Criteria for CCSS

The leaders of the CCSSI decided there were three major criteria that must be met with the new standards in order for them to have a chance as surviving.  They are as follows:

1. The standards should reflect the academic knowledge and skills ALL students need to be ready for college and career.  The definition of college and career readiness was the ability to succeed in entry-level postsecondary classes without remediation.
2. The standards must reflect research on college and career readiness. Just because a topic was interesting did not justify putting it in the CCSS.  The research needed to be based on the best knowledge available knowing that the CCSS would evolve as better research became available. 
3. The standards must be internationally benchmarked.  The US was lagging behind its economic competitors in educational performance based on international benchmarks, such as the PISA.  We wanted to ensure that the standards for student performance would be at least as high as those the highest-performing nations expected from their students.

Public comments on the CCSS were overwhelming.  Almost 1/2 of those responding were K-12 teachers; 20% parents; 6% school administrators; 5% postsecondary faculty; 2% students.  There has been some opposition springing up from special interest groups, such as the Tea Party.  Several comments were made from one group or another expressing concern for the CCSSI.  Here are some of the concerns:

1. Serious opposition was expressed against any sort of federal or national standards.  These members of the Tea Party especially opposed to any work done outside of their home states and any involvement at all from the Obama administration. 
2. Some groups felt too much emphasis was placed on K-3 that did not match the standards for pre-K.  They did not want inappropriate testing for grades K-2 to become a national norm.
3. Another group felt too much emphasis was placed on academic knowledge, and they felt health knowledge should also become part of the standards for the whole child. 
4. There were also concerns about science and social studies standards. 

Overall, based on the Fordham Institute's review of all state standards and the Common Core Standards, here are some findings released:

1. Common Core standards were superior to 39 states in mathematics and 37 states in ELA. 
2. Common Core standards were superior to 33 states in both mathematics and ELA.
3. There were only 3 jurisdictions where state standards were superior to the Common Core Standards.  (I find it ironic that Indiana was one of the states with superior standards, yet they have been leading the charge for Common Core among PARCC members for quite some time.)

A validation committee, appointed by the NGA and CCSSO found the following to be true of the CCSS:

• Standards are reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and math that students need to be college- and career-ready.
• Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity.
• Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations.
• Informed by available research or evidence.
• The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development.
• A solid starting point for adoption of cross-state common core standards.
• A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments.

That pretty much sums up Chapter 3.

Your thoughts?