IMPLEMENTING COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS IN CALIFORNIA: A REPORT FROM THE FIELD - STANFORD UNIVERSITY: MILBREY MCLAUGHLIN LAURA GLAAB ISABEL ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field Stanford University: Milbrey McLaughlin Laura Glaab Isabel Hilliger Carrasco June 2014
Implementing Common The implementation challenge proaches will need to provide op-
portunities for students to engage
Core State Standards in California’s State Board of Edu- in problem-solving, and construct
California: A Report from cation adopted the Common evidence-based arguments. Teach-
Core State Standards (CCSS) in
the Field August of 2010. The CCSS have
ers must move away from tradi-
tional practices that place them in
been adopted by 45 states across
the role of ‘sage on the stage’ and
the country. They aim to articu-
reward students for rote memori-
late consistent, clear standards
Stanford University: zation. School leaders must sup-
for what students are expected to
port their teachers as they make
Milbrey McLaughlin learn and be able to do in mathe-
these transitions, while engaging
Laura Glaab matics and English Language Arts
parents and community members
from kindergarten through Grade
Isabel Hilliger Carrasco1 in new ways. The practices and
12, and to focus educators’ atten-
tion on “fewer, higher, and deeper activities that faithful implemen-
standards.”2 tation of the CCSS would require
are a long stretch for most Califor-
According to State Board of Edu- nia educators, and run contrary in
cation President Michael Kirst, many respects to deep-rooted fea-
“This changes almost everything.”3 tures of teaching and learning in
The CCSS implicate every aspect the United States.
of teaching, learning and assess-
ment. In contrast to the scripted The adoption and implementation
curricula and multiple choice as- of the CCSS coincides with the
sessments of the past, students implementation of the Local Con-
will need to demonstrate an un- trol Funding Formula (LCFF),
derstanding of core ideas, carry which shifts responsibility and ac-
out research and inquiry related countability in California’s educa-
to real world tasks, collaborate in tion system from the state to local
problem solving, and communi- schools and school districts. The
cate their use and interpretation decentralization of authority un-
of evidence in clear, compelling der LCFF means that strategies
ways. To support the learning for CCSS implementation and de-
and skill development sought by cisions about the allocation of re-
CCSS, teachers’ classroom ap- sources to support implementation
1
Dr. Barry Groves, Superintendent of the Mountain View Los Altos High School Dis-
trict, provided significant assistance in developing this report. In addition to providing
his own reflections about CCSS, he collected Santa Clara county district superintendents’
views about CCSS implementation supports and challenges. We thank him for his valu-
able colleagueship and assistance.
2
Kirst 2013
http://www.edpolicyinca.org 3
ibid
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 1must be made at the local level, in strategic implementation chal- ty Offices of Education (COEs)
consultation with parents and the lenges than do smaller and more and 20 districts, administrators
broader community. The state still homogeneous suburban districts. of four Charter Management Or-
has some key roles to play, as we ganizations, and representatives
discuss below, but most key deci- In this report we present some from two state level organizations
sions about CCSS implementation initial findings on the early imple- about their perspectives on CCSS
are left up to local actors. mentation of CCSS in California. implementation.
We first report on our interviews
One natural consequence of de- with educators in all regions of the We asked district administrators
centralized governance is wide state, and on their views of how how they had allocated the funds
variation across schools and school implementation is proceeding in that the state provided to support
districts in both the pace and scale their schools and districts. We CCSS implementation. What was
of implementation efforts. Good then review some of the key chal- their strategic approach to CCSS
will toward CCSS is found almost lenges that local educators identify implementation? What challenges
everywhere in California, but the as they move forward with CCSS had they faced, and what resourc-
state’s nearly 1,000 school districts implementation, and highlight es had they found valuable or lack-
vary dramatically in terms of de- areas where districts, schools and ing? We asked COE administrators
mographics, wealth, politics, and counties will require more or dif- about the implementation respons-
location, and variation on these ferent support as they continue es they saw in their counties, and
dimensions is closely tied to differ- their implementation efforts. We about their approaches to working
ences in teachers’ experience and conclude with some observations with districts. What kinds of re-
capacities, available technical and on the current state of implemen- sources were they able to provide?
human infrastructure, resources to tation in California, and what it Where were the areas of greatest
support professional development will take to ensure that implemen- need? We asked charter school
and materials acquisition, and tation of the CCSS leads to last- administrators about the CCSS re-
students’ learning needs. These ing improvements in the quality sponses of their schools, and about
differences in turn shape the chal- of teaching and learning in Cali- the implementation strategies they
lenges and opportunities that local fornia’s schools. pursued. In addition to our inter-
educators face in developing CCSS
views we attended several meet-
implementation strategies. Talking with the field
ings that sought to offer guidance
For instance, CCSS implementa- To develop a picture of early CCSS and assistance to educators and
tion in small, low-wealth Central implementation in California we their constituents as they grappled
Valley districts serving high num- talked with educators in diverse with CCSS implementation. This
bers of ELD students is a funda- settings across the state, including group of respondents and obser-
mentally different undertaking school districts and charter schools vations by no means represents a
than CCSS implementation in in rural and northern California, “scientific” sample of California
the high-wealth districts of Sili- the Central Valley, the Inland Em- districts, charters and COEs, but
con Valley. Likewise, large urban pire, Southern California, and it does include information from a
districts wrestle with significantly the Bay Area (see Figure 1). We wide range of regional and local
more complicated logistical and spoke with educators in 10 Coun- contexts.
2 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the FieldFigure 1. sistent with their college-ready fo-
cus, and “the best thing for it.”
At the same time, administrators
County Office of Education Staff and teachers were uniformly anx-
District administrators ious in the face of the many im-
plementation uncertainties associ-
ated with the CCSS. In the words
of one teacher, CCSS are “liberat-
ing in so many ways but also over-
whelming and frightening.” Ac-
cording to a superintendent, “This
is one reform where I don’t have
to fight my staff about whether to
go forward… most are on board.
They just don’t know what to do.
Most want to do the right thing;
14 they just don’t know what it is.”
New Partnerships and Relationships.
Most districts and charters are in
early stages of CCSS implemen-
tation, and it is too soon to tell
whether CCSS implementation
will lead to hoped-for changes in
teaching and learning. An early
and constructive consequence of
CCSS implementation is evident
everywhere across the state, how-
ever, as new partnerships and re-
lationships are being created to in-
form and support implementation
Overall response to CCSS changes they portend, and they be- efforts.
in California lieve that the CCSS will make an
Educators speak about these new
important and positive difference relationships in positive terms.
Enthusiasm and Anxiety.
for students. As a Central Valley Shared uncertainties about the
Across California, administrators COE administrator put it: “Teach- transition from familiar strategies
and teachers are uniformly en- ers think teaching is going to be and materials to the brave new
thusiastic about the CCSS. They fun again.” Several charter school world of CCSS have prompted
are excited about the instructional administrators saw CCSS as con- many California educators to seek
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 3out colleagues and establish con- across the grades, starting with in- its implications for teaching and
tacts with organizations new to tegration of the new CCSS math learning. Beyond this, of course,
them. For instance, practitioners standards. Many districts and access to resources to support the
across the state point to enhanced charter schools are working with development of curriculum and
teacher collaboration as an imme- their COE in new ways, or for the instructional strategies aligned to
diate, constructive consequence of first time, as they take up CCSS the CCSS differed widely across
CCSS implementation, and under- implementation. different classes of districts.
score the many benefits of teach-
New partners are also at the table. District wealth was a key consid-
ers working together to develop
Educators in one southern Cali- eration in local decisions about
strategies and materials consistent
fornia district pointed to the pro- how to get started. In 2013 the
with the CCSS.
ductive relationships formed with California Legislature appropri-
A wide variety of professional, or- local businesses to support CCSS ated $1.25 billion to support the
ganizational and cross-sector col- implementation. Several districts transition to CCSS. Districts were
laborations have sprung up among are working with their local com- permitted to spend these funds in
public and private organizations, munity colleges to align curricula three broad areas—technology, in-
special interest and advocacy and build capacity. In Santa Clara structional materials, and profes-
groups, and local philanthropies County, for example, Foothill Col- sional development—but the allo-
to tackle CCSS implementation. lege has provided integrated tech- cation of funds across areas varied
These collaborations are mostly nology training for teachers. widely. Districts that rely heav-
local. They are shaped and ani- ily on state funding had reduced
Different starting points, differ- staffing severely in response to
mated by local resources, and by
ent implementation issues the state’s recent fiscal crises, and
local needs and opportunities. In
San Joaquin County, for example, many of these districts used the
As CCSS implementation has got-
curriculum directors from local CCSS funds to restore class sizes
ten underway, California school
school districts meet almost twice and staffing to their prior levels.
districts face parallel but also sub-
as often now as they have done in In districts that lacked computers
stantially different implementa-
and IT supports technology pur-
previous years to discuss changes tion challenges. Local context
chases were a priority, to get ready
in their districts and progress with has a decisive influence both on
for the upcoming SBAC computer-
CCSS materials. In the resource- the problems that educators must
based assessments. In high-wealth
strapped Central Valley three address and on the adequacy of
districts that had already updated
counties have pooled resources to their responses. In all parts of the
their technology, in contrast, most
provide CCSS training and materi- state educators spoke of CCSS
of the CCSS funds were spent on
als. In the newly established East implementation as a learning
professional development, sending
Side Alliance in San Jose the East process, but different districts be- teachers to conferences and bring-
Side Union High School District gan the implementation process ing in consultants.
has joined together with its seven in different stages of understand-
feeder elementary schools. They ing and readiness. As more than Districts, schools and COEs also
are working to establish common one practitioner commented, dis- started work on CCSS implemen-
standards and aligned course con- tricts did not necessarily share the tation at different times. Some
tent and instructional approaches same understanding of CCSS and districts began developing CCSS
4 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Fieldaligned units and assessments lenges for many California charter or “taking a hike without a map
when the standards were first ad- schools, including especially those or compass.” Beyond these gen-
opted in 2010. Other districts where success has been associated eral concerns, the main obstacles
started later, but still had around with more prescriptive instruc- to successful CCSS implementa-
a year of CCSS experience prior tional models, or with exceptional tion identified by our respondents
to the 2013-14 school year. Still student performance on the Cali- across county, district and school
others have just begun to think fornia Standards Tests (CST). settings had to do with shortfalls
about what the CCSS will mean in materials, capacity and prepara-
for their teachers and students and Despite significant differences in tion.
plan on introducing the standards readiness for and understanding
of CCSS, however, practitioners in Curriculum and Materials
in 2014-15. Districts that started
early on implementation have all settings across the state voiced Curriculum development. Califor-
built a good amount of the human similar concerns about the chal- nia’s rollout of the CCSS began
capital and materials necessary to lenges that successful implemen- in earnest in the summer of 2013.
provide CCSS aligned instruction tation will bring. In keeping with the decentraliza-
across the grades. Many of the tion of education decision-making
Common implementation
late-responding districts were slow under the LCFF, the state’s role in
concerns
in getting started because they are CCSS implementation has been
stretched thin in terms of resourc- Our interviews with California ed- minimal by design. Responsibility
es and capacity, or because of top ucators yielded two universal and for decisions about what and how
leadership changes. predictable complaints. On the to teach, how to get instructional
one hand, practitioners say that resources into the hands of teach-
Charter Management Organiza- all aspects of CCSS implementa- ers, how to provide professional
tions face additional issues that tion have been hampered by a lack development, and how to orga-
are specific to their charter sta- of time. They have too little time nize effectively within and across
tus. Currently in California there to provide professional develop- districts to implement the CCSS
are 1,130 charter schools that en- ment, too little time to work on across grades and schools have
roll more than 500,000 students. developing new curricula and in- been left to local educators. This
Charter schools have significantly structional materials, and too little responsibility is a demanding one.
greater autonomy than traditional time to communicate with teach- As former state superintendent
public schools in decisions about ers, parents, and school board Bill Honig wrote, “The Common
hiring, resource use, and other members. As one said: “Time, Core State Standards state what
management practices, and their or lack thereof, appears to be the students should master, but they
attractiveness to prospective stu- common enemy.” On the other are not a curriculum. Jumping
dents depends at least in part on hand, practitioners felt that their from the standards to create lesson
the effectiveness of their particular implementation efforts were com- plans misses a crucial middle step
educational “brand” as measured plicated by the broader ambigui- of developing a coherent curricu-
by standardized test scores. The ties and uncertainties associated lum…the complex work of creat-
approaches to teaching, learning with CCSS. Many likened the first ing a local curricular framework
for the district.”4
and assessment encouraged by year of CCSS implementation to
CCSS consequently pose chal- “building a plane while flying it” 4
Honig 2014
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 5Many local leaders lamented the CCSS alignment, and that no in- es developed elsewhere, however,
general absence of district frame- formation was available about the many practitioners were reluctant
works and a comprehensive vision assessments that would be used to make use of them because of
for teaching and learning. One to appraise learning and teaching uncertainty about their applicabil-
observer pointed to the “unitiza- under the new standards. Com- ity to the California policy context
tion” of curricula being developed plaints about publishers’ offerings or their own settings, or because
in the absence of a general district emerged across the state. One they lacked the basic understand-
scope and sequence. “A unit here, superintendent echoed the views ing of CCSS that these resources
a unit there—they don’t reflect an of many: “Publishers rushed, the assumed.
overall vision of instruction.” Few materials really haven’t changed
districts have developed a compre- that much. The state-adopted ma- A related annoyance has to do with
hensive design to inform instruc- terials are not that great. Feels a the flood of materials and invita-
tion, and the modules selected by bit like hurry up and wait from tions to workshops that fill practi-
teachers do not always add up to the state.” Researchers who have tioners’ inboxes with promises to
a coherent approach to teaching looked into publishers’ offerings support CCSS implementation.
and learning.5 that claim to be compatible with One superintendent said he got at
the CCSS support practitioners’ least one email every ten minutes
Insufficient materials. Frustration views.7 from vendors offering materials.
with the availability and qual- “Are they any good? Have they
ity of CCSS compatible materials Some districts and COEs, espe- been vetted? By whom?” A char-
topped the list of practitioners’ cially those who started early on ter school administrator said: “We
implementation concerns.6 Edu- CCSS implementation, have made don’t know who to trust—who is
cators in low-wealth, high-wealth, use of instructional and training any good.” Both administrators
rural and urban settings com- materials developed elsewhere, and teachers said they had neither
plained that too few materials ex- including for example materials the expertise nor the time to assess
isted to inform curriculum devel- from New York State, Kentucky the ceaseless torrent of instruc-
opment, that the materials that did and Teachers College. Even when tional units, classroom projects,
exist were of uncertain quality and they were aware of CCSS resourc- workshops and other ‘Common
5
An October 2013 survey undertaken by the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association and the Consortium
for the Implementation of Common Core State Standards found that only around one-third of districts around the state had created a
scope and sequence for CCSS in either math or English Language Arts. Our conversations support this estimate.
6
The state has been active in anticipating practitioners’ concerns about CCSS-compatible materials. The math framework was adopted
by the SBE on November 2013: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/draft2mathfwchapters.asp. Thirty-one textbooks have been reviewed
and adopted as CCSS-aligned, and an advisory to local school boards from the CDE followed: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/
yr14rel6.asp. For many practitioners, however, these mathematics resources came too late to inform local planning and curriculum
development which had gotten underway in the fall, and the list of 31 state-adopted texts provided too little guidance to inform local
decisions about which text to adopt. The ELA/ELD draft framework will go to the SBE for adoption in July: http://www.cde.ca.gov/
ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrkchptrs2014.asp.
7
Researchers concluded, based on page-by-page comparisons of old and new texts, that “most purveyors...have done little more than
slap shiny new stickers on the same books they have been selling for years” and warned practitioners of “snake oil salesmen.” Molnar
2014.
6 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the FieldCore implementation supports’ Local educators also highlighted multiple choice bubble tests and
that come their way. the general inattention to issues scripted curriculum to make that
and lack of instructional resources transition. It is a completely dif-
Districts across the state have re- associated with specific student ferent skill set.” One COE leader
lied on teachers to identify materi- populations. Although all students described the necessary change as
als and strategies, which was pre- will be included in the new assess- a “huge mind shift” and a “new
viously a central office decision. ments that accompany CCSS, way of looking at teaching….
As a result, teachers often find Skills learning will no longer cut
teachers of English learners, spe-
themselves in the unaccustomed it.”
cial education students, and strug-
role of instructional decision-
gling students generally found lit-
maker, for which many are poorly Practitioners’ misgivings about
tle to assist them in planning new
prepared. Most have nevertheless teachers’ capability extend to
classroom approaches. Admin-
accepted this new responsibility, doubts about their current skills
istrators in districts where these
and many practitioners comment and knowledge. In the view of
students were scattered across the
positively on the erosion of tra- many administrators thin content
district, rather than concentrated
ditional teacher isolation when knowledge constrains many teach-
in particular schools, found them-
teachers are engaged in CCSS cur- ers’ ability to support the deeper
selves particularly at a loss about
riculum development efforts. As learning that CCSS aims to en-
how to support their teachers.
one district administrator put it: courage, especially in mathemat-
“Common Core demands a bot- Implementation Capacity ics. One suburban superintendent
tom-up approach beginning with said: “Open Court and other re-
teachers.” Worries about local capacity were forms of the past were touted as
expressed across the state. These being ‘teacher proof.’ CCSS is
Some districts have sought to mod- involved questions about teachers’ almost the exact opposite! A con-
ify familiar instructional materi- knowledge and skill, as well as the structivist approach to instruction
als to align with CCSS goals and adequacy of system implementa- takes a lot of skill and a highly
instruction. One superintendent tion supports in technology and competent teacher. In general,
who adopted this strategy said, “I assessment. teachers’ capacity is low now.”
tell my teachers we are going to
accomplish this with a lot of small Human capital. Teachers figure Administrators report that even ex-
steps and comfort with the changes both as the greatest asset for CCSS perienced teachers who work with
we make. I tell teachers there is a implementation and the greatest sample CCSS problems struggle to
change in their role, but we are not concern for administrators. Ad- find the solution, which raises se-
going back to scratch.” This strat- ministrators in school districts and rious questions about their ability
egy of local adaptation connects COEs expressed fear that many to teach the required skills to their
teachers to materials they have teachers are ill equipped to make students any time soon. Younger
used in the past as a starting point the changes necessary to carry teachers have little experience with
for developing new curricula, and out the kind of teaching that the curriculum design and develop-
eliminates the risk of introducing CCSS will require. In particu- ment. Many would agree with one
materials of uncertain quality or lar, they expressed apprehension superintendent’s view that “New
prematurely adopting “new” text about the ability of teachers who teachers will have a difficult time
books that are not new at all. “grew up in the NCLB era, with with this new implementation, but
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 7I don’t believe that our long-term with “remediating” the teachers Low wealth and small districts in
staff has the necessary skills ei- who entered his district from lo- contrast faced significant short-
ther.” An urban administrator put cal teacher preparation programs: falls in both hardware and band-
it bluntly: “My biggest problem is “I would like to see the state un- width. For example, an Oakland
human capital. My teaching force dertake a major teacher education teacher said that she thought “one
is just not up to it…70 percent of initiative—that may be the most of the biggest obstacles to success-
them.” important component of Com- ful implementation is the lack of
mon Core implementation in the necessary technological resources
A spring 2014 poll found that long run.” in our schools.”11 Commenting
three-quarters of the respondents, on the challenges faced by near-
including four-fifths of parents, We also uncovered worries about
by superintendents leading three
are concerned that teachers are local administrators’ ability to de-
small districts, the superintendent
unprepared to implement Com- sign and lead change, and to sup-
of a technologically well-equipped
mon Core.8 Teachers generally port teachers’ efforts. Like teach-
district said: “They have nothing.
agree with this assessment. They ers, superintendents and principals
They have absolutely no help with
express anxiety not only about the are used to the prescriptions asso-
hardware, teacher training on
new skills they need and the lack ciated with NCLB and to manag-
computers, and so on. It is impos-
of useful instructional materials, ing their schools and districts in
sible. In [one district], the super-
but also about the “huge cultural response to clear rules and expec-
intendent relies on the principal
shift required. We are still strug- tations. Many have no experience
of her elementary school to be the
gling with the compliance cul- with the more ambitious teaching
district’s IT support.”
ture.” and learning goals associated with
the CCSS. This spring’s SBAC pilot laid some
Concerns about teachers’ compe-
fears to rest, providing evidence
tence to deliver the CCSS extend Technology. Worries about the ad-
that students are able to handle
to the teacher preparation pipe- equacy of technology surfaced in
a computer-based assessment.12
line. Administrators, especially most districts and counties across
Worries about technology short-
those in urban districts who must the state. ACSA’s 2014 survey of
falls nevertheless remain. Many
hire scores of teachers each year, their members reinforced these
of this year’s technology fixes
pointed to the “patchwork” of concerns. Administrators asked
were pieced together, and do not
teacher training programs and for more technology support,10
represent long term solutions. For
the uneven attention that differ- and their worries centered on the
instance, some schools borrowed
ent programs give to preparing adequacy of local technology and
computers from nearby schools on
teachers for instruction suited to connectivity to support SBAC as-
the CCSS.9 Some district admin- sessments. Not surprisingly, how- 8
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/
istrators found CSU teacher train- ever, differences in context medi- survey/S_414MBS.pdf
ing faculties to be “unresponsive” ated worries about technology. 9
Baron 2014a
to their needs, and slow to offer Districts with a well-resourced IT 10
Baron 2014b
preservice training in CCSS sup- and technical infrastructure had 11
http://www.goleadershipcen-
portive instructional strategies. few concerns about the technol- ter.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_
One urban administrator cited ogy per se, and focused instead on id=1&tag=Common%20Core&limit=20
the significant costs associated students’ computer capabilities. 12
See, for example, Noguchi 2014.
8 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Fielda different testing schedule. tions. According to one district ad- their children’s test scores in many
ministrator, “Teachers and most instances.”
Concerns about teachers’ techno- district staff have no training that
logical literacy arose across the would enable them to correctly Policy overwhelm. California edu-
state. Many teachers are not com- evaluate a formative assessment. cators in districts and charters al-
fortable with technology, and are This would be an opportunity for most uniformly bemoan “policy
unprepared to use the data that will COEs to develop and support good overwhelm.” Regardless of base-
be provided as part of CCSS as- line capacity, time, people, atten-
assessments. Or, provide training
sessments. They have not adopted tion and energy are all stretched
for teachers and administrators in
new technology as an instruction- thin by the demands posed simul-
assessment.”
al tool in their classrooms. Many taneously by CCSS and the state’s
practitioners nevertheless express Charter schools are concerned by new school finance policies. The
enthusiasm for a deeper integra- the lack of tests they can use to challenge is exacerbated by the
tion of new technology once the show growth to parents, education planning and stakeholder involve-
most pressing implementation is- leaders and funders. However, one ment required by the Legislature’s
sues are addressed. A COE cur- charter administrator called the appropriation to support CCSS
riculum superintendent said, “We lack of assessments “both a bless- implementation and also by the
used to teach technology, now we ing and a curse. We have had more LCFF. Districts that are part of
need to be able to use technology changes this year as a result of not the CORE waiver effort face addi-
to teach.” having assessment—more experi- tional challenges, as they must also
mentation.” The California Char- devise new accountability mecha-
Assessment. Every county, district
ter Schools Association (CCSA) nisms to measure students’ prog-
or charter educator we spoke with
provided charters with discounted ress. Some charter school adminis-
pointed to the need for formative
rates for the NWEA MAP test to trators also expressed overwhelm,
assessment tools to gauge class-
produce performance indicators though for different reasons. For
room progress toward CCSS, and
for their schools. One growing example, Aspire Public Schools’
to identify areas where teaching
CMO that had experienced suc- CEO spoke of stress from “trying
and learning were falling short.
cess on the CST plans to adminis- to do too much” as they seek to
At the same time, practitioners
ter the old tests at its own expense implement the new teacher evalu-
expressed uncertainty about the
state’s role in providing assess- for at least one more year. ation system they have been work-
ment resources. What was com- Both charter and public school ing on for four years and CCSS at
ing? When? In order to provide educators say that Hispanic, Asian the same time.
guidance and support some dis- and other immigrant parents whose
Preparation
tricts and counties have cobbled own schooling adhered to the tra-
together their own assessment ditional methods CCSS aims to Practitioners point to system-wide
tools. In San Joaquin County, for replace often have a difficult time needs for professional develop-
example, the COE created their with this shift in assessment strat- ment and training for teachers, ad-
own interim assessments for dis- egies. “It doesn’t look like what ministrators, school board mem-
tricts to use. Alameda County they are used to.” “The traditional bers and even parents. As one
and Aspire collaborated to create model worked for them, and those administrator put it: “everyone is a
a bank of CCSS aligned test ques- tests of rote learning have boosted novice, no matter how many years
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 9they’ve been teaching or leading.” support CCSS compatible curricu- in the fall and one in the spring,
Practitioners see professional de- lum and instruction? which is hardly adequate prepara-
velopment needs as linked to, tion for the fundamental changes
but different from, worries about Teachers are looking for hands-on, in teaching that CCSS aims to
teachers’ and administrators’ ca- accessible assistance in rethinking bring about.
pacity. Across the board, CCSS their curricula and instructional
resources to support professional approaches. In this early stage of Other districts are doing more. In
development generally are judged CCSS implementation, most dis- LAUSD there are somewhere be-
to be inadequate to the task and tricts and teachers have relied on tween 300 and 400 Common Core
often of poor quality. local professional development re- Fellows working to promote and
sources. As Fresno County sought develop CCSS in their schools.
Insufficient professional develop- to develop new cohorts of coaches District administrators say that
ment. Professional development to work through CCSS profession- teacher leaders within the district
programs offered by both COEs al development, for example, they have trained thousands of teach-
and districts are well-intended, looked into the classroom and ers, and outside professional de-
and many are well-designed, but identified effective teachers with velopment providers are no longer
educators judge them as generally 7-10 years of experience to lead the being solicited. San Mateo Union
inadequate to the challenge con- way. The COE reports providing High School District is already
fronting administrators and teach- three full days of CCSS training in their third year of teachers on
ers. for teachers during the summer of special assignment [TOSAs] lead-
2013. Typically, teachers led the ing district curriculum design and
Administrators say there is little content specific trainings for their work. San Jose Unified School
professional development just for colleagues from other districts. District is using a similar ‘home
them. One district administrator Sessions focused on collaborative grown’ coaches approach to sup-
put it this way: “Administrators work on how to bring about the port teachers’ transition to CCSS.
have never taught or seen what it changes in instruction and curricu- Large urban districts such as Los
is they are supposed to supervise. lum that CCSS requires, and what Angeles, San Francisco, and San
We are going from A to B, but these changes would look like in Jose nevertheless struggle both
what does B look like?” Includ- their classrooms. COE staff noted with the challenge of providing
ing administrators in teachers’ an increase in administrator par- professional development and
professional development can pro- ticipation in these teacher train- coaches for all of their teachers,
vide some important information ings as school leaders sought to and the parallel challenge of moni-
about the approaches to teaching gain more information about the toring implementation at the class-
and learning required by CCSS, challenges facing their teachers in room level. There are too few ex-
but administrators also need pro- the classroom. perienced coaches to go around.
fessional development that focuses
on their roles as local leaders and Professional development activi- Small districts have the advantage
supervisors. How will they know ties organized by districts varied of being able to involve all of their
how well their teachers are mov- greatly in format and duration. teachers and administrators in
ing to CCSS in their classrooms? Some districts increased their pro- training sessions. LaHonda-Pes-
How will they know what sup- fessional development commit- cadero Unified School District is
ports and resources are needed to ment from one day to two, one a small, rural district which serves
10 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Fielda high population of English ers need more information about materials, training, and coaching.
Learners that has provided five what CCSS looks like in practice. County Offices have provided crit-
continuous days of professional San Mateo County coaches are ical supports for small and rural
development for everyone. Char- reportedly spending more time districts in these material terms,
ter schools had the most flexibility in classrooms now than ever be- but also in the new regional net-
in allocating time to professional fore. A COE educator in southern works and collaborations that they
development activities since they California commented that large have facilitated.
are not bound by constraints as- professional development sessions
sociated with teachers’ contracts. may be the way to get teachers fa- Many of the implementation re-
For example, one charter school miliar with the CCSS, but subse- sources deemed most useful were
reported that they had dedicated quent professional development local ones. Bay Area educators
40 days to professional develop- needs to be ‘provided in small, cited WestEd’s staff and materials
ment this year. just-in-time chunks’ and as close as timely and “extremely helpful.”
to the classroom as possible. This Silicon Valley districts drew upon
Practitioners stress the importance the expertise of the Silicon Valley
strategy is one that many districts
of preparing teacher leaders and Mathematics Initiative (SVMI) for
are unable to staff or finance on
the scale of the effort that this task training, materials and strategic as-
their own, however.
requires. Capable teachers who sistance. For instance, one district
understand CCSS implementation Sources of Assistance asked SVMI to help them adminis-
are crucial to progress, but find- ter and score three different Math-
ing educators to lead the move- Educators turned to diverse re- ematics Assessment Resource
ment has proven difficult. At sources to address these CCSS Service (MARS) assessments,
one professional development ses- implementation issues. Many and local teachers volunteered to
sion, for example, teachers were districts and counties, especially test 5,000 students. The superin-
asked if they knew what “project small or rural ones, point to online tendent said: “Teachers saw first-
based learning” was. In a room resources as their main source of hand how students struggled with
of about 80 teachers, three raised materials. Practitioners’ judgments the required problem solving; this
their hands, and all three had been about the utility of these materials has made a significant difference
teaching for more than 15 years. are mixed, however, both because in our math teachers’ understand-
of uncertainty about the quality ing of what they need to do to
As important as workshops and of online modules or training ses-
professional development gather- adopt the Common Core.”
sions and because teachers with
ings can be in introducing teachers limited understanding of CCSS Implementation Hot Spots
to CCSS aims and strategies, addi- goals and approaches have insuf-
tional and different learning sup- ficient knowledge (or “conceptual Implementation issues specific to
ports are needed. As teachers tran- hangers”) to make effective use of district configuration and subject
sition to new practices, county and them. area surfaced as well. Three issues
district leaders highlight the need emerged as implementation hot
for in-school training. In Fresno, More than half of the district lead- spots across multiple school dis-
for example, teachers are receiving ers we spoke with mentioned their tricts: middle school curricula and
one-to-one feedback and coaching COEs as a vital source of imple- competencies; alignment among
to address the concern that teach- mentation assistance, including and between feeder elementary
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 11schools and their receiving high ing evidence to develop and justify of CCSS focused implementation
school; and mathematics. a conclusion. “It is not just a big is the ability and skills of staff to
step, for many it is a pole vault… address the rigorous mathematics
Middle school squeeze. Worries about academic language is a foreign lan- standards…they do not have the
middle schools came up across the guage for many,” especially ELD
state. Of particular concern were training or background in effective
and academically at-risk students. pedagogy and curriculum, and few
the educational and practical is-
sues associated with the new math- Integration and alignment. Integra- teachers have an adequate under-
ematics curriculum sequence. As tion and alignment across feeder standing of the math—including
one superintendent put it: “Mid- elementary districts is problematic secondary math teachers.”
dle schools are squeezed. How in many parts of the state. Some
are you going to accelerate kids so feeder and high school districts Particularly in higher-wealth dis-
they can complete calculus, and are collaborating, or are part of a tricts, the politics of CCSS were
feel challenged, and at the same network, but others are not. For focused on mathematics and par-
time slow them down so they can instance, in some areas feeder dis- ents’ fears of negative implica-
be ‘proficient’ at skills that they tricts are adopting different math tions for their children’s’ academic
have not yet encountered, math- curricula. In many areas there progress if districts adopt the inte-
ematical reasoning for example.” are few substantive links among grated CCSS curriculum. Parents
Middle school teachers worried feeder districts or between feeder worried that their students would
about losing content. One said “If districts and their high schools. be ‘slowed down’ and not be com-
something was an 8th-grade stan- Problems associated with the lack petitive in the college admissions
dard and is now a 7th-grade stan- of curricular alignment are a big race. One superintendent report-
dard, won’t last year’s 7th-graders challenge for high schools. As one
ed a parent’s question: “Are you
be missing curriculum?” high school district administra-
going to stop accelerating?” An-
tor put it: “We’re left holding the
Middle school teachers are also other said: “My community says
bag. It’s assumed that we will pay
apprehensive about how students the costs of getting students to the ‘why change something that was
will manage the new language, same page…” working?’” And another under-
content and expectations they scored the local politics: “Parents
will encounter as CCSS are put Mathematics. More than one lo- are apoplectic and want to stick
in place. “If students have been cal administrator saw the CCSS in with traditional. My staff wants
learning one way for six to eight mathematics as the “Achilles heel” integrated, but the board says
years, how will they adapt or ad- of Common Core. Administrators
‘We don’t care what you teach-
just to new methods? Will they across the state at both district and
ers want.’” District adoption of
have the skills and knowledge to county levels say that the complex
integrated math in Santa Clara
succeed in more rigorous high and rigorous math standards that
school classes?” They also won- California has adopted will be dif- County, for example, split almost
dered specifically about students’ ficult for teachers to unpack and entirely by wealth. Basic aid dis-
ability to handle the academic lan- scaffold appropriately. A superin- tricts stayed with the traditional
guage that goes along with a focus tendent in a relatively high-achiev- curriculum and sequence, while
on the meaning of ideas, inquiry ing district commented: “I believe lower wealth districts moved to in-
into real-world problems, and us- that the most problematic aspect tegrated math.
12 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the FieldImplications for state and local their inboxes are high quality, ments to the learning and skills
action relevant to their instructional sought by CCSS. A successful
needs, and something more transition to more ambitious
Our conversations with practitio- than a quick re-do of existing goals will require a clear con-
ners identified five issues as espe-
texts. Currently responsibility ception of what the new stan-
cially critical to the next phase of
for curation of CCSS materials dards mean for teaching and
CCSS implementation in Califor-
is unassigned but the task could learning. Many teachers will
nia, and to its long-term success
usefully be taken on by COEs, only acquire that understand-
as well. In California’s newly de-
subject area networks or state ing through concrete, coached
centralized policy system the main
appointed committees. In ad- experience with CCSS-aligned
responsibility for addressing many
dition to a commentary about materials and instructional ap-
of these issues falls to local edu-
the quality and relevance of proaches. Without a practical,
cators, but our research makes it
the many CCSS resources ad- basic understanding of CCSS
clear that the capacity to address
vertised to the field, educators aims, technology-based profes-
them successfully is sorely lacking
in many parts of the state. Find- ask for a searchable archive of sional development resources
ing effective ways to support and “promising practices” orga- are less useful to teachers as
assist schools and school districts nized by grade level, content they work to implement a new
in meeting implementation chal- area, and student needs for use curriculum and pedagogy. A
lenges that exceed local capabili- by COEs, districts, charters and conceptual grounding in CCSS
ties is urgently important if the teachers. goals precedes effective use of
new standards are to deliver on • Quality professional develop- web-based resources.
their promise of improved teach- ment. Professional development for
ing and learning in California Professional development to administrators is everywhere
classrooms. support CCSS implementation inadequate. Principals and
• Curation of CCSS compatible presents the most immediate district leaders will need tar-
materials. practitioner need. Educators geted learning opportunities if
say that large workshop ses- they are to acquire a grounded
Practitioners have neither the
sions, though perhaps adequate understanding of what CCSS
skills nor time to vet the ava-
to introduce broad CCSS con- means for them as supervisors
lanche of “resources” coming
cepts and strategies, do too little and instructional leaders, and
their way from publishers, ven-
to build teachers’ capabilities to how best to support teachers’
dors and the broad range of
adopt and implement new in- moves toward CCSS curricu-
workshop providers that jostle
structional strategies compati- lum and pedagogy.
for their attention and dollars.
Practitioners ask for CCSS ble with CCSS. More is needed. Given the new SBAC tests and
relevant classroom materials, All teachers, but most especially CCSS assessment strategies,
but they have little confidence math teachers, need hands on, both administrators and teach-
about the value of what is be- interactive, locally accessible ers request “assessment litera-
ing offered. They need assis- coaching as they make the tran- cy” training so they can select
tance in determining which of sition from traditional practices and use appropriate formative
the many materials crowding and multiple choice assess- assessments to better appraise
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 13students’ progress. vide assistance with challenges state support could include the
• More and better communica- including communication to designation of a small number
tion with parents and the pub- parents and local communities, of exceptionally strong COEs
lic. regional professional develop- to provide leadership in build-
ment programs, and the collec- ing the professional capacity of
Parent and community out- tion and dissemination of infor- other COEs in their region. The
reach is not a back burner issue. mation about promising local positional importance of COEs
Stakeholder support turns on practices. Practitioners have as intermediary organizations
understanding what Califor- also asked for COE assistance could be further strengthened
nia’s new standards aim to ac- in evaluating vendors’ CCSS of- by increased collaboration and
complish and why. As experi- ferings to ensure that they are partnership with the CDE and
ence in other states has shown, high quality and relevant to re- the soon-to-be-created Cali-
public antipathy to or misper- gional needs. Some COEs have fornia Collaborative for Edu-
ceptions about CCSS can derail mobilized CCSS implementa- cational Excellence, with the
implementation and undermine tion networks that connect re- goal of bringing consistency
essential political support. Yet gional expertise and resources to CCSS implementation in all
communication about CCSS to local needs. In many areas parts of the state.
has received only minimal at- of the state, COEs are the only
tention thus far in California, • Review and strengthen pre-
readily accessible CCSS imple- service teacher education pro-
where it has been pushed aside mentation resource.
by other CCSS implementation grams.
challenges or the demands of Capacity among the state’s 58 CCSS-focused teacher train-
LCFF timetables. Local lead- COEs varies significantly, how- ing is spotty across California’s
ers want materials that princi- ever. Some COEs employ large public and private pre-service
pals and district administrators numbers of professional staff, teacher education programs.
can use to inform diverse parent and districts in these counties Some programs have worked
groups, school board members rate their COE highly as a pro- with districts to provide CCSS
and community stakeholders vider of professional develop- relevant training. Many oth-
about what CCSS aims to ac- ment opportunities, technical ers have not, however. In most
complish, and about how and and instructional assistance, teacher education programs
why those goals are important and CCSS implementation sup- incentives or resources for
to their local communities and ports. Many other COEs are faculty to incorporate CCSS-
students’ futures. less highly regarded. COEs aligned pedagogy in existing
nevertheless constitute a po- pre-service courses are scarce,
• Increased financial and political
tentially vital element of CCSS or entirely lacking. District of-
support for COEs.
implementation infrastructure, ficials, particularly those from
COEs occupy a critically impor- and increased financial and urban areas, describe a discon-
tant middle position in CCSS political support from the state nection between teacher educa-
implementation. Operating could greatly enhance their tion programs and the needs of
between the state and districts, value to districts, schools, and the K-12 system. In their view,
they are well positioned to pro- teachers statewide. Increased higher education is not always
14 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Fieldknowledgeable about or respon- CCSS implementation: a long- lenge, and not as “an attack on
sive to their instructional priori- term process at a critical junc- local decision making.”16 Paul
ties, especially in a time of rapid ture Warren and Patrick Murphy have
change and raised expectations. written that “California’s transi-
California districts are still in the tion to the CCSS has gotten off to
early stages of CCSS implemen- a slow start”17 but this slow start
Closer connections between
tation, which remains a work may prove to be an important ad-
teacher preparation programs
in progress by all accounts.13 In
and K-12 systems are necessary vantage over time. In starting slow
some critical areas, however, it is
to address the current mismatch California has sidestepped many
already evident that California’s
of the disputes and conflicts that
between what new teachers are experience differs in important
have emerged in states such as
prepared to do and the demands ways from the experiences of oth-
New York or Maryland over is-
of CCSS implementation. Use- er states. A spring 2014 poll found
sues such as teacher evaluation
ful strategies might include con- strong backing for CCSS among
and testing.
vening teacher educators from Californians—teachers, admin-
istrators, parents and commu- The suspension of state testing
diverse institutional settings—
nity members.14 Likewise, more played an important role in head-
CSUs, community colleges, than 300 California nonprofits, ing off the strident criticism of
UCs, privates—to reach agree- businesses and children’s groups CCSS heard in other states. Some
ment on what teacher prepa- signed a statement of “deep and education wags dubbed 2013-14
ration programs need to offer, broad support” for CCSS in spring a “snow year” for teachers. The
and encouraging partnerships 2014.15 This affirmative reception State Board of Education put CST
between higher education and stands in contrast to the negativity testing on hold so practitioners
K-12 around the skills and ex- and backlash that the CCSS have could learn about CCSS and ex-
pertise new teachers should encountered elsewhere. Rather periment with new curricula and
than perceiving the new standards instructional strategies without
bring to the classroom. Closer
as constraining their autonomy, fear of negative consequences.
cooperation between the CTC for instance, California teachers
and the SBE could help to build generally see CCSS as profession- In 2014-15, however, teachers,
shared understanding about is- alizing, and as a welcome change administrators, students, parents
sues and opportunities in Cali- from the rote instructional empha-
ses and high stakes accountability
13
Warren and Murphy 2014
fornia’s pre-service teacher edu-
that characterized the No Child
14
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/
cation programs, and about the
survey/S_414MBS.pdf
steps that would be required Left Behind era. Even in districts
with a significant Tea Party pres-
15
Fensterwald 2014
to prepare new teachers to de-
ence we heard little talk of the 16
Gewertz’s (2014) account of CCSS im-
liver on the promise of CCSS. plementation at year four highlights the
CCSS as “Obamacore” or as an
Independent teacher education hostility among educators and the gen-
overreach by the federal govern- eral public associated with perceptions of
groups such as the New Teacher ment. California teachers and Common Core as federal intrusion into
Center might also have a role to administrators understand CCSS local educational affairs.
play. implementation as a local chal- 17
Warren and Murphy op cit.
Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the Field 15and the public will have concrete to find support for CCSS weaken-
information about how and how ing around the state, as the gaps
effectively the CCSS have been between districts that are moving
translated into new instructional ahead aggressively with CCSS
practices. The urgent question implementation and those that
is whether the good will toward are struggling to get started grow
CCSS that now exists can be sus- even wider. Today’s initial enthu-
tained if the implementation con- siasm may be corroded by educa-
cerns expressed by the field are tors’ frustrations if the resources
not addressed. The transition to provided to support their well-in-
CCSS remains a local responsibili- tended implementation efforts are
ty, but schools, districts, and coun- inadequate, and stakeholders may
ties will carry it out well or poorly find themselves dissatisfied with
depending on the highly variable the early results of CCSS imple-
resources, capacity and prepara- mentation. This next phase of
tion at their disposal. CCSS implementation activities
is strategically critical. Ensuring
Equitable and consistent CCSS that local implementers receive
implementation across the state the supports and resources they
will require a state strategy to sup- have called for is a necessary con-
port implementation across all of dition for the success of CCSS in
California’s economically, demo- California.
graphically and geographically dis-
parate district contexts, especially
those where needs are greatest and
local capacities are most limited.
The state’s move to increase local
autonomy means that right now
every district is on its own as it
moves to implement CCSS, but lo-
cal control cannot take the place
of a statewide plan. The success
of CCSS statewide will require
a coherent policy infrastructure,
along with resources to support
local implementation choices and
respond to areas where local ca-
pability is weak. Unless the state
gives serious, sustained attention
to local implementation needs it
would be unsurprising next year
16 Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report from the FieldYou can also read
