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 ‚Äúreform‚ÄĚ 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.
The Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (ELA):
- Use confusing language in some standards.
- Are not always clear or measureable on expected student outcomes.
- Are not always organized in a logical way and are difficult to follow.
- Treat literary elements inconsistently.
- Have some writing standards that are general and do not specify what a student should be able to know or do.
- Focus on skills over content in reading.
- Do not address or require cursive writing.
Additional Information and Reviews of the CCSS
Carmichael, S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W.S.¬† The State of State Standards‚Äďand the Common Core‚Äďin 2010.¬† (2011, July 21). ¬†The Fordham Institute
Madigan, K., Stotsky, S., & Wurman, Z.¬† (2010, July).¬† National Standards Still Don‚Äôt 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
Stotsksy, S.¬† (2011, April 17).¬† Sandra Stotsky on the mediocrity of the Common Core ELA standards.¬† http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/04/sandra-stotsky-on-the-mediocrity-of-the-common-core-ela-standards/
Stotsky, S., & Wurman, Z.¬† (2010, July).¬†¬† Common Core‚Äôs Standards Still Don‚Äôt 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