What’s Right About the Common-Core Math Standards 

From the Marshall Memo #446

In this Education Week article, Michigan State professor William Schmidt reports on a study he conducted with Richard Houang comparing the Common Core State Standards in mathematics with U.S. state standards as of 2008-09 and standards from other high-performing countries. Their conclusions refute the contention of some common-core critics that the new math standards aren’t up to snuff internationally and that some states’ standards are better:

• “The common-core math standards mirror those of the world’s highest-achieving nations,” says Schmidt. The new U.S. standards have replicated three key characteristics of the best standards around the world: coherence (the logical structure that guides students from basic to more-advanced material); focus (narrowing down to a few key concepts at each grade level); and rigor (the difficulty at each grade). 

• Common-core math standards avoided the trap that many of the supposedly better state standards fell into – including too many standards at each grade and introducing advanced material too early. “It is a waste of time to expose children to content they are not prepared for,” says Schmidt, “and it is counterproductive to skim over dozens of disconnected topics every year with no regard for student mastery. As it stands today, we simply hope that students will somehow ‘get it’ at a later grade, and yet we know that far too many students never do.” 

Of course the common-core standards won’t “self-implement”, says Schmidt. The key elements of success will be high-quality classroom instruction, aligned curriculum materials, and assessments that truly measure student mastery of the standards. “The essential question is not whether the common core can improve mathematics learning in the United States,” he concludes, “but whether we, as a nation, have the commitment to ensure that it does.” 

“Seizing the Moment for Mathematics” by William Schmidt in Education Week, July 18, 2012 (Vol. 31, #36, p. 24-25), http://bit.ly/NK2yIV