The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) together formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) to develop a set of academic standards to be used in common across all states. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of learning standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. These standards, if adopted by a state, will replace existing state standards in these subject areas. You can download the standards by visiting the Common Core State Standards Initiative website.
Washington State Adopts the Common Core State Standards
The Washington State legislature passed SB 6696 in the 2009-10 legislative session. Section 601 of SB 6669 authorized the superintendent of public instruction to provisionally adopt the Common Core State Standards by August 2, 2010 and gave the authority to implement the standards after the 2011 legislative session unless otherwise directed by the legislature. Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn provisionally adopted the CCSS on July 19, 2010. The 2011 legislative session did not otherwise direct the superintendent so Washington State has formally adopted the CCSS. On July 20, 2011, Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn formally adopted the CCSS. The standards will be implemented in the 2013-14 school year.
Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has Hanover Research do an Alignment Analysis August 2010
Washington Alignment Analysis, facilitated by OSPI
- Compare & Review with Washington State Standards
- Washington Alignment Analysis: Mathematics Washington State and Common Core State Standards
November 2010
Where’s the Math?’s Comparative Match Up of the CCSS with WA State Math Standards
OSPI’s Common Core State Standards page provides current information about the status of the CCSS in Washington.
Concerns have been raised about the actual content of the standards. Some of the concerns are provided below as well as links to additional information and reviews of the standards.
The CCSS Mathematics Standards:
- Delay development of some key concepts and skills.
- Include significant mathematical sophistication written at a level beyond understanding of most parents, students, administrators, decision makers and many teachers.
- Lack coherence and clarity to be consistently interpreted by students, parents, teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, textbook developers/publishers, and assessment developers. Will this lead to consistent expectations and equity?
- Have standards inappropriately placed, including delayed requirement for standard algorithms, which will hinder student success and waste valuable instructional time.
- Treat important topics unevenly. This will result in inefficient use of instructional and practice time.
- Are not well organized at the high school level. Some important topics are insufficiently covered. The standards are not divided into defined courses.
- Place emphasis on Standards for Mathematical Practice which supports a constructivist approach. This approach is typical of “reform” math programs to which many parents across the country object.
- Publishers of reform programs are aligning them with the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice. The CCSS will not necessarily improve the math programs being used in many schools.
- Unusual and unproven approach to geometry.
Additional Information and Reviews of the CCSS
Carmichael, S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W.S. The State of State Standards–and the Common Core–in 2010. (2011, July 21). The Fordham Institute
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/the-state-of-state.html
Madigan, K., Stotsky, S., & Wurman, Z. (2010, July). National Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Retain Control Over Their Academic Destinies Part I: Review of Four Sets of English Language Arts Standards. A Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 63. http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100719_national_standards_part_I.pdf
Milgram, J. (2011, April 17) James Milgram on the new Core Curriculum standards in math. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/04/james-milgram-on-the-new-core-curriculum-standards-in-math/
Milgram, R. J. I2010). Review of Final Draft Core Standards. http://concernedabouteducation.posterous.com/review-of-common-core-math-standards
Stotsky, S., & Wurman, Z. (2010, July). Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Regain Control Over Their Academic Destinies. A Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 65. http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/common_core_standards.pdf
Comments On the Common Core Standards for Math June 2010 K-12 Final. (2010). Submitted by the U. S. Coalition for World Class Math. http://www.box.net/shared/hh72a91j19
Where’s the Math? Statement on Common Core State Standards for Mathematics August 11, 2010
Where’s the Math? Washington State Legislature Should Vote Against Adoption of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics October 12, 2010
The Common Core $tate $tandards
What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know
…that perhaps they aren’t being told
click here to download colorful 4 page pdf
Washington State Estimated Costs for Implementation
| Estimated Costs for CCSS Implementation | ||
| Estimated State Level Costs | Per Fiscal Year | Five Year Total |
| 2010-11 (FY 11)* | $2,500,000 | |
| 2011-12 (FY 12)* | $3,400,000 | |
| 2012-13 (FY 13)* | $3,600,000 | |
| 2013-14 (FY 14)* | $3,800,000 | |
| 2014-15 (FY 15)* | $3,800,000 | |
| Total Five Year Estimated State Level Costs | $17,100,000 | |
| Estimated District Level Costs | ||
| 2010-11 (FY 11)* | $25,300,000 | |
| 2011-12 (FY 12)* | $29,600,000 | |
| 2012-13 (FY 13)* | $35,100,000 | |
| 2013-14 (FY 14)* | $41,800,000 | |
| 2014-15 (FY 15)* | $33,700,000 | |
| Total Five Year Estimated District Level Costs | $165,500,000 | |
| Total Five Year Estimated State Level and District Level Costs | $182,600,000 | |
| *Yearly cost estimates are from the OSPI report. See Pages 24 and 29. | ||
| Funding Sources for CCSS Implementation | ||
| Funding Sources for the Implementation of the CCSS | Annual | Five Year Total |
| State Level Sources | ||
| State Assessment Budget* | $150,000 | $750,000 |
| State Funding for Regional Mathematics Coordinators* | $1,600,000 | $8,000,000 |
| Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal Quality (federal)* | $510,000 | $2,550,000 |
| Title II, Part B, Math Science Partnership Grant Funds (federal)* | $125,000 | $625,000 |
| School Improvement Grant Funds (federal)* | no amount provided | |
| SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC) Supplemental Grant $250,000–$300,000 over four years* | $300,000 | |
| Five Year Total of State Level Fund Sources | $12,225,000 | |
| Estimated Five Year State Level Costs Total | $17,100,000 | |
| Est. State Level Costs Minus State Level Fund Sources | $4,875,000 | |
| District Level Sources* | ||
| Basic Education Funding (state) # Title I (federal) and Learning Assistance Program (LAP, state) & Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal Quality (federal) % School Improvement Grant Funds (SIG, federal) & Title II, Part B, Math Science Partnership Grant Funds (federal) @ |
Unable to determine amounts | indeterminate |
| The district level funding sources have been identified and listed above. Given the information in the report it is not possible to determine the amount of funds from any given source that would be allocated to support the implementation of the CCSS. Districts may have commitments for funds, or portions of funds, from any given source that would preclude them from being available to support the implementation of the CCSS. | ||
| Estimated Five Year District Level Costs Total | $165,500,000 | |
| * Fund source information is from the OSPI report. State level sources pages 25-26. District level sources pages 30-32. | ||
| # Figures presented were not consistent and could not be used to determine any annual or five year total amount of funds available | ||
| & An unspecified portion of an undisclosed amount may be used by qualifying districts | ||
| % An unspecified portion of an undisclosed amount may be used according to individual district’s comprehensive plan | ||
| @ WA receives $2.5 million annually of which $2 million may support implementation efforts | ||
Tables from Where’s the Money? pdf developed by The Underground Parent.
