Search

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) are part of a broader effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop common state standards in key subjects. The CCSSM specify content learning goals by grade in K-8 and by conceptual categories in the high school grades. In addition, there are eight standards for mathematical practice to be addressed throughout K-12 mathematics education, describing fundamental approaches to, and dispositions toward, learning and doing mathematics. States, districts, schools, and teachers may choose to follow, or not follow, the CCSSM specifications; and those that do will likely differ in how they interpret the standards, what they plan to do in response, and their capacity to implement their plans. As a result, and because of considerable differences among school contexts and student populations, common standards are not likely to lead to the same results, either in implementation or in impacts on students. The goal in this project was to suggest a set of priorities for research that would provide the field with a reasonably broad and deep understanding of the influence of the CCSSM. The priority research agenda recommends a set of case studies, investigations of relationships, and status studies to address three overarching questions: (1) How is the mathematics education system responding to the introduction of the CCSSM? (2) What happens, and for whom, as a result? and (3) How can the CCSSM and future standards be improved? The purposes of this priority research agenda are to inform funders of mathematics education research about important areas of investigation to consider supporting, and to suggest to the mathematics education research community focal areas of study to build the field's knowledge about the influence of the CCSSM. The following are appended: (1) Contributors; and (2) Other Research Areas of Interest for Understanding the Influence of the CCSSM. [This report was written with William O. Fulkerson, Adrienne A. Smith, and Shayla M. Thomas.] (Contains 2 footnotes.)

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) were developed as part of a broader effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop common state standards in key subjects. Released in 2010, the CCSSM are intended to provide a blueprint for the mathematics that students should learn, and when they should learn that mathematics, to ensure that they are well prepared for college and careers when they graduate from high school. States, districts, schools, and teachers may choose to follow, or not follow, that blueprint; and those that do will likely differ in how they interpret it, what they plan to do about it, and their capacity to implement their plans. As a result, and because of considerable differences among school contexts and student populations, common standards are not likely to lead to the same results, either in implementation or in impacts on students. The goal of this project was to suggest a set of priorities for research that would provide the field with a reasonably broad and deep understanding of the influence of the CCSSM, including whether, how, and under what conditions the initiative results in improved student learning in grades K-12 and enhanced college/career readiness. This report provides background information on the CCSSM and on a framework for investigating the influence of standards developed by a committee of the National Research Council. The report then describes how we went about developing a priority research agenda; and concludes with the resulting recommendations for research on the influence of the CCSSM. The following appendices are included: (1) Potential Pathways of Influence: Teacher Preparation Domain; (2) Sample Indicators of Alignment; (3) Lines of Inquiry and Review Feedback; (4) Contributors; and (5) Other Research Areas of Interest for Understanding the Influence of the CCSSM. (Contains 5 footnotes, 1 table, and 2 figures.) [This report was written with the assistance of William O. Fulkerson, Adrienne A. Smith, and Shayla M. Thomas.]

In 1990, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created the Statewide Systemic Initiative Program. The solicitation issued by the Directorate for Science and Engineering Education sought proposals "for projects intended to broaden the impact, accelerate the pace, and increase the effectiveness of improvements in science, mathematics, and engineering education in both K-12 and post-secondary levels" (NSF, 1990, p. 1). Projects funded as Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) were to align various parts of the system to produce comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained change. Curriculum learning goals; content, instructional materials, and practice; assessment; teacher recruitment and preparation; and professional development of teachers, administrators, and others--all were to come under the umbrella of systemic reform, as were other parts of the system that affected "ways of doing business": organizational structure and decision making, allocation of resources, articulation within the system, and accountability. SSIs were also to involve an array of stakeholders in reform efforts--scientists and mathematicians, business and community representatives, local school system decision makers, and leaders of parent and community-based organizations. This CPRE Policy Brief looks at some of the lessons from the SSI experience gleaned from a Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI) study of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiative Program. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

This document represents the first of two volumes presented in "Study of the Impact of the Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program" (Norman L. Webb and Iris R. Weiss). In an effort to evaluate the impact of the Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) on student achievement and the lessons that could be learned from the National Science Foundation's effort to reform mathematics and science education on a statewide basis, research studies identified the technical strategies, the political strategies, and the interactions with funders that were critical factors in the attempt to effect significant change in student learning over large populations. Documents were received on 21 of the 26 SSIs. More intensive data were collected via telephone interviews of key personnel in seven of these states and during site visits in six other states. Among a number of lessons learned were the following: It was vital to incorporate enough flexibility within the design so that information produced by research, evaluation, and monitoring could be effectively used (technical lesson); the creation of partnerships with policy organizations significantly advanced policy work (political lesson); and, SSI leaders and funders needed to develop a shared, in-depth understanding of the reform strategies as these fit the local context (interaction with funders). The following are appended: (1) SRI International Evaluation Reports; (2) Abt Associates Inc. Monitoring Reports; (3) Coding Scheme: Chronology and Components; (4) Coding Scheme: Strategic Planning, Decision-Making, and Thinking; (5) Coding Scheme: Key Challenges; (6) Interview Protocol for Telephone Interviews and Site Visits; (7) Case Report: Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative; (8) Case Report: Maine Statewide Systemic Initiative; (9) Case Report: Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative; (10) Case Report: Nebraska Statewide Systemic Initiative; (11) Case Report: Puerto Rico Statewide Systemic Initiative; and (12) Case Report: Vermont Statewide Systemic Initiative. [For Volume II of this report, see ED497577.]