Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


How Did We Get to CCSS

No description

brandon juarez

on 22 August 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of How Did We Get to CCSS

A Nation at Risk Report
By 2001, only 19 states complied with IASA assessment requirements (Vinovskis, 2009). None of the states in violation lost funding.
Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)
Under RTT, the Department of Education allocated funds - through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) - to grant the creation (through state consortia and/or private parties) of two assessment vehicles for Common Core State Standards. The two winning bids were: Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and The Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) (Viteritti, 2012, pg. 2104).
How did we get to
Common Core State Standards?

A Review of National Interest, Public Funding and Description of What CCSS is Not
A Nation at Risk Report
To understand the national interest in education, we must first look at where it began. The creation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was designed to improve the education of economically disadvantaged K12 students (Viteritti, 2012, pg. 2088).
National Governors Association
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Creation of ESEA
The development of Title I funding was a major provision within the ESEA law. This element directed funds to children of low-income families.
The Broader Issue
The ESEA Act was part of a bigger approach to support schools and families during the desegregation process of the .
Civil Rights Act of 1964
President Lyndon Johnson's plan was to
encourage school
districts to expedite the
desegregation mandate by infusing additional federal funding through Title I. The initial appropriation of $1 billion in 1965 quickly rose to $3 billion by the end of the decade (Viteritti, 2012, pg. 2088-89).

In 1983, under President Ronald Reagan's administration, Terrell Bell - Secretary of Education - drafted a report alerting the nation of the failing school system. Many argue this was the beginning of the K12 standards movement.
The widely read report criticized and brought to light the low performance in areas such as adult illiteracy and declining scores of college entrance exams. It also highlighted the nation's decline in academic achievement from the rest of the developed nations.
Recommendations in the NAR Report included elements such as:
School Days;
Created the 180 Day School Year
Proposed Performance Standards
Improve Teacher Performance
Within a year of the report, 35 states set new graduation requirements, 22 developed curriculum reform and 29 set new policies regarding testing (Viteritti, 2012, pg. 2090).
In an effort to encourage states to make education a national priority, President George H.W. Bush in 1989 attended a National Governors Association (NGA) meeting.
The national report card system was one bi-product of the combined effort of state executives and federal support (see also CCSS).
Goals 2000 & IASA
A prominent governor who signed on to support the Bush proposal was Bill Clinton.
In 1994, now President, Clinton drafted Goals
2000. With in increase in national attention and
a growing frustration of Title I funding not
closing the achievement gap (Ravitch, 1995), Goals 2000 was a strategy to offer federal financial incentives for states to create improvement plans.
Also in '94, Clinton introduced the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). This initiative offered significant funding to states who adopted academic standards and assessments.
Ranking States by Performance

The key component to large bi-partisan approval for No Child Left Behind was the states authority to create their own standards and assessments. However, the central difference between IASA and NCLB was making the new law a mandate to receive federal funding. In order to receive federal aid - including Title I funding - states were required to set annual targets for improving achievement gaps (AYP).
In the initial proposal, President Bush wanted to grant students in failing schools the right to transfer to private schools and take their funding with them.
With each state given latitude to create and implement standards and assessment vehicles, the proficiency gap between states was potentially a four year difference (Viteritti, 2012, pg. 2098). This created a burden with evaluating which states were meeting federal expectations, not to mention the gap in states' ability to measure their students' success rates across state lines.
By 2008, 18% of the nation's schools were "in needs of improvement".
Race to the Top
It is important to note No Child Left Behind was a modified version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). One goal of NCLB was for all schools to be proficient by 2014. NCLB officially expired in 2007.
Under the Obama Administration, the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative was designed to create a competitive grant program (through a point system) that would only allocate funds to states that met specific criteria. Two main criteria factors included: states had to tie teacher/principal evaluations to student achievement data and there could be no cap on the amount of charter schools for a state.
Simultaneous to this program, the NGA and state executives - through the Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO) - were drafting a state led initiative called Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These standards are uniform across state lines. President Obama's plan allocated points for the RTT grant program for states who adopted CCSS.
Although the Obama Administration did not play a direct role in the creation of the standards, the assessment vehicles for these standards was provided through a federal grant passed under the administration.
Common Misunderstandings
of Common Core State Standards
These standards ARE curriculum
The standards are mandatory for states to follow
The standards were created at the federal level
CCSS dictates which resources teachers use

See http://www.corestandards.org/ for the CCSS website.
Also, http://excelined.org/ is a great resource.
(State Archives of Florida, n.d.a.)
Viteritti, J. (2012) The Federal Role in School Reform: Obama's Race to
theTop, 2012., Notre Dame Law Reform. Retrieved on July 14, 2013 from http://www3.nd.edu/~ndlrev/archive_public/87ndlr5/viteritti.pdf
State Archives of Florida (n.d.) Florida Memory. Retrieved on July 14, 2013
from http://floridamemory.com/items/show/34838
(National School Board Association, n.d.a.)
National School Board Association (n.d.a.) ESEA Now! Retrieved on July 14, 2013
from http://www.nsba.org/Advocacy/Key-Issues/ESEA-Now
Ravitch, D. (1995). A Historical Document. Hoover Press, Peterson Schools
Retrieved on July 15, 2013 from http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817939210_25.pdf
Vinovskis, M. (2009) From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind, National
Education Goals and the Creation of Federal Education Policy. Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (n.d.). Preparing America's Students for
College and Career. Retrieved on August 22, 2013 from http://www.corestandards.org/
Full transcript