View in EDS

The State of State Standards Post-Common Core

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The State of State Standards Post-Common Core
Language: English
Authors: Friedberg, Solomon, Barone, Diane, Belding, Juliana, Chen, Andrew, Dixon, Linda, Fennell, Francis, Fisher, Douglas, Frey, Nancy, Howe, Roger, Shanahan, Tim, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Source: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 2018.
Availability: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: backtalk@edexcellence.net; Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 155
Publication Date: 2018
Sponsoring Agency: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Document Type: Reports - Research
Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Language Arts, Mathematics, Common Core State Standards, Educational Change, Educational Trends
Geographic Terms: Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Minnesota
Abstract: After the authors reviewed the "State of State Standards--and the Common Core--in 2010" they found that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were clearer and more rigorous than the English language arts (ELA) standards in 37 states and stronger than the math standards in 39 states. States were encouraged to adopt the CCSS. By 2013 the country was engulfed in a full-fledged culture war over the Common Core, with a loose coalition of populist conservatives teaming up with educational progressives in a push to dump the standards (and get out from under testing). Some states responded by "un-adopting" the Common Core; others tweaked, renamed, or rebranded them. But in general, the end of history was, alas, short-lived. Every state's academic standards need to be updated periodically to reflect the latest advances in content and pedagogy, as well as the lessons learned during their implementation. So the overarching goal of this report is to provide helpful guidance to states as they look to modernize their standards in the years ahead. Because many states have kept the CCSS (or a variant thereof), this report does not formally review standards in all fifty states. Instead, it focuses on the subset of states that have made the "most" substantive changes to the CCSS, as well as those that never adopted them in the first place. By taking a close look at the standards in these states, plus a fresh look at the CCSS, it seeks to identify those changes and ideas that are worthy of broader adoption, as well as mistakes to avoid. ["The State of State Standards Post-Common Core" was written with David Griffith and Victoria McDougald. Foreword and executive summary by Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli.]
Abstractor: ERIC
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: ED592393
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED592393
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED592393
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The State of State Standards Post-Common Core
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Friedberg%2C+Solomon%22">Friedberg, Solomon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barone%2C+Diane%22">Barone, Diane</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Belding%2C+Juliana%22">Belding, Juliana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Andrew%22">Chen, Andrew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dixon%2C+Linda%22">Dixon, Linda</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fennell%2C+Francis%22">Fennell, Francis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fisher%2C+Douglas%22">Fisher, Douglas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frey%2C+Nancy%22">Frey, Nancy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Howe%2C+Roger%22">Howe, Roger</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shanahan%2C+Tim%22">Shanahan, Tim</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+B%2E+Fordham+Institute%22">Thomas B. Fordham Institute</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Thomas+B%2E+Fordham+Institute%22"><i>Thomas B. Fordham Institute</i></searchLink>. 2018.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: backtalk@edexcellence.net; Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 155
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation<br />Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Standards%22">State Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Standards%22">Academic Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Arts%22">Language Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics%22">Mathematics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Common+Core+State+Standards%22">Common Core State Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arizona%22">Arizona</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indiana%22">Indiana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kansas%22">Kansas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Missouri%22">Missouri</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nebraska%22">Nebraska</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York%22">New York</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22North+Carolina%22">North Carolina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oklahoma%22">Oklahoma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania%22">Pennsylvania</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Carolina%22">South Carolina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tennessee%22">Tennessee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Virginia%22">Virginia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22West+Virginia%22">West Virginia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minnesota%22">Minnesota</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: After the authors reviewed the "State of State Standards--and the Common Core--in 2010" they found that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were clearer and more rigorous than the English language arts (ELA) standards in 37 states and stronger than the math standards in 39 states. States were encouraged to adopt the CCSS. By 2013 the country was engulfed in a full-fledged culture war over the Common Core, with a loose coalition of populist conservatives teaming up with educational progressives in a push to dump the standards (and get out from under testing). Some states responded by "un-adopting" the Common Core; others tweaked, renamed, or rebranded them. But in general, the end of history was, alas, short-lived. Every state's academic standards need to be updated periodically to reflect the latest advances in content and pedagogy, as well as the lessons learned during their implementation. So the overarching goal of this report is to provide helpful guidance to states as they look to modernize their standards in the years ahead. Because many states have kept the CCSS (or a variant thereof), this report does not formally review standards in all fifty states. Instead, it focuses on the subset of states that have made the "most" substantive changes to the CCSS, as well as those that never adopted them in the first place. By taking a close look at the standards in these states, plus a fresh look at the CCSS, it seeks to identify those changes and ideas that are worthy of broader adoption, as well as mistakes to avoid. ["The State of State Standards Post-Common Core" was written with David Griffith and Victoria McDougald. Foreword and executive summary by Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: ERIC
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED592393
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED592393
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 155
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: State Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Common Core State Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arizona
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indiana
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kansas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Missouri
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nebraska
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: North Carolina
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Oklahoma
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Carolina
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tennessee
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Virginia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: West Virginia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minnesota
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The State of State Standards Post-Common Core
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Friedberg, Solomon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barone, Diane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Belding, Juliana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chen, Andrew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dixon, Linda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fennell, Francis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fisher, Douglas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frey, Nancy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Howe, Roger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shanahan, Tim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
              Type: main
ResultId 1