groups of states)
to add components as needed, as opposed to ``opening up'' the common
materials for each state. Finally, this approach allows some states to
decide they do not need state-specific content, without affecting the
comparisons on the common components (which embedding items in the
common core would risk).
This approach has other advantages: Even if a single consortium
develops the common-core assessments, states would be free to work with
whomever they wished for state-specific components. If developers of
the common-core components of the system were to work to some open and
shared standards for test material, packaging, and delivery, all
components could be delivered as a single test by any number of
assessment-delivery systems. Alternately, the developers of the common-
core assessment could build some special components that could be used
at state discretion.
Note that in any of these models, provision will need to be made
for field testing new content. For the common components, this could
either be accomplished through a variable section or by embedding
field-test items within operational sections.
One open question is how big a system (in terms of assessment
exercises) would be needed to ensure security. The answer will depend
on the length of the test window, which in turn depends on the number
of students who can be tested at any time. It will also be affected by
the rapidity with which test developers can rotate content, or the
number of different aggregations of content we can provide.
A second open question concerns the length of the individual tests.
It is likely that tests at grades 3 and 4 will be limited to 50
minutes, while tests at grades 5 through 8 will take 60--120 minutes
(for both common and state-specific components). High school tests
could, conceivably, take between 2 and 3 hours. If extended tasks are
used, assessment time may need to exceed these limits.
3. What grades and subjects?
We assume that the summative assessment system will include end-of-
year ELA and math tests at grades 3 through 8, all of which need to
produce individual scores as well as aggregate scores and will need to
work together to track student growth. As discussed under point 9
below, these end-of year tests may not be the only components of the
summative system. At high school, we believe two summative models are
possible: either end-of-domain tests in both ELA and math that cover
the knowledge and skills needed to be ready for college and career
training, or a series of end-of-course tests. Each approach has
advantages and disadvantages, depending on the priorities selected.
Annual testing between grades 3 and 8 will be an optimal way to
support student growth modeling, which we believe to be a key goal of
the new system. It also provides data at fixed points, which should be
usable by parents, teachers, and policymakers.
One assumption we make is that these tests could replace the
current generation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) assessments. Through
use of technology, we believe we will be able to provide a state-of-
the-art range of accommodations to students who need them. We also
believe that through use of computer administration, we may be able to
tailor tests to individual students. Such personalized assessment may
even cause us to reevaluate the need for modified (or ``2%'')
assessments. Additionally, it would be appropriate to think of 1% or
Title 3 tests as part of a common assessment system that shares data
among components.
Closing comments in this area: End-of-year testing at grades 3
through 8 is likely necessary given an educational system that is still
organized by grade and which needs annual accountability data. However,
just because students are ``housed'' into educational institutions
based on this classification system, it does not mean that this should
restrict how we teach and assess these students. For example, the
system we propose here could evolve into an on-demand system that will
make sense as school schedules and student needs continue to evolve. It
also would allow for a system in which students take tests when they
are ready based on their personalized instructional paradigm. Second,
as mentioned above, one could consider systems in which accountability
data are not solely the province of the end-of-year test (see point 9
below). This would not, of course, necessarily obviate the need for the
end-of-year snapshot of what students know and can do.
4. Cross-grade or within-grade scaling and reporting?
Given the overall interest in student growth metrics (and the use
of such metrics in teacher evaluation), the assessment should support
cross-grade comparability, and the assessment will need to be set up to
allow for such comparisons. This work will, of course, be greatly
facilitated if the content standards and expectations are coherent
across grades. In addition to supporting growth modeling, cross-grade
comparability facilitates another element we view as desirable in the
system: the ability of flexible administration engines to select ``out-
of-grade'' content for either advanced or struggling students. We
assume that this out-of-grade content will mirror the instruction the
student has received regardless of his or her grade level or age. Note
that use of off-grade content is forbidden under current rules of NCLB,
and USED would have to facilitate dispensation.
While we believe we need cross-grade comparability, we will also
need to have within-grade performance levels. This does not pose a
problem but simply must be considered as part of the work planning.
There are interesting questions that will need to be answered in
this area. For example, while it is likely that some constituents will
want to see tests at grades 3 through 8 on a vertical scale (perhaps
mistakenly thinking vertical scales are required for growth measures),
it is not at all clear that high school tests should (or need to be)
placed on such a scale. Frankly, the notion of comparing performance in
various high school subjects, such as chemistry and Algebra II, is
problematic in itself. In the past, states have not tended to require
this, and high school content may not be as friendly to cross-grade
comparability. But there is a real need for data on whether or not high
school students are proceeding as necessary.
It is worth mentioning that there are several ways to produce
measures of growth and cross-grade comparability. How the requirements
of specific growth models affect the system will need to be studied,
and we plan to devote more thought to this topic as follow up to this
paper.
Two closing points: First, the need for cross-grade comparability
is likely to be required for the common-core standards. State-specific
augmentations may or may not need to support such cross-grade
comparability.
Second, given the number of standards and the pressures on
assessment time available, it would make the most sense from a
measurement standpoint to establish any passing scores on the summative
system as a whole and not just at the level of specific standards. We
will almost certainly need to produce sub-score and collateral
information as well as disaggregated performance by standard (and other
breakouts), and the presence of an underlying comparability paradigm
would facilitate all these purposes. Such system wide comparability may
also be used to guide any adaptive administration and an integrated
system to improve the quality of the standard-level data. Reporting
meaningful information at the standard level will become easier if new
standards are fewer and more cognitively distinct.
5. National or state-specific scales and performance levels?
The system must support both common and state-specific performance
levels. A comprehensive system might work as follows: There could be a
single-scale score and a set of achievement levels on the common test
component. This would allow for comparisons among participating states
and placement of individual scores in the context of the common
standards. Recall that this is possible because each state in a
consortium is taking the same assessment on the same standards.
The common-core standards assessments will likely need to be
internationally benchmarked. The easiest way to accomplish this is
through judgmental processes: either through the use of the
internationally benchmarked standards as key descriptors of goals in a
level-setting process, or through some assurance from an independent
body that the standards themselves conform to international best
practice and that the assessment is aligned with the standards.
Alternately, the system could rely on statistical linkages to
international studies such as Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy
Study (PIRLS). Regardless, a key step involves meeting with
stakeholders to determine the specific uses stakeholders wish to make
of the international benchmarks.
This paper assumes that the new assessments will have performance
standards. Therefore, using appropriate methods and sources of
information to set standards will be of key import. Standard setting is
often not considered when designing an assessment, but the validity of
claims made based on the assessment will be no stronger than the
performance standards allow. Assessment designers should ensure that
crucial evidence is brought to bear regarding topics such as what
successful students around the world know and can do in different
grades, and what sorts of texts should students be prepared to
encounter to succeed at the next grade. Overall, we should have a solid
evidentiary basis for stating that students have reached a level that
will allow them to succeed in future education.
The comments above relate to the scale and performance levels for
the common-core components of the assessment. In addition to this,
there will need to be separate state-specific scales and levels for
states that augment the common core with their own materials. In all
likelihood, these would be based on state-by-state analyses of the
conjoined sets of items (that is, common plus state specific). In
practical terms, it may be hard for states to explain major differences
between their standards and national standards. But the system needs to
support these types of data.
6. The use of technology in delivery
One of the major questions facing the designers of a common-
standards assessment is ``how much technology, how soon?'' Certainly,
the current state of technology availability in many states and the
current price structures of testing programs would argue that an
assessment system should offer a paper-based test, or at least a
program that could be administered on paper as well as online. In spite
of this, we believe that the assessment of common standards should be
computer-based (or other technology-enabled) tests in which paper is
used solely for certain special accommodations. There are several
reasons for this:
Emerging standards in both mathematics and ELA define
constructs that can only be measured through the use of technology.
This is likely to be true in subjects such as science as well.
Maintaining parallel paper and computer systems on which results were
supposed to be interchangeable would effectively prevent measurement of
such skills. This ``assessment tail wagging the education dog'' has
been a large criticism of education reform efforts in the past, and we
want to avoid this.
Technology allows for the use of a range of forward-
looking exercise types, including item types that ask students to
engage with digital content and formats, and bring to bear skills that
wouldn't (and couldn't) be invoked on a paper test.
Testing some skills on paper may simply yield invalid
results in the future.
Technology allows for flexible (adaptive) and on-demand
testing, which we believe should be a part of this design.
Technology allows for electronic scoring of some sorts of
items, and thus for use of a broader range of items than does paper-
based testing. Technology also facilitates the distribution of student
responses to teachers, monitoring the quality of teacher scoring, and
increased opportunities for professional development in terms of
assessment development and scoring.
Rapid return of scores and seamless data/information
interchange is facilitated by technological delivery.
It is easier to see the summative test (or tests) as part
of an integrated-assessment system if it is built around a technology
platform based on accepted standards for content and data transfer.
We assume technology will continue to improve, become
easier to use and more common in the future such that our proposed
system will be operationally feasible.
Technology allows for provision of a range of
accommodations for students with disabilities and English-language
learners that might not otherwise exist.
Using technology as the single delivery paradigm
simplifies issues with comparability.
This decision, of course, has major operational implications. Even
with expanded technology access we cannot rely solely on mass
administrations, so scheduling becomes essential. Testing windows will
need to be open long enough to accommodate test takers, and exercise
pools will need to be large enough to protect test security. The final
system must allow for trade-offs between assessment purpose (like high-
stakes graduation decisions) and the size of the testing window
allowed. Finally, since it is likely that state-specific content will
be developed by a number of different entities, we would need a set of
data transfer and delivery protocols that could be used by all
involved.
As mentioned above, we believe that the summative-assessment system
should make use of adaptive administration. A variety of approaches may
be used for this purpose (e.g., traditional computer-adaptive testing,
multistage testing, variable or fixed-length testing). The appropriate
adaptive testing solution will depend on the content and structure of
the exams.
Some arguments in support of adaptive testing follow:
It allows for on-demand testing.
It allows for somewhat shorter testing times than linear
testing, which helps from various perspectives, particularly if access
to computers is an issue.
It allows us to measure the ``higher'' standards, while at
the same time gaining some meaningful information about what lower
performers know and can do.
Considered appropriately, it may allow us to identify
standards on which students are struggling without unduly lengthening
tests. Particularly in ELA with a heavy emphasis on authentic reading,
we believe variations in traditional CAT approaches (e.g., section-
based or passage-based adaptivity) can be implemented in an
advantageous manner. Again, this will allow for far more
personalization than traditional assessments.
It will allow us to get better ``bang for the buck'' out
of open-ended/performance-based testing.
One possible challenge is the use of items that require human
scoring in an adaptive system. There are in fact ways to use such
items. In a multistage system, for example, routing decisions can be
made based on a machine-scorable stage, with performance or open-ended
exercises requiring human scoring administered during later stages.
While we believe the assessment should be adaptive, it is not
certain we will be able to make it adaptive in the first year of
administration. We would, of course, do large-scale piloting of items
before roll-out. However, given issues associated with calibrating a
pool under sub-optimal motivational conditions, it is likely that in
the roll-out year of the program we would assemble a large number of
linear tests and assign these randomly to candidates. The system could,
however, use adaptive administration in subsequent years.
7. What item types should we assume?
This question is in many ways premature: Final internationally
benchmarked standards do not exist at all grades. Decisions about the
sorts and arrays of tasks that ought to be included on these
assessments should be the result of a careful Evidence-Centered Design
(ECD) process in which we gather expert groups, review research, and
identify the sorts of behaviors that would convince us that students
have reached the stated standards. Simply stated, we want to use the
assessment task or item that most appropriately measures the construct
desired.
However, we need working assumptions. Our task design should be
guided by the general goal of measuring each construct as validly,
effectively, and thoroughly as possible. This will certainly involve a
range of exercise types that move well beyond traditional multiple
choice. These may include, though not be limited to, scenario-based
tasks, long and short constructed responses, tasks that involve the
exercise of technology skills, and simulations. This is particularly
true given the general goals of providing college readiness
information, eliciting more than content mastery information (i.e.,
problem solving and critical analysis), and exploiting the assessment
medium (namely online technology).
To optimize the speed and cost-effectiveness of scoring these
items, we should be prepared to adopt a range of strategies. First, we
may need to push the limits of what can be scored electronically:
machine scorable must not equal multiple choice. Computerized-scoring
systems are getting more effective all the time. Second, we can and
should develop better ways to analyze data obtained from simulations
that go beyond simple student responses. Third, while some tasks can be
machine scored, we must realize that emerging standards will likely
necessitate the use of items that, given the current state of scoring
technology, will require human scoring for some number of years. If
this is true, we will have to find ways to balance the need for these
items with other imperatives. We will also need to make effective use
of technologies for distributing responses for scoring, and for
monitoring and assuring the quality of such scoring. To summarize, we
believe it is likely that the new assessment system will need to make
use of three types of scoring: simple-machine scoring using online
testing, intelligent scoring using online technologies, and human
scoring using online technologies.
Human scoring is, of course, in many ways a positive. It allows
items that are not constrained by limits of the current electronic-
scoring systems. Use of teachers in the scoring process would also
represent a powerful professional development activity. Teacher scoring
in a system that will also be used for teacher evaluation will
necessitate careful safeguards. Therefore, any final design will need
to find ways to use human-scored items in ways that optimize the
instructional and professional development impact of those items,
without placing undue or unrealistic burdens on the system. We should
also be prepared to make aggressive use of emerging computer
constructed-response scoring technologies, to make sure that teacher
involvement is in fact professional development and not solely
additional labor. We believe there are ways to involve teachers in
scoring, without necessarily expecting them to conduct all the scoring
(at least of the common-core standards components that require rapid
score turnaround). The good news is that much progress has been made
recently in using automation in human scoring in ways that improve
quality and professional development potential.
During the design effort, other questions will emerge about the
sorts of items and tasks that can be used. These will surround issues
like use of audiovisual stimuli (as called for in the Council of Chief
State School Officers-National Governors Association ELA standards), as
well as interactive tasks involving spreadsheets and databases. One
interesting matter that will need to be resolved early in the process
concerns the inclusion of tasks that measure ELA standards for speaking
and listening (if these are in the final version of any set of
standards). This is not uncommon in current state standards, but these
skills are rarely if ever covered in assessments (which are normally
limited to reading and writing). We will need to decide how to assess
in these areas as this has broad implications for test design and
administration. One possible approach is to include listening and
speaking in the individual score portions of high school tests (which
can be longer), and only assess these skills at state discretion in
tests at earlier grades depending upon the goals of assessing listening
and speaking or the outcome measures desired in these domains.
If we are to do something new and different, it is necessary that
our items and tests be developed with an awareness of how students
learn. A test built around an understanding of available learning
progressions is likely to be a better provider of information to
formative components of the system. Items that model good learning and
instruction should make ``teaching to the test'' less of a problem. Of
course, this sort of thinking cannot mean that we fail to meet
psychometric standards for quality, score comparability, and fairness,
particularly given the high-stakes nature of the potential use for high
school graduation, college readiness/college placement and possibly
college admissions. Finding the appropriate balance will be key.
8. Pre-equating or post-equating?
Given the discussion immediately above (that is, a desire to use
adaptive testing), one might assume we would also recommend a pre-
equating approach. It will certainly be necessary to calibrate the
items to allow routing decisions. But, if the testing windows are at
all long, and vary by states, post-equating might make some states wait
rather long for scores. Therefore, we believe the system will
eventually need to be geared toward pre-equating as allowed. One
complexity associated with pre-equating, however, is the use of human-
scored items. Pre-equating will only work if we can ensure that the
scoring of the responses is of the same effective rigor as that used to
calibrate the items; this will require very careful control over the
human-scoring process.
Finally, it is almost certain that some form of post-equating and
post-calibration will be needed during the first year of the program.
9. Should the summative assessment be a single test or use multiple
sources of data?
In the previous sections, we have for the most part discussed the
tests as if they were given at fixed points during some course of study
(either the end of a school year or the end of high school).
Furthermore, we believe that such tests should be part of any coherent
system of assessments. However, this is not the same as arguing that
they should be the only components of a summative system.
There are several ways in which one could consider other
``assessment events'' or data sources to be formalized parts of the
summative-assessment system. In one family of approaches, there would
be multiple assessments over the course of the year whose results would
be aggregated into a summative score or scores. Such an approach could
conceivably take one of two general forms. In the first, a larger
assessment that would theoretically cover the entire year would be
broken into component pieces covering different, and possibly non-
overlapping, sets of content and skills. For example, a three-hour test
might be broken into three one-hour tests that would be given over the
course of the year. In this conception, the end-of-year test would
essentially cover the last third of the year. A similar possibility is
to build assessments around discrete instructional units (even if those
were not equally spaced over the course of the year).
A variant on this approach is a system in which the end-of-year
test did cover the entire year's worth of content, but that earlier
standardized tests covered content from the first part of the school
year in more depth. This is similar to the ``midterm-final'' approach
used in many universities and high schools, in which scores from
midterms and finals are averaged according to some preset weights and
often combined with other information to derive a final grade.
There are obvious advantages to such approaches and real challenges
as well. On the plus side, one would get some early-warning data on
students from the summative system itself; students might be able to
retake modules they have failed over the course of the year. Because
such systems would allow more aggregate data, they might give more
stable results. On the other hand, the challenges are real. Such a
system almost certainly involves making decisions about the ways
content and skills are to be ordered (or at least combined) in the
curriculum, and this may be beyond what is possible. While the
aggregate data may be solid, the reliability of the periodic measures
may be lower than one might like, which will be a problem if those data
are used on their own for high-stakes purposes. Finally, in the second
of these models, the system would need to be prepared to deal with a
possible conundrum. If two districts got the same average scores on the
end-of-year test, that would normally be interpreted to mean that those
two districts ended that school year ``in the same place.'' Rating one
district higher because of performance on intermediate ratings might be
problematic.
An alternate model, used in some other countries, is described
below. There would still be an end-of-year test, but accountability
scores would also use data from standardized projects conducted over
the period of the course of study (for example, research papers,
laboratory reports, or book summaries). Scores from these projects
would represent a fixed percentage of the final summative score.
This model would have clear advantages and disadvantages as well.
Through making these sorts of tasks part of a formal accountability
system, it encourages the use of tasks that are elements of good
instruction and learning. In addition, this approach avoids the problem
that usually keeps these sorts of tasks out of large-scale testing:
they simply take too long to be included in a fixed-event assessment.
These kinds of tasks might also provide a logical place to rely on
teacher scoring and to enjoy the professional development benefits
attendant upon it. Finally, centrally designed tasks and scoring guides
may be able to mitigate certain comparability issues.
There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed in
making such a system operational. It would need mechanisms for ensuring
that students themselves completed the tasks. While steps might be
taken to standardize task protocols and scoring rubrics, short of
adoption of a common curriculum, some choice of tasks would need to be
provided at the local level. Even with the best safeguards in the
world, such choice, combined with local scoring, will almost certainly
call into question the strict comparability of results both over time
and across jurisdictions. This is not a reason to reject such
approaches, but rather represents the sorts of trade-offs that must be
considered carefully and suggests the sort of research that is
necessary. It may be possible to find interesting compromise positions:
we might conceptualize an accountability system in which not all data
elements are used for cross-jurisdiction comparisons, for example.
The use of assessments or projects conducted over the course of the
year as part of a formal summative-assessment system is a major and
important idea. There are challenges to be met before such a system
could be implemented, and the existence of such a system presupposes
infrastructures for data maintenance and transfer that are currently
beyond the scope of many states. Thus it is possible that these
assessment features will begin as part of the state augmentations
described above, until such time as they can be added to the
accountability system. We believe that strong, forward-looking end-of-
year assessments will be part of the system. We also believe that they
may not be the only elements and that the system available on day one
may not be the final system. We will consider this more thoroughly in
follow-up discussions to this paper.
10. How do we help ensure that the assessment results validly
support claims being made about students, teachers, and schools?
We must consider the need for provision of research evidence that
supports intended uses of scores from the assessment system. Even if we
start with internationally benchmarked standards, we will need an
ongoing method for checking and updating these standards, and for
making attendant changes to test specifications. We may also not be
able to simply rely on those standards: Since the high school tests
will claim to measure college readiness, we should plan to have some
data validating that claim. There are various ways to obtain these
data; the key point is that some plan to gather validity data should be
part of the design from the beginning. Discussions of validity data are
beyond the scope of this paper; we will come back to this topic in a
later paper.
Conclusion
We stand at a moment of unprecedented opportunity. Improvements in
methods and technology, possible agreement on a set of common
standards, combined with a generous commitment of federal resources,
should allow us to build assessment systems that provide accountability
data and instructionally actionable information. However, these
opportunities will surely be wasted if we do not carefully consider the
trade-offs inherent in any large-scale assessment design. We must, and
can, ensure that a new generation of assessments is innovative and
meets all pertinent psychometric standards for quality, fairness, and
best practice. This paper represents a first attempt to consider the
trade-offs and to set up a ``straw design'' consistent with those
trade-offs.
While there is reason for caution, the opportunity far surpasses
the potential problems. We believe that we can create a summative
assessment system that uses innovative exercise types and computer
adaptive delivery to measure depth of student understanding and track
student growth. The system can be designed in ways that allow it to
work hand-in-hand with formative assessment elements to produce
instructionally actionable data. We can provide solid data on common-
core standards while giving states a chance to add their own
augmentations. We can do this in a way that is operationally and
economically feasible.
ETS, Pearson, and The College Board are excited to be part of the
national discussion of new assessment systems. This paper represents an
attempt to begin discussion by laying out key questions and central
elements of a possible assessment system. We plan to write further
papers examining specific topics in more depth. We hope others will
join in this conversation: only through open communication will the
country build the assessment system it needs.
______
[The Pearson response to Race to the Top may be accessed at
the following Internet address:]
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/CF3F0357-1B0E-4460-96DB-
6F680994ADFC/0/RacetotheTopAssessment.pdf
______
[Additional submissions by Mr. Wilhoit follow:]
The Council of Chief State School Officers and the
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
Common Core Standards
memorandum of agreement
Purpose. This document commits states to a state-led process that
will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common
core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and
mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with
college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and
be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will
be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase
of this initiative will be the development of common assessments
aligned to the core standards developed through this process.
Background. Our state education leaders are committed to ensuring
all students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and
success in the global economy and society. State standards provide a
key foundation to drive this reform. Today, however, state standards
differ significantly in terms of the incremental content and skills
expected of students.
Over the last several years, many individual states have made great
strides in developing high-quality standards and assessments. These
efforts provide a strong foundation for further action. For example, a
majority of states (35) have joined the American Diploma Project (ADP)
and have worked individually to align their state standards with
college and work expectations. Of the 15 states that have completed
this work, studies show significant similarities in core standards
across the states. States also have made progress through initiatives
to upgrade standards and assessments, for example, the New England
Common Assessment Program.
Benefits to States. The time is right for a state-led, nation-wide
effort to establish a common core of standards that raises the bar for
all students. This initiative presents a significant opportunity to
accelerate and drive education reform toward the goal of ensuring that
all children graduate from high school ready for college, work, and
competing in the global economy and society. With the adoption of this
common core, participating states will be able to:
Articulate to parents, teachers, and the general public
expectations for students;
Align textbooks, digital media, and curricula to the
internationally benchmarked standards;
Ensure professional development to educators is based on
identified need and best practices;
Develop and implement an assessment system to measure
student performance against the common core; and
Evaluate policy changes needed to help students and
educators meet the common core standards and ``end-of-high-school''
expectations.
An important tenet of this work will be to increase the rigor and
relevance of state standards across all participating states;
therefore, no state will see a decrease in the level of student
expectations that exist in their current state standards.
Process and Structure
Common Core State-Based Leadership. The Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) shall assume responsibility for
coordinating the process that will lead to state adoption of a common
core set of standards. These organizations represent governors and
state commissioners of education who are charged with defining K-12
expectations at the state level. As such, these organizations will
facilitate a state-led process to develop a set of common core
standards in English language arts and math that are:
Fewer, clearer, and higher, to best drive effective policy
and practice;
Aligned with college and work expectations, so that all
students are prepared for success upon graduating from high school;
Inclusive of rigorous content and application of knowledge
through high-order skills, so that all students are prepared for the
21st century;
Internationally benchmarked, so that all students are
prepared for succeeding in our global economy and society; and
Research and evidence-based.
National Validation Committee. CCSSO and the NGA Center
will create an expert validation group that will serve a several
purposes, including validating end-of-course expectations, providing
leadership for the development of K-12 standards, and certifying state
adoption of the common core. The group will be comprised of national
and international experts on standards. Participating states will have
the opportunity to nominate individuals to the group. The national
validation committee shall provide an independent review of the common
core. The national validation committee will review the common core as
it is developed and offer comments, suggestions, and validation of the
process and products developed by the standards development group. The
group will use evidence as the driving factor in validating the common
core.
Develop End-of-High-School Expectations. CCSSO and the NGA
Center will convene Achieve, ACT and the College Board in an open,
inclusive, and efficient process to develop a set of end-of--high-
school expectations in English language arts and mathematics based on
evidence. We will ask all participating states to review and provide
input on these expectations. This work will be completed by July 2009.
Develop K-12 Standards in English Language Arts and Math.
CCSSO and the NGA Center will convene Achieve, ACT, and the College
Board in an open, inclusive, and efficient process to develop K-12
standards that are grounded in empirical research and draw on best
practices in standards development. We will ask participating states to
provide input into the drafting of the common core and work as partners
in the common core standards development process. This work will be
completed by December 2009.
Adoption. The goal of this effort is to develop a true
common core of state standards that are internationally benchmarked.
Each state adopting the common core either directly or by fully
aligning its state standards may do so in accordance with current state
timelines for standards adoption not to exceed three (3) years.
This effort is voluntary for states, and it is fully intended that
states adopting the common core may choose to include additional state
standards beyond the common core. States that choose to align their
standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common
core represents at least 85 percent of the state's standards in English
language arts and mathematics.
Further, the goal is to establish an ongoing development process
that can support continuous improvement of this first version of the
common core based on research and evidence-based learning and can
support the development of assessments that are aligned to the common
core across the states, for accountability and other appropriate
purposes.
National Policy Forum. CCSSO and the NGA Center will
convene a National Policy Forum (Forum) comprised of signatory national
organizations (e.g., the Alliance for Excellent Education, Business
Roundtable, National School Boards Association, Council of Great City
Schools, Hunt Institute, National Association of State Boards of
Education, National Education Association, and others) to share ideas,
gather input, and inform the common core initiative. The forum is
intended as a place for refining our shared understanding of the scope
and elements of a common core; sharing and coordinating the various
forms of implementation of a common core; providing a means to develop
common messaging between and among participating organizations; and
building public will and support.
Federal Role. The parties support a state-led effort and
not a federal effort to develop a common core of state standards; there
is, however, an appropriate federal role in supporting this state-led
effort. In particular, the federal government can provide key financial
support for this effort in developing a common core of state standards
and in moving toward common assessments, such as through the Race to
the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. Further, the federal government can incentivize this effort
through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with
greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a
revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support
for states to effectively implement the standards. Additionally, the
federal government can provide additional long-term financial support
for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal
professional development, other related common core standards supports,
and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core
over time. Finally, the federal government can revise and align
existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states'
international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.
______
News Release June 1, 2009
Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative
NGA Center, CCSSO Convene State-led Process to Develop Common English-
language arts and Mathematics Standards
WASHINGTON--The National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) today released the names of the states and territories that
have joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative: Alabama;
Arizona; Arkansas; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware;
District of Columbia; Florida; Georgia; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois;
Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland;
Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Montana; Nebraska;
Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; North
Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Puerto
Rico; Rhode Island; South Dakota; Tennessee; Utah; Vermont; Virgin
Islands; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming.
In the twenty-six years since the release of A Nation at Risk,
states have made great strides in increasing the academic rigor of
education standards. Yet, America's children still remain behind other
nations in terms of academic achievement and preparedness to succeed.
By signing on to the common core state standards initiative,
governors and state commissioners of education across the country are
committing to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of
state standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-
12. These standards will be research and evidence-based,
internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations
and include rigorous content and skills.
``To maintain America's competitive edge, we need all of our
students to be prepared and ready to compete with students from around
the world,'' said NGA Vice Chair Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas. ``Common
standards that allow us to internationally benchmark our students'
performance with other top countries have the potential to bring about
a real and meaningful transformation of our education system to the
benefit of all Americans.''
``As state school chiefs, we have been discussing and building
momentum for state-led, voluntary common standards that are both
rigorous and internationally benchmarked for the past two years.,''
stated CCSSO President and Arkansas Commissioner of Education Ken
James. ``The broad level of commitment we have received from states
across the nation for this unprecedented effort is both gratifying and
exciting. It also clearly illustrates that this is an idea whose time
has arrived.''
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is being jointly led by
the NGA Center and CCSSO in partnership with Achieve, Inc; ACT and the
College Board. It builds directly on recent efforts of leading
organizations and states that have focused on developing college-and
career-ready standards and ensures that these standards can be
internationally benchmarked to top-performing countries around the
world.
The goal is to have a common core of state standards that states
can voluntarily adopt. States may choose to include additional
standards beyond the common core as long as the common core represents
at least 85 percent of the state's standards in English language arts
and mathematics.
``Measuring our students against international benchmarks is an
important step,'' said Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine. ``Today, we live in
a world without borders. It not only matters how Virginia students
compare to those in surrounding states--it matters how we compete with
countries across the world.''
``Only when we agree about what all high school graduates need to
be successful will we be able to tackle the most significant challenge
ahead of us: transforming instruction for every child,'' said CCSSO
President-Elect and Maine Education Commissioner Sue Gendron. ``Common
standards will provide educators clarity and direction about what all
children need to succeed in college and the workplace and allow states
to more readily share best practices that dramatically improve teaching
and learning. Our graduates and frankly, the future of our economy,
cannot wait any longer for our educational practices to give equal
opportunity for success to every student.''
The NGA Center and CCSSO are coordinating the process to develop
these standards and have created an expert validation committee to
provide an independent review of the common core state standards, as
well as the grade-by-grade standards. This committee will be composed
of nationally and internationally recognized and trusted education
experts who are neutral to--and independent of--the process. The
college and career ready standards are expected to be completed in July
2009. The grade-by-grade standards work is expected to be completed in
December 2009.
Founded in 1908, the National Governors Association (NGA) is the
collective voice of the nation's governors and one of Washington,
D.C.'s most respected public policy organizations. Its members are the
governors of the 50 states, three territories and two commonwealths.
NGA provides governors and their senior staff members with services
that range from representing states on Capitol Hill and before the
Administration on key federal issues to developing and implementing
innovative solutions to public policy challenges through the NGA Center
for Best Practices. For more information, visit www.nga.org.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a
nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who
head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states,
the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity,
and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership,
advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The
Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and
expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal
agencies, Congress, and the public. www.ccsso.org
______
The Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a significant and
historic opportunity for states to collectively develop and adopt a
core set of academic standards in mathematics and English language
arts. Forty-eight states and three territories have joined the Common
Core State Standards Initiative. The initiative is being jointly led by
the NGA Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School
Officers in partnership with Achieve, ACT, and the College Board. It
builds directly on recent efforts of leading organizations and states
that have focused on developing college- and career-ready standards and
ensures these standards are evidence- and research-based and
internationally benchmarked to top-performing countries.
Why is this initiative important?
Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards,
meaning public education students in each state are learning to
different levels. All students must be prepared to compete with not
only their American peers in the next state, but with students from
around the world. If all 51 states and territories adopt the common
core state standards, this initiative will affect 45.1 million students
which is about 91 percent of the student population (Source:
SchoolDataDirect.org; 2007).
Why is a common core of state standards good for students?
These standards will help prepare students with the knowledge and
skills they need to succeed in college and careers and to be prepared
to compete globally. Additionally, expectations for students will be
consistent across all states and territories; this consistency will
support students transitioning between states. Also, clearer standards
will help students better understand what is expected of them and allow
for more self-directed learning.
Why is a common core of state standards good for parents?
A common core of state standards will help parents understand what
is expected of students and for college and work success. This
understanding of what is expected of students will provide parents the
opportunities to meaningfully engage in their children's education.
Why is a common core of state standards good for educators?
A common core of state standards will allow for more focused pre-
service and professional development. Additionally, a common core will
help assure that what is taught is aligned with assessments including
formative, summative, and benchmarking. Also, educators will have the
opportunity to tailor curriculum and teaching methods and promote the
sharing of best practices.
Why is a common core of state standards good for states?
A common core of state standards will clearly articulate to
parents, teachers, and the general public expectations for students.
Shared standards will also help states better evaluate policy changes
and identify best practices and needs for students and educators.
What is being produced and when?
A draft of the common core of state standards in mathematics and
English language arts is available for public comment on
www.corestandards.org. They are expected to be validated in November
2009. Additionally, in the winter of 2009/2010, the draft standards for
grades K12 will be released.
What does the process look like?
One of the first official steps in the Common Core State Standards
Initiative was for CCSSO and the NGA Center to form a National Policy
Forum which met initially in January 2009. This forum is intended as a
way to establish a shared understanding of the scope and elements of
the common core state standards initiative and coordinate
implementation and adoption.
The Standards Development Work Group is currently engaged in
determining and writing the college and career readiness standards in
mathematics and English language arts. This group is composed of
content experts from Achieve, ACT, and the College Board. The Work
Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.
States and national education organizations will have an opportunity to
review and provide evidence-based feedback on the draft documents
throughout the process.
Also, as a step in the standards development process, CCSSO and the
NGA Center are overseeing the work of a Feedback Group. The role of
this Feedback Group is to provide information backed by research to
inform the standards development process by offering expert input on
draft documents.
The final step in the development of these standards is the
creation of an expert Validation Committee comprised of national and
international experts on standards and in the content areas. This group
will review the process and substance of the common core state
standards to ensure they are research and evidence-based and will
validate state adoption of the common core standards. Members of the
committee will be nominated by governors and chiefs of the
participating states and selected by a group of four governors and four
chiefs.
What will the common core standards look like?
The common core state standards will be fewer, clearer, and higher.
They will articulate to parents, teachers, and the general public
expectations for what students will know and be able to do grade by
grade and when they graduate from high school. The standards will be
internationally benchmarked, evidence- and research-based, and ready
for states to adopt.
What happens after the common core standards are developed?
Adoption of the common core state standards is voluntary for
states; states choosing to align their standards to the common core
state standards have agreed the common core will represent at least 85
percent of the state's standards in mathematics and English language
arts. Additionally, there is an obvious role for assessment; some
states will voluntarily come together to develop new, innovative,
common assessments.
What happens after states adopt common core standards?
The common core state standards are the first step in transforming
our education system. For systemic change to occur educators must be
supported (e.g., time, resources, professional development) in changing
classroom practice based on the standards. Instructional materials and
assessments that align to the standards and measure and support student
progress will need to be developed.
How can my organization get involved?
Visit the Common Core State Standards Web site at
www.corestandards.org
Subscribe to Common Core State Standards updates at
www.ccsso.org or the NGA newsletter at join-nganews@talk.nga.org
Write a statement of support for the initiative and send
it to commonstandards@ccsso.org and webmaster@nga.org
______
Common Core State Standards Initiative
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
This Common Core State Standards Initiative is a significant and
historic opportunity for states to collectively accelerate and drive
education reform toward the ultimate goal of all children graduating
from high school ready for college, work, and success in the global
economy. The initiative will build off of the research and good work
states have already done to build and implement high-quality standards.
The standards will be research- and evidence-based, aligned with
college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and
be internationally benchmarked.
Why is the Common Core State Standards Initiative important?
Today we live in a world without borders. To maintain America's
competitive edge, we need all of our students to be well prepared and
ready to compete with not only their American peers, but with students
from around the world. These common standards will be a critical first
step to bring about real and meaningful transformation of our education
system to benefit all students.
States know that standards alone cannot propel the systems change
we need. The common core state standards will enable participating
states to:
Articulate to parents, teachers, and the general public
expectations for students;
Align textbooks, digital media, and curricula to the
internationally benchmarked standards;
Ensure professional development for educators is based on
identified need and best practices;
Develop and implement an assessment system to measure student
performance against the common core state standards; and
Evaluate policy changes needed to help students and educators meet
the common core state college and career readiness standards.
Who is leading the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) have
initiated a state-led process of developing and adopting a common core
of state standards.
As part of this process, they have convened a National Policy Forum
composed of signatory national organizations (e.g., National School
Boards Association, Council of Great City Schools, and many others) to
share ideas, gather input, and inform the common core state standards
initiative.
How will states adopt the common core state standards?
States will adopt the common core state standards through a process
that respects unique state contexts. CCSSO and the NGA Center will ask
states to share their adoption timeline and process in early 2010, when
the K-12 common core state standards are completed. A validation
committee will verify that states have accurately adopted the common
core state standards.
process
What will make this process different from other efforts to create
common standards?
Both the timing of this initiative as well as the process gives it
a high probability for success. There is a growing belief among state
leaders, education leaders, and business leaders that differences in
state standards, in an era of increasing student mobility and global
competition, no longer make sense.
This process is different since it is a state-led, versus a
federal, effort and has the support of several major national
organizations, including CCSSO, the NGA Center, National Association of
State Boards of Education, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the
National Parent Teacher Association, the American Association of School
Administrators, the Hunt Institute, and the Business Roundtable,, and
involves participation of leading standards developers from Achieve,
ACT, and the College Board.
States have been the leaders of standards-based reform efforts. The
proposed adoption process respects and takes into consideration unique
state contexts and encourages states to adopt the common core state
standards.
Are these national standards?
No. This initiative is driven by collective state action and states
will voluntarily adopt the standards based on the timelines and context
in their state.
Who or what entity determines the common core state standards?
CCSSO and NGA Center are responsible for the development and cross-
state adoption process.
A Standards Development Work Group is responsible for determining
and writing the common core state standards. Click here to view the
list of work and feedback group members.
A Feedback Group provides information backed by research to inform
the standards development process by offering expert input on draft
documents.
A Validation Committee composed of independent, national experts
will review the process and substance of the common core state
standards to ensure they are research and evidence based and will
validate state adoption of the common standards. Members of the
validation committee will be selected by governors and chiefs.
Members of the work and feedback group are listed on the site
www.corestandards.org.
By what criteria will the standards be judged? Who or what entity
sets such criteria?
The standards will be judged based on research and evidence to
ensure that they meet the following criteria:
Aligned with college and work expectations
Inclusive of rigorous content and application of knowledge through
high-order skills
Internationally benchmarked
Criteria have been set by states, through their national
organizations CCSSO and the NGA Center.
What is the role of the validation committee?
The validation committee is charged with validating the process and
products of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, the college and
career readiness standards in English language arts and mathematics.
The committee will also validate state adoption of the common core. The
group will provide feedback and suggested revisions during the
standards development and will use evidence as the driving factor in
validating the common core state standards. The future role of the
validation committee will be determined as the initiative proceeds.
How was the validation committee nominated?
Nominations for the validation committee were open states and
national organizations. In particular, governors and chief state school
officers were invited to nominate two individuals to the committee
based on a set of criteria.
How was the validation committee selected?
The validation committee members were confirmed by a group of six
governors with leadership positions at NGA and six chiefs on the CCSSO
executive board. The governors and chiefs were provided with a full
list of nominees and recommended members suggested by CCSSO and the NGA
Center.
What is the expertise of those serving on the validation committee?
The validation committee members were chosen based on their
national or international expertise on standards and demonstrated
record of knowledge in English language arts, mathematics or a related
field (e.g., special education, assessment development, curriculum
development). Consideration was also given to ensuring a diversity of
perspectives and expertise on the committee.
What grades will be covered in the common core state standards?
The English-language arts and math standards will be K-12
standards. This will not cover pre-k, but the common core state
standards will be informed by research from the early childhood
community.
How are teachers involved in the common standards initiative?
NGA and CCSSO have asked for and received feedback from national
organizations representing educators, such as the National Education
Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council of
Teachers of English (NCTE). These organizations each brought together
groups of teachers to provide specific, constructive feedback on the
standards. The feedback was used to inform the public draft of the
college- and career-readiness standards. Numerous teacher organizations
are also involved with the initiative through the National Policy
Forum, which provides a means to share ideas, gather input, and inform
the common core state standards initiative.
Individual teachers and practitioners can also submit comments and
feedback on the standards through the web site www.corestandards.org.
What does this work mean for students with disabilities and English
language learners?
In the development of these standards, the inclusion of all types
of learners was a priority. Chosen language was intended to be open and
accessible to different learners.
How will we be sure that the standards are based on evidence and
not on individual beliefs about what are important?
The validation group of independent, national experts will review
the process and substance of the common core state standards delineated
by the standards development group to ensure they are research and
evidence based.
Why are the common core state standards just in English-language
arts and math? Are there plans to develop common standards in other
areas in the future? Will this work just narrow the curriculum in
schools?
English-language arts and math were the first subjects chosen for
the common core state standards since states have the longest history
of standards in these areas, they are the core of our current national
accountability system, and they provide the greatest areas of leverage.
Other content areas and domains are crucial to children's education and
their success in college and careers. Once the English language arts
and math standards are developed, states plan to develop a common core
of standards in science and potentially additional subject areas. The
emphasis now is on the English-language arts and math standards because
these two subjects are foundational skills.
The common state standards should not narrow the curriculum since
the standards will be fewer than current standards, allowing teachers
to create deep, multi-disciplinary projects and lessons that help their
students reach the standards.
Will these standards incorporate both content and skills?
Both content and skills are important and will be incorporated in
the common core state standards. One of the criteria by which the
standards will be determined is whether or not they are inclusive of
rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order
skills.
implementation and future work
What will these common core state standards mean for students?
This initiative will potentially affect 45.1 million students which
is about 91 percent of the student population (SchoolDataDirect.org,
2007). Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards,
meaning public education students in each state are learning to
different levels. This initiative will allow students equal access to
an excellent education regardless of where they live. This next
generation of students must be prepared to compete with not only their
American peers in the next state, but with students from around the
world. These standards will help prepare students with the knowledge
and skills they need to succeed in college and careers
How will these standards impact teachers?
The common core state standards will allow for more focused pre-
service and professional development; provide the opportunity for
teachers to be involved in the development of assessments at classroom
and state levels that are truly linked to curriculum and student
achievement; inform the development of a curriculum that promotes deep
understanding for all children; and because the standards are fewer,
teachers will be able to use their professional expertise in utilizing
multiple strategies to best support learning for all students.
It is also clear that educators will require additional supports
and resources to help students meet these fewer, clearer, and higher
expectations.
Will the Common Core State Standards be updated?
Yes. There will be an ongoing state-led development process that
can support continuous improvement of this first version of the common
core state standards based on research and evidence-based learning.
Will common assessments be developed? Will one national test be
created that looks like the current tests we have today?
States know that standards alone cannot propel the systems change
we need. Assessments aligned with the common core state standards will
play an important role in making sure the standards are embedded in our
education system.
Some states will voluntarily come together to develop new
innovative, common assessments as part of the Race to the Top program.
However, states do not want to see one national assessment given once a
year that relies on multiple-choice items. A common assessment system
will include multiple forms of assessment so that what a student knows
and can do, not the form of the assessment, determines performance. An
assessment system must provide assessment for learning as well as
assessment of learning.
Instructional materials and curricula are key components to making
standards usable and real in the classroom. Will you be creating common
instructional materials and curricula?
The standards must be aligned to assessments and classroom practice
to be effective. CCSSO and the NGA Center are focusing now on
developing high-quality standards for states to adopt. NGA and CCSSO
understand the importance of instructional materials in order to ensure
the teachers have tools to successfully implement these standards.
What is the role of the federal government in this initiative?
The federal government can:
Support this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as
providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing
federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and
offering financial support for states to effectively implement the
standards as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Provide additional long-term financial support for the development
and implementation of common assessments, teacher and principal
professional development supports, and a research agenda that can help
continually improve the common core state standards over time.
Revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons
learned from states' international benchmarking efforts and from
federal research.
What is the timeline for the common core state standards
initiative?
Key dates in the project are identified below.
November 2009--College- and career-readiness standards validated.
Winter 2009/2010--K-12 common core state standards in English-
language arts and mathematics completed and publicly released.
Early 2010, states submit timeline and process for adoption of
common core state standards in English-language arts and mathematics.
______
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]