Common Core State Standards Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

  (Redirected from Common Core)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an education initiative in the United States that details what K-12 students should know in English and math at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.[1]


In the 1990s the "Accountability Movement" began in the US as states started being held to mandatory tests of student achievement, which were expected to demonstrate a common core of knowledge that all citizens should have to be successful.[2] As part of this education reform movement, the nation’s governors and corporate leaders founded Achieve, Inc. in 1996 as a bi-partisan organization to raise academic standards, graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability in all 50 states.[3] The initial motivation for the development of the Common Core State Standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP).[4]

A report titled, “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts,” from 2004 found that both employers and colleges are demanding more of high school graduates than in the past. According to Achieve, Inc., “current high-school exit expectations fall well short of [employer and college] demands.” The report explains that the major problem currently facing the American school system is that high school graduates were not provided with the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed. "While students and their parents may still believe that the diploma reflects adequate preparation for the intellectual demands of adult life, in reality it falls far short of this common-sense goal." The report continues that the diploma itself lost its value because graduates could not compete successfully beyond high school, and that the solution to this problem is a common set of rigorous standards.[5]

In 2009 the National Governors Association convened a group of educators to work on developing the standards. This team included David Coleman, the University of Arizona's William McCallum, Phil Daro and Student Achievement founder, Jason Zimba [6] to write curriculum standards in the area of mathematics and for literacy instruction (more information needed).[citation needed] Announced on June 1, 2009,[7] the initiative's stated purpose is to "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them."[8] Additionally, "The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers," which will place American students in a position in which they can compete in a global economy.[8]

The standards are copyrighted by NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) [9] The copyright ensures that the standards will be the same throughout the nation. The standards also carry a generous public license [10] which waives the copyright notice for State Departments of Education to use the standards; however, two conditions apply. First, the use of the standards must be "in support" of the standards and the waiver only applies if the state has adopted the standards "in whole."

Forty-five of the fifty states in the United States are members of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, with the states of Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska not adopting the initiative at a state level.[11] Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards.[12]

Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. (See below for current status.) States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform.[13] To be eligible, states had to adopt "internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place."[14] The competition for these grants provided a major push for states to adopt the standards.[15] Development of the Common Core Standards was funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pearson Publishing Company, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.[16]

Though standards have not yet been developed for science or social studies, the Next Generation Science Standards are in the process of being developed. They are not directly related to the Common Core, but their content can be cross-connected to the mathematical and English Language Arts standards within the Common Core.[17][18]

English Language Arts Standards[edit]

The stated goal of the English & Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects standards[19] is to ensure that students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school (page 3). There are five key components to the standards for English and Language Arts: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language, and Media and Technology.[20] The essential components and breakdown of each of these key points within the standards are as follows:



Speaking and listening


Media and technology

Preliminary "example" works to be studied by students include works by Ovid, Atul Gawande, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Turgenev, Poe, Robert Frost, Yeats, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Amy Tan, and Julia Alvarez.[21]

Cursive and keyboarding

Mathematics Standards[edit]

The stated goal of the mathematics Standards[24] is to achieve greater focus and coherence in the curriculum (page 3). This is largely in response to the criticism that American mathematics curricula are "a mile wide and an inch deep".

The mathematics Standards include Standards for Mathematical Practice and Standards for Mathematical Content.

Mathematical practice[edit]

The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:

  1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
  2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
  3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
  4. Model with mathematics.
  5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
  6. Attend to precision.
  7. Look for and make use of structure.
  8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

The practices are adapted from the five process standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of proficiency in the National Research Council’s Adding It Up report.[25] These practices are to be taught in every grade from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Details of how these practices are to be connected to each grade level's mathematics content are left to local implementation of the Standards.

As an example of mathematical practice, here is the full description of the sixth practice:

6 Attend to precision.

Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions.

Mathematical content[edit]

The Standards lay out the mathematics content that should be learned at each grade level from kindergarten to Grade 8 (age 13-14), as well as the mathematics to be learned in high school. The Standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level. Mathematical content is organized in a number of domains. At each grade level there are several standards for each domain, organized into clusters of related standards. (See examples below.)

Four domains are included in each of the six grades from kindergarten (age 5-6) to fifth grade (age 10-11):

Kindergarten also includes the domain Counting and Cardinality. Grades 3 to 5 also include the domain Number and Operations--Fractions.

Four domains are included in each of the Grades 6 through 8:

Grades 6 and 7 also include the domain Ratios and Proportional Relationships. Grade 8 includes the domain Functions.

In addition to detailed standards (of which there are 21 to 28 for each grade from kindergarten to eighth grade), the Standards present an overview of "critical areas" for each grade. (See examples below.)

In high school (Grades 9 to 12), the Standards do not specify which content is to be taught at each grade level. Up to Grade 8, the curriculum is integrated; students study four or five different mathematical domains every year. The Standards do not dictate whether the curriculum should continue to be integrated in high school with study of several domains each year (as is done in other countries, as well as New York and Georgia), or whether the curriculum should be separated out into separate year-long algebra and geometry courses (as has been the tradition in most U.S. states). An appendix[26] to the Standards describes four possible pathways for covering high school content (two traditional and two integrated), but states are free to organize the content any way they want.

There are six conceptual categories of content to be covered at the high school level:

Some topics in each category are indicated only for students intending to take more advanced, optional courses such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics. Even if the traditional sequence is adopted, functions and modeling are to be integrated across the curriculum, not taught as separate courses. In fact, modeling is also a Mathematical Practice (see above), and is meant to be integrated across the entire curriculum beginning in kindergarten. The modeling category does not have its own standards; instead, high school standards in other categories which are intended to be considered part of the modeling category are indicated in the Standards with a star symbol.

Each of the six high school categories includes a number of domains. For example, the "number and quantity" category contains four domains: the real number system; quantities; the complex number system; and vector and matrix quantities. The "vector and matrix quantities" domain is reserved for advanced students, as are some of the standards in "the complex number system".

Examples of mathematical content[edit]

Second grade example: In the second grade there are 26 standards in four domains. The four critical areas of focus for second grade are (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes. Below are the second grade standards for the domain of "operations and algebraic thinking" (Domain 2.OA). This second grade domain contains four standards, organized into three clusters:

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
Add and subtract within 20.
2. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.
Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
3. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing objects or counting them by 2s; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal addends.
4. Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to 5 rows and up to 5 columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.

Domain example: As an example of the development of a domain across several grades, here are the clusters for learning fractions (Domain NF, which stands for "Number and Operations—Fractions") in Grades 3 through 6. Each cluster contains several standards (not listed here):

Grade 3:
  • Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.
Grade 4:
  • Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.
  • Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.
  • Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.
Grade 5:
  • Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
  • Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.
In Grade 6, there is no longer a "number and operations—fractions" domain, but students learn to divide fractions by fractions in the number system domain.

High school example: As an example of a high school category, here are the domains and clusters for algebra. There are four algebra domains (in bold below), each of which is broken down into as many as four clusters (bullet points below). Each cluster contains one to five detailed standards (not listed here). Starred standards, such as the Creating Equations domain (A-CED), are also intended to be part of the modeling category.

Seeing Structure in Expressions (A-SSE)
  • Interpret the structure of expressions
  • Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve problems
Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Functions (A-APR)
  • Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
  • Understand the relationship between zeros and factors of polynomials
  • Use polynomial identities to solve problems
  • Rewrite rational expressions
Creating Equations.★ (A-CED)
  • Create equations that describe numbers or relationships
Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI)
  • Understand solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain the reasoning
  • Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
  • Solve systems of equations
  • Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically

As an example of detailed high school standards, the first cluster above is broken down into two standards as follows:

Interpret the structure of expressions
1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.★
a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.
b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpret P(1+r)n as the product of P and a factor not depending on P.
2. Use the structure of an expression to identify ways to rewrite it. For example, see x4y4 as (x2)2 – (y2)2, thus recognizing it as a difference of squares that can be factored as (x2y2)(x2 + y2).


According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014–2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states.[27] The assessment has yet to be created, but two consortiums were generated with two different approaches as to how to assess the standards.[28] "26 states formed the PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium. Their approach focused on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade combined with streamlined end of year tests, including performance tasks." (PARCC refers to " Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers" and RttT refers to the Race to the Top.)[29] The second consortium, “the SMARTER Balance Consortium, brought together 31 states proposing to create adaptive online exams.”[29] The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies.

The Common Core State Standards website explained that some states plan to work together to create a common, universal assessment system based on the common core state standards while other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment.[30] Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, which moves away from what we typically think of as the Standardized Test most students are currently taking.

Different standards, by state[edit]

States have individual variations on implementing the standards.



The Common Core has drawn support and criticism from political representatives, policy analysts, and educational commentators. Teams of academics and educators from around the United States led the development of the Standards, and additional validation teams approved the final Standards. The teams drew on public feedback that was solicited throughout the process and that feedback was incorporated into the standards.[32] The Common Core initiative only specifies what students should know at each grade level and describes the skills that they must acquire in order to achieve college or career readiness. Individual school districts are responsible for choosing curricula based on the standards.[33]

In 2012 Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution called into question whether the standards will have any effect, and "have done little to equalize academic achievement within states."[34] The libertarian Cato Institute responded to the standards as "it is not the least bit paranoid" to say the federal government wants a national curriculum.[35] Some Conservatives have assailed the program as a federal "top-down" takeover of state and local education systems.[36][37] South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said her state should not "relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states."[36]

Educational analysts from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute determined that the Common Core standards, "are clearly superior to those currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the Common Core is superior in both math and reading."[36][38]

A spokesman from Exxon Mobil said of Common Core: "“It sets very important milestones and standards for educational achievement while at the same time providing those most invested in the outcome – local teachers and administrators – with the flexibility they need to best achieve those results.”[39]

The Heritage Foundation argued in 2010 that the Common Core's focus on national standards will do little to fix deeply ingrained problems and incentive structures within the education system.[40] A study by Christopher Tienken, Assistant Professor at Seton Hall University, concluded that there was no relationship between the United States' low score and its economic position.[41][42] The nonprofit National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest) argued in 2013 that assessments developed to measure the Common Core standards will mean more, but not much better, tests in schools that are already suffering from too much testing and teaching to the test.[43]

The mathematicians Edward Frenkel and Hung-Hsi Wu wrote in 2013 that the mathematical education in the United States is in "deep crisis" caused by the way math is currently taught in schools. Both agree that math textbooks, which are widely adopted across the states, already create "mediocre de facto national standards". The texts they say, "are often incomprehensible and irrelevant". The Common Core standards address these issues and "level the playing field" for students. They point out that adoption of the Common Core Standards and how to best test students are two separate issues.[44]

Marion Brady, a teacher, and Patrick Murray, an elected member of the school governing board in Bradford, Maine, wrote that Common Core drains initiative from teachers and enforces a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum that ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students.[45][46] Diane Ravitch, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, wrote in her book Reign of Error that the Common Core standards have never been field-tested and that no one knows whether they will improve education.[47] Nicholas Tampio, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Fordham University, said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles.[48] Michigan State University's Distinguished Professor William Schmidt wrote:

In my view, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) unquestionably represent a major change in the way U.S. schools teach mathematics. Rather than a fragmented system in which content is "a mile wide and an inch deep," the new common standards offer the kind of mathematics instruction we see in the top-achieving nations, where students learn to master a few topics each year before moving on to more advanced mathematics. It is my opinion that [a state] will best position its students for success by remaining committed to the Common Core State Standards and focusing their efforts on the implementation of the standards and aligned assessments.[49]

The standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America's Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.[50] Advancing one Catholic perspective, over one hundred college-level scholars signed a public letter criticizing the Common Core for diminishing the humanities in the educational curriculum: The "Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education and the heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to 'over-educate' people." [51] In May 2013 the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) noted that the Standards are a "set of high-quality academic expectations that all students should master by the end of each grade level" and are "not a national curriculum."[52] Mark Naison, Fordham University Professor, and co-founder of the Badass Teachers Association, raises a similar objection: "The liberal critique of Common Core is that this a huge profit-making enterprise that costs school districts a tremendous amount of money, and pushes out the things kids love about school, like art and music.[53]

Early results[edit]

Kentucky was the first to implement the Common Core standards, and began offering the new curriculum in math and English in August of 2010. In 2013 Time magazine reported that the high school graduation rate had increased from 80% in 2010 to 86% in 2013, test scores went up 2 percentage points in the second year of using the Common Core test, and the percentage of students considered to be ready for college or a career, based on a battery of assessments, went up from 34% in 2010 to 54% in 2013.[54] According to Sarah Butrymowicz from The Atlantic, "Kentucky’s experience over the past three school years suggests it will be a slow and potentially frustrating road ahead for the other states that are using the Common Core. Test scores are still dismal, and state officials have expressed concern that the pace of improvement is not fast enough. Districts have also seen varying success in changing how teachers teach, something that was supposed to change under the new standards."[55] The Common Core Standards are considered to be more rigorous than the standards they replaced in Kentucky. Kentucky's old standards received a "D" in an analysis by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. School officials in Kentucky believe it will take several more years to adjust to the new standards, which received an A- in math and a B+ in English from the Fordham Institute.[56][55]

Adoption of Common Core Standards by states[edit]

The chart below contains the adoption status of the Common Core Standards as of December 1, 2013.[57] Among the territories of the United States (not listed in the chart below), the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the American Samoa Islands have adopted the standards while Puerto Rico has not adopted the standards.

StateAdoption stance
AlabamaAdopted (State school board voted to rescind the agreement that commits the state to adoption. However state standards are still aligned with Common Core standards.)[58]
ArizonaFormally adopted
ArkansasFormally adopted
CaliforniaFormally adopted
ColoradoFormally adopted
ConnecticutFormally adopted
DelawareFormally adopted
District of ColumbiaFormally adopted
FloridaFormally adopted (Gov. Rick Scott directed the state education board to withdraw from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.)[59]
GeorgiaFormally adopted (Withdrew from associated test in July 2013.)[60]
HawaiiFormally adopted
IdahoFormally adopted
IllinoisFormally adopted
IndianaFormally adopted (Implementation paused by law for one year in May 2013 and under public review,[61] with the legislature looking toward a new statewide curriculum to replace Common Core.)[62]
IowaFormally adopted
KansasFormally adopted (Defunding legislation passed Senate, narrowly failed in House in July 2013.)[63]
KentuckyFormally adopted
LouisianaFormally adopted (Delayed Common Core accountability for two years in November 2013.)[64]
MaineFormally adopted
MarylandFormally endorsed
MassachusettsFormally adopted (Delayed Common Core testing for two years in November 2013.)[65]
MichiganFormally adopted (Implementation was paused for a time but was approved to continue without Smarter Balanced testing.)[66]
MinnesotaAdopted (English standards only, math standards rejected)
MississippiFormally adopted
MissouriFormally adopted
MontanaFormally adopted
NebraskaNot adopted.[67]
NevadaFormally adopted
New HampshireFormally adopted
New JerseyFormally adopted
New MexicoFormally adopted
New YorkFormally adopted
North CarolinaFormally adopted
North DakotaFormally adopted
OhioFormally adopted (Legislation filed to bar adoption.)[68]
OklahomaFormally adopted (Tentatively withdrew from associated test in July 2013.)[69]
OregonFormally adopted
PennsylvaniaFormally adopted (Paused implementation in May 2013.)[70]
Rhode IslandFormally adopted
South CarolinaFormally adopted
South DakotaFormally adopted
TennesseeFormally adopted
UtahFormally adopted (Withdrew from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium in August 2012.)[71]
VermontFormally adopted
VirginiaNon-member. [72]
WashingtonFormally adopted
West VirginiaFormally adopted
WisconsinFormally adopted
WyomingFormally adopted

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved December 4, 2013. 
  2. ^ Gibbs, T. H.; Howley, A (2000). "'World-Class Standards' and Local Pedagogies: Can We Do Both? Thresholds in Education.". ERIC Publications: 51 – 55. 
  3. ^ "About Us". Achieve, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2013. 
  4. ^ Closing the Expectations Gap 2011: Sixth Annual 50-State Progress Report. Achieve, Inc. 2011). Retrieved October 4, 2013. 
  5. ^ "Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts". Achieve, Inc. December 10, 2004. Retrieved October 4, 2013. 
  6. ^ [1] Straight Up Converstion: Common Core Guru Jason Zimba by Frederick Hess, Published by Education Next February 28, 2013
  7. ^ "Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core Standards Initiative". National Governors Association. Retrieved October 4, 2013. 
  8. ^ a b "Implementing the Common Core State Standards". Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved October 4, 2013. 
  9. ^ Common Core State Standards Initiative | Terms of Use. Retrieved on 2013-07-19.
  10. ^ Common Core State Standards Initiative | Public License. Retrieved on 2013-07-19.
  11. ^ States adopting the Core Standards
  12. ^ Why did Minnesota skip the math Common Core standards? | Minnesota Public Radio News. (2012-06-12). Retrieved on 2013-07-19.
  13. ^ Department of Education. President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announce National Competition to Advance School Reform. 24 July 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <>
  14. ^ “U.S Department of Education”
  15. ^ Fletcher, G. H. (2010). “Race to the Top: No District Left Behind.” T. H. E Journal 37 (10): 17 – 18.
  16. ^ Anderson, Nick (March 10, 2010). "Common set of school standards to be proposed". Washington Post. p. A1. 
  17. ^ "Appendix L — Connections to the Common Core Standards for Mathematics". Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved October 16, 2013. 
  18. ^ "Appendix M — Connections to the Common Core Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects". Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved October 16, 2013. 
  19. ^
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m “Key Points in English Language Arts. (2011). <>
  21. ^ a b Walsh, Molly (14 September 2010). "Vermont joins 30 otherws in Common Core". Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. pp. 1B. 
  22. ^
  23. ^ "Hawaii No Longer Requires Teaching Cursive In Schools". Huffpost Education. 1 August 2011.
  24. ^ mathematics Standards
  25. ^ Garfunkel, S. A. (2010). “The National Standards Train: You Need to Buy Your Ticket.” UMAP J 31 (4): 277 – 280.
  26. ^ appendix
  27. ^
  28. ^ "Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions." Education Insider. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. < common-core-standards-and-assessment-coalitions>
  29. ^ a b "Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions"
  30. ^ "Common Core State Standards: In the States"
  31. ^ Shumlin proposes to make algebra and geometry mandatory for high school students. (2012-03-08). Retrieved on 2013-07-19.
  32. ^ Kathleen Porter-Magee (April 3, 2013). "The Truth About Common Core". National Review Online. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
  33. ^ name="Truth">Kathleen Porter-Magee (April 3, 2013). "The Truth About Common Core". National Review Online. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
  34. ^
  35. ^ name=Toppo>Greg Toppo (May 1, 2012). "Common Core standards drive wedge in education circles". USA Today. Retrieved March 23, 2013. 
  36. ^ a b c Stephanie Banchero (May 8, 2012). "School-standards pushback". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 23, 2013. 
  37. ^ Michelle Malkin (March 3, 2013). "Lessons from Texas and the revolt against Common Core Power Grab". Noozhawk. Retrieved March 24, 2013. 
  38. ^ "State of State Standards & the Common Core in 2010 - Executive Summary". Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
  39. ^ Erin Kourkounis (October 28, 2013). "CEOs tout benefits of Common Core Standards". Tampa Tribune. Retrieved November 21, 2013. 
  40. ^ Lindsey Burke; Jennifer A. Marshall (May 21, 2010). "Why National Standards Won’t Fix American Education: Misalignment of Power and Incentives". Heritage Foundation. Retrieved March 22, 2013. 
  41. ^ C.H. Tienken (Fall 2010). "Common Core State Standards: I Wonder?". Kappa Delta Pi Record 47: 14–17. Retrieved March 23, 2013. 
  42. ^ C.H. Tienken (Winter 2011). "Common Core Standards: The Emperor Has No Clothes, Or Evidence". Kappa Delta Pi Record 47: 58–62. Retrieved March 23, 2013. 
  43. ^ Common Core Assessments: More Tests, But Not Much Better, FairTest. Retrieved July 30, 2013.
  44. ^ Edward Frenkel (May 6, 2013). "Republicans Should Love Common Core". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
  45. ^ Marion Brady (August 8, 2012). "Eight problems with common core standards". Washington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2013. 
  46. ^ "No National Standards: Strength or Weakness for Schools in US?". Voice of America. June 15, 2011. Retrieved March 24, 2013. 
  47. ^ Ravitch, Diane (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools. Knopf. "When the Obama administration put forward the criteria for Race to the Top grants, one of the primary requirements was that the state adopt a common set of high-quality standards, in collaboration with other states, that were internationally benchmarked and led to “college and career readiness.” These were widely understood to be the Common Core standards. In short order, almost every state agreed to adopt them, even states with clearly superior standards like Massachusetts and Indiana, despite the fact that these new standards had never been field-tested anywhere. No one can say with certainty whether the Common Core standards will improve education, whether they will reduce or increase achievement gaps among different groups, or how much it will cost to implement them. Some scholars believe they will make no difference, and some critics say they will cost billions to implement; others say they will lead to more testing." 
  48. ^ Tampio, Nicholas. "Do We Need a Common Core=". Huffington Post. 
  49. ^
  50. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
  51. ^ "Catholic scholars blast Common Core in letter to U.S. bishops". Retrieved November 7, 2013. 
  52. ^
  53. ^ "For Common Core, a new challenge--from the left". Miami Herald. Retrieved November 7, 2013. 
  54. ^ Ripley, Amanda (September 30, 2013). "The New Smart Set: What Happens When Millions of Kids Are Asked to Master Fewer Things More Deeply?". Time. p. 36. 
  55. ^ a b Butrymowicz, Sarah (October 15, 2013). "What Kentucky Can Teach the Rest of the U.S. About the Common Core". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 20, 2013. 
  56. ^ John O'Connor (October 21, 2013). "The Commonwealth of Common Core: What Florida Can Learn From Kentucky". NPR. Retrieved November 18, 2013. 
  57. ^ In the States (Common Core Standards Initiative website)
  58. ^ Common Core: Alabama votes to distance itself from controversial standards. November 16, 2013.
  59. ^ Florida Times-Union: Common Core still moving ahead in Florida. October 16, 2013
  60. ^ Bailey Pritchett, Heartland Foundation,
  61. ^ "DIGEST OF HB 1427". 2013-04-26. 
  62. ^ NWI Politics: GOP leaders preparing to ditch Common Core. December 1, 2013
  63. ^ Dion Lefler, Wichita Star, July 10, 2013
  64. ^ New Orleans Times-Picayune: Louisiana announces major changes to how students, schools held accountable under Common Core. November 21, 2013.
  65. ^ Education Week: Two-Year Transition to Common-Core Tests Approved in Massachusetts. November 19, 2013.
  66. ^ CBS Detroit: Michigan Gives Final OK To Common Core Standards. November 2, 2013
  67. ^ "Nebraska one of few states not adopting standards". The Grand Island Independent. 2013-01-05. 
  68. ^ Lancaster Eagle-Gazette: Ohio Republicans target Common Core. November 29, 2013
  69. ^ Benjamin Wood, "Education Week"
  70. ^ The Patriot-News: Corbett orders delay in Common Core academic standards' implementation. May 20, 2013.
  71. ^ Salt Lake Tribune: Utah drops out of consortium developing Common Core tests. August 1, 2012.
  72. ^ "Why There’s a Backlash against Common Core". National Review Online. 2013-04-08. 

External links[edit]