Ccrc%20+%20common%20core 2

An NCPR Working Paper

The Common Core State Standards
Implications for Community Colleges and
Student Preparedness for College

Elisabeth A. Barnett
Community College Research Center

Maggie P. Fay
Community College Research Center

February 2013

The National Center for Postsecondary Education is a partnership of the
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University;
MDRC; the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia;
and faculty at Harvard University.

The National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR) was established by a grant
(R305A060010) from the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.
The contents of this paper were developed under a grant (R305A060010) from the Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily
represent the policy or views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education, and you
should not assume endorsement by the federal government.

For information about NCPR and NCPR publications, visit www.postsecondaryresearch.org.

Abstract

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English and math were finalized in 2010
and, as of July 2012, have been adopted in full by 45 states. These standards provide a
framework that is intended to ensure that all students who graduate from high school in the
United States have attained the knowledge and competencies that prepare them well for college
and for their future careers. Two sets of assessments that map to these standards are currently
under development by two consortia of states and are expected to be deployed beginning in
2014.

Based on a review of literature and on interviews with individuals involved in the CCSS
nationally and in Washington, Florida, and Kentucky, this paper outlines the development of the
CCSS and the CCSS-aligned assessments, the involvement of higher education representatives
in their design and implementation, and how the CCSS and the aligned assessments can be used
to support the mission of community colleges.

The authors recommend that community colleges use the CCSS 11th grade assessment
as one in a set of multiple measures used in placement decisions for students entering college
directly after high school, align developmental education and introductory college-level courses
in math and English composition to the CCSS to smooth the transition for recent high school
graduates entering college, and work directly with local K–12 partners to help more graduating
high school students enter college without needing remediation.

iii

Contents

Abstract iii
1. Introduction 1
What We Know About Developmental Education, College Assessments, and College
Readiness 2
About the CCSS 4
About the CCSS-Aligned Assessments 6
2. Methods 9
Research Questions 9
Data Sources 9
Data Analysis 10
3. The Role of Higher Education in the CCSS and the CCSS-Aligned Assessments 11
Drafting the Standards 11
Validating the Standards 12
Recent Developments 12
4. Implementation of the CCSS in Three States 19
Florida 20
Kentucky 23
Washington 26
Summary 30
5. Implications for Community Colleges and Others 33
College Assessment and Placement 33
Changes to the Community College Curriculum 36
College Readiness and Partnerships with High Schools 38
Concluding Thoughts 39
Appendix A: Overview of the Common Core State Standards 41
Appendix B: Comparison of CCSS Assessment Systems 49
References 55

v

1. Introduction

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English and math were finalized in 2010
and, as of July 2012, have been adopted in full by 45 states (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, n.d.). These standards provide a framework that is intended to ensure that all students
who graduate from high school in the United States have attained the knowledge and
competencies that prepare them well for college and for their future careers. Use of the
standards is also expected to increase the likelihood that the U.S. education system will graduate
students who meet international benchmarks of high levels of performance. Two sets of
assessments that map to these standards are currently under development by two consortia of
states and are expected to be deployed beginning in 2014.

The CCSS initiative represents the first attempt to create consistency in the knowledge
and skills that students should gain in K–12, anchored in a common definition of what it means
to be college and career ready (Rothman, 2011). This initiative is expected to contribute to the
quality of education in a number of ways — in particular, it is intended to enable students to
improve their level of critical thinking and their ability to transfer knowledge from one setting
to another, and to enable teachers to offer more engaging, relevant instruction (Hirsh, 2012).
Further, it will have the advantage of promoting cross-state consistency in terms of what
students should know and be able to do upon high school graduation.

But what does this mean for community colleges? So far, postsecondary involvement in
the process of developing these standards has been uneven, and awareness of them has
remained low in the higher education community (Education Trust, 2011). This is particularly
concerning given that the CCSS are derived from a set of anchoring standards that are pegged to
college-readiness. But this lack of connection may be in the process of changing — and we
contend that it should. The principles underlying the CCSS appear to be well aligned with the
findings of recent research emerging from the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at
Teachers College, Columbia University. 1 Understanding and building on the CCSS could allow
colleges to promote highly valued goals such as reducing the number of students requiring
remediation and increasing the number of students who progress toward, and who complete,
college credentials.

Based on the research described in this paper and its intersection with prior research, we
suggest that community colleges consider the following recommendations:

1
CCRC is a partner organization of the National Center for Postsecondary Research.

1

• Introduce the CCSS 11th grade assessment as one in a set of multiple
measures used in placement decisions for students entering college directly
after high school.

• Align developmental education and introductory college-level courses in
math and English composition to the CCSS to smooth the transition for
recent high school graduates entering college.

• Work directly with local K–12 partners to make sure that every student
completing high school is ready to enter college without needing
remediation, and with skills that are strong enough to complete a college
credential in a timely manner.

In support of these recommendations, this paper will: (1) briefly describe existing
research that frames ways that community colleges could interact with the CCSS; (2) provide
background on the CCSS, the related CCSS-aligned assessments, and the process by which they
are being implemented across the United States; (3) share information on higher education’s
participation to date in the development and implementation of the CCSS, particularly in three
states; and (4) discuss the implications of the CCSS and the aligned assessments for community
colleges.

What We Know About Developmental Education, College
Assessments, and College Readiness

Developmental Education
Developmental education, sometimes called remedial education, 2 is offered to students
enrolled in college who are deemed underprepared for college-level reading, writing, and/or
math. For the least prepared students, placement into multiple levels of developmental
education upon entry into college has become the norm (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010). Fully 40
percent of all entering college students require some developmental education (Attewell, Lavin,
Domina, & Levey, 2006). These students may spend semesters or even years engaged in pre-
college coursework, and they use up considerable amounts of personal funds or financial aid
just to reach the point where they can enroll in college-level courses.

2
Developmental education is used interchangeably with remedial education and remediation is this
report.

2

Recent research (e.g., Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2011; Boatman, 2012; Boatman &
Long, 2010; Martorell & McFarlin, 2011; Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2012) suggests that this
prevailing pattern does not serve students — or society — well. While many agree that
developmental education offers vital access to college for those who might not otherwise be
able to attend (Bailey, 2009), there is also concern about the large numbers of students who do
not succeed in making it through their developmental education sequences. Students who begin
their college careers in developmental education are substantially less likely to complete a
degree or certificate (Adelman, 2006; Attewell et al., 2006).

College Placement Assessments
A range of assessments is used to determine whether students are ready for college-
level work in math, reading, and writing. The most common of these is the ACCUPLACER,
used by 62 percent of community colleges; the second most common is the COMPASS, used by
46 percent of community colleges (Hughes & Scott Clayton, 2011). Other tests have been
developed by states as well as by individual colleges. The policies on cutoff scores on particular
tests used for placement into developmental education often vary widely from college to
college.

CCRC research has raised important questions about whether these tests do, in fact,
predict success in college. New analyses by Belfield and Crosta (2012) and Scott-Clayton
(2012) indicate that common placement tests misplace students at high rates; substantially more
accurate results are obtained when more than one measure is used, such as a test score in
combination with a high school GPA. Of particular concern is evidence that the tests are more
likely to “underplace” students (place them into developmental education courses they do not
need) than to “overplace” them (place them into college-level courses for which they are not
well prepared to succeed). Those who are underplaced take extra developmental courses, thus
joining the ranks of students described above who face additional hurdles to successfully
complete college.

College Readiness and College Readiness Partnerships
The diversity of college placement tests in use and the range of scores used to indicate
readiness for college coursework both point to another little discussed issue in higher education
— the lack of a broadly shared definition of what it means to be college ready. College
readiness is commonly defined in terms of test scores that purport to indicate the knowledge and
skills needed to succeed in initial college-level courses; however, some scholars have taken a
more nuanced perspective. Karp and Bork (2012), for example, undertook research in Virginia
in which a wide range of skills and attributes were identified as necessary for college success,
including balancing multiple roles and understanding college cultural norms. Others have taken

3

different approaches. 3 Those in K–12 education point to this lack of consensus on the meaning
of college readiness as an important explanation for why misalignment between high school
graduation and college entry requirements continues to be a problem.

Researchers have also looked at ways that community colleges can work with high
schools to increase the chances that students who enroll will be college ready. Research
conducted by NCPR (Barnett, Corrin, Nakanishi, Bork, Mitchell, & Sepanik, 2012) found that
college readiness partnerships have sponsored programs with an academic readiness focus
and/or a “college knowledge” focus. While there is limited research on the effectiveness of
these programs, they show promise in terms of reducing the need for developmental education
and helping students feel more confident about navigating college systems.

The CCSS have the potential to be useful in addressing pressing concerns related to
both assessment and college readiness that are contributing to low college progression and
credential completion rates. Before discussing this, however, it is important to understand what
the CCSS and CCSS-related assessments are, as well as what higher education’s role has been
in their development and implementation.

About the CCSS
The Common Core State Standards initiative was led by the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA). The purpose of this
initiative was to create a set of standards in math and English for grades K–12 that were “fewer,
higher, clearer” (Rothman, 2011, p. 27) than previously developed standards and consistent
across U.S. states and territories. The writers of the standards believed that fewer important
standards would lead to greater depth of understanding among students, that the standards
should be higher than those used previously in many states and should match or exceed
international benchmarks, and that a high level of clarity would help teachers to use them
effectively. The final standards were released in June 2010.

In addition to the advantages mentioned, proponents argue that a common set of state
standards will lead to: (1) a clearer, consistent understanding by parents, students, and the
general public of what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade and
upon graduation from high school, (2) more focused professional development for educators,

3
The diversity of approaches to college readiness is illustrated in a CCRC overview on the transition
from high school to college (Barnett & Hughes, 2010).

4

(3) the opportunity to share best practices across states, (4) the use of multiple, common
assessments aligned with the standards, and (5) the creation of textbooks and learning materials
that are aligned to one set of standards rather than those from many states (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, n.d.; Rothman, 2011). The use of common assessments and textbooks is
expected to save money. In addition, the new standards will introduce greater objectivity and
fairness into discussions about the performance of education systems across districts and states
as they will be based on common metrics (Education Trust, 2011).

While the history and key features of the CCSS initiative have been well documented
elsewhere (see, for example, Rothman, 2011), it is useful to note several important points (a
more detailed summary of the initiative’s key dimensions is also included in Appendix A).

• The CCSS developers began by arriving at a definition of college readiness
that served as the “anchor” for the entire system. Sources of guidance used in
formulating a conception of college readiness included research by ACT, Inc.
and others, a review of introductory college textbooks, and information from
faculty teaching first-year college courses in math and English (Rothman,
2011). Subsequently, research by Conley, Drummond, de Gonzalez, Seburn,
Stout, and Rooseboom (2011) and others was used to validate this
definition. 4 Thus, by design, the standards were intended to close any gap
that may exist between high school graduation requirements and college
entry requirements in math and English.

• The CCSS writers followed the lead of ACT, Inc. (2006), Achieve, Inc.
(n.d.), and others who argue that there is no substantive difference between
college readiness and career readiness. They are taken to be the same.

4
Research by Conley et al. (2011) compared the CCSS college-ready benchmarks to five sets of
existing standards: (1) the Content Standards for California Public Schools in mathematics and English
language arts; (2) the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for English language arts and mathematics;
(3) the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards in English language arts, mathematics, and cross-
disciplinary standards; (4) the Knowledge and Skills for University Success Standards in English and
mathematics, developed by Standards for Success (see Conley, 2007); and (5) the International
Baccalaureate Diploma Programme English language arts and mathematics standards, developed by the
Educational Policy Improvement Center. Their conclusion was that “the overall findings from this study
suggest a general level of agreement between the Common Core standards and the comparison standards
regarding what is important for high school students to know and be able to do and the cognitive level at
which they need to demonstrate key skills … to be ready for college and careers” (p. ES-5).

5

• The writers of the CCSS were concerned that depth and critical analysis in
education are often sacrificed because of the need to cover large amounts of
material. They worked on the assumption that college readiness is best
addressed by offering students multiple opportunities to engage with
challenging texts and solve problems in different ways, that is, to practice the
kinds of skills typically expected of college students.

• The CCSS only cover math and English language arts. Other standards are
being developed in science and social studies, but these are not part of the
CCSS.

• Participating states have agreed that the CCSS will represent 85 percent of
their state standards in mathematics and English.

• According to research by the Center on Education Policy (Kober & Rentner,
2012), states have shown that they are committed to implementing the CCSS.
As of January 2012, the majority of participating states had plans in place to
change assessment systems, teacher professional development offerings, and
curriculum or materials. The majority also planned to revise teacher
evaluation systems, require districts to implement the CCSS, create
initiatives to ensure implementation of the standards in the lowest performing
schools, and change educator certification programs.

About the CCSS-Aligned Assessments
Two consortia, each comprised of multiple states, are currently racing to have CCSS-
aligned assessments in place for use in the 2014–15 academic year. The consortia, Partnership
for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARRC) and Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced), were selected as grant recipients in the U.S.
Department of Education’s Race to the Top Core Assessment Program in 2010. PARRC was
awarded $170 million, while Smarter Balanced was awarded $160 million; the Smarter
Balanced award was later augmented to $175 million (U.S. Department of Education Press
Office, 2010). They have since, with input from members, working committees, and external
groups, made considerable progress toward defining the parameters of their respective systems.
Some key points about the aligned assessments are included here (more detail is provided in
Appendix B).

• The assessment systems will have the capacity to provide summative and
formative information on students in grades 3 through 11. In addition to
traditional test questions, both consortia are committed to using performance-

6

based items, including research and essay writing, to measure higher order
critical thinking.

• As with the CCSS, the assessments will be anchored in an 11th grade test
that will provide information on whether students have met benchmarks for
college readiness in math and English. Once the tests are finalized, a single
cutoff score in each subject area will be established, for use by all states in
the consortium, that indicates college readiness. Students who are not yet
college ready will be able to use their senior year to improve their skills with
the hope that they will place out of developmental education in college.
There are high hopes that the 11th grade test score will be accepted and used
by colleges and universities for placement purposes (Sawchuk, 2010).

• In both consortia, the 11th grade assessments will have designated cutoff
scores that indicate college readiness in math and English. The designation of
the cutoff scores will be led by higher education representatives. In both sets
of assessments, according to interviewees, the cutoff scores can be used to
show that students either are or are not college ready but cannot be used to
provide more fine-grained information about the ways in which students are
not yet college ready. An interview respondent from Smarter Balanced
reported that the Smarter Balanced 11th grade assessment will provide four
sub-scores in English and three in math that will help schools at least identify
broader areas of strength and weakness. The two assessments will be cross-
walked so that a score on one test can be translated into an equivalent score
on the other.

• There is a commitment by both consortia to using a computer platform for
testing. However, the Smarter Balanced assessments will be computer
adaptive; those of PARCC will not be. Both will use a combination of
computer and human scoring; Smarter Balanced believes that involving
teachers in scoring provides important opportunities for professional
development (Sawchuk, 2010).

7

2. Methods

We undertook the current research in order to study the development of the CCSS and
the involvement of the higher education sector in their design and implementation, and to assess
how the CCSS may be able to support the efforts of community colleges to reduce remediation
rates and improve rates of college completion.

Research Questions
The questions that drove this study are as follows:

1. What role has higher education played in the development and
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and aligned
assessment systems?

2. How is the implementation of the CCSS and their aligned assessment
systems unfolding in three selected states? What has been the role of higher
education in these states?

3. What are the policy and practice implications for community colleges of the
CCSS and their aligned assessment systems, particularly in light of recent
research by CCRC and others?

Data Sources
We used three information sources to answer the research questions. The first was the
available academic and research literature on the subject, which we reviewed. The second was
documentation of a meeting held in February 2012 in Louisville, Kentucky, that focused on the
role of higher education in the implementation of the CCSS. 5 The third and most important
information source was two sets of interviews conducted by NCPR researchers. One set was
conducted with individuals involved in the CCSS nationally, in particular those concerned with
the role of higher education. Interviewees were selected via snowball sampling, in which those

5
The meeting, entitled Architecture for Implementing the Common Core Standards: Strategies,
Partnerships and Progress, was sponsored by the Council of State School Officers (CCSSO), the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the State Higher Education
Executive Officers (SHEEO). Its purpose was to encourage collaboration of K–12 and higher education
systems at the state level around Common Core State Standards implementation and aligned assessments.

9

who are interviewed are asked about others who might also be knowledgeable. The second set
was conducted with people at the state level involved in the implementation of the CCSS and
aligned assessment systems. The state-level interviewees were from three states that have had
diverse experiences in their initial efforts to implement the CCSS: Kentucky, Florida, and
Washington.

Data Analysis
The data gathered via the literature review were compiled into two fact sheets, which
can be found in Appendices A and B. These serve as contextual material useful for
understanding the CCSS overall (Appendix A) and the emerging CCSS assessments (Appendix
B); they were also helpful in considering the research questions. The documentation record
from the Kentucky meeting and the interview notes were classified according to a set of topics
derived from the research questions and then coded to identify themes and patterns.

10

3. The Role of Higher Education in the CCSS and the
CCSS-Aligned Assessments

Our interviewees generally agreed that postsecondary involvement in the CCSS
initiative has been increasing and that there are multiple ways for representatives of higher
education to engage with the initiative. There was also a sense that it would have been
beneficial for higher education to have been involved earlier and more deeply. It appears that,
while individual representatives participated in the development and validation of the CCSS,
only recently have there been systematic efforts to bring together K–12 and higher education
leaders together to talk about cross-sector implications. This section describes how higher
education involvement with the CCSS has evolved over time.

Drafting the Standards
Based on interviews and literature on the CCSS, there appears to have been a
significant amount of higher education involvement in the standards development process in the
sense that individual faculty members and K–16 policy officials were well represented on the
bodies that designed, wrote, and reviewed the standards. Despite this, there was not a systemic
inclusion of the higher education sector leadership during this time. Some interviewees believed
that limitations to higher education involvement may have been related to logistical constraints
caused by the short time frame for the CCSS development and the decision that the standards
would be evidence-based. Some thought that prioritizing the use of evidence meant that fewer
groups and individuals were invited to the table. One study participant believed that large
working groups had caused problems in previous academic standards initiatives, observing that
“past standards had failed because they tried to make everyone happy, and ended up being a
mile wide and an inch deep.” In addition, representatives of the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) stated that they wanted to keep the working groups small in order to
streamline and depoliticize the drafting process.

Interviewees reported that the standards drafting process began with the creation of
anchor standards based on a definition of college and career readiness. According to study
respondents, the process of defining the core competencies that make a student college and
career ready began in 2002 with the creation of the American Diploma Project. With staff
support from Achieve, Inc., states convened committees of K–12 and higher education faculty
to compare content and performance standards for high school mathematics and English
language arts (ELA), as well as to compare standards for proficiency on state high school tests
with the standards implicit in placement tests used by colleges (Education Trust, 2011). The
views on college and career readiness that emerged informed the CCSS definition, which

11

specified that the standards should prepare students for academic, credit-bearing college
courses. Additionally, the American Council on Education (ACE) convened panels of faculty in
cooperation with leading disciplinary groups, such as the Modern Language Association and the
Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences, to provide input on the college and career
readiness anchor standards. The CCSS working groups then used these definitions to “back-
map” and determine what students should know and be able to do at each grade level.

The extent to which higher education played a role in the CCSS development process is
well summarized in an Education Trust (2011) white paper that explains that, while higher
education’s involvement has been substantial, much of this has been from faculty or others
recruited for their individual expertise. Higher education faculty made up nearly one half of the
mathematics work team and feedback group, one fifth of the ELA work team, and over a fourth
of the ELA feedback group. However, this involvement does not automatically translate into
institutional representation or needed buy-in.

Validating the Standards
Following the drafting of the CCSS, a validation committee (VC) was charged with
reviewing the extent to which the standards: (1) reflected the knowledge and skills requisite to
produce college-ready students, (2) were clear and specific, (3) were comparable with other
leading academic standards, and (4) were based in research. More than half of the VC
membership was comprised of college faculty, including mathematics and English language arts
content experts as well as faculty from schools of education. The committee was led by David
Conley, known for his expertise on college-ready knowledge and skills.

The primary activity of the VC, according to one interviewee, was to compare the
CCSS to international academic standards and to the most rigorous U.S. academic standards
(e.g., from Massachusetts and Texas). One VC member reported that there were constraints
built into the review process, including a lack of clarity about what the standards should look
like and a tight time frame (one year). These constraints made it difficult for committee
members to take into account everything that was supposed to be considered in the review
process. This interviewee believed that it would have taken up to four years to truly validate
whether the standards prepare students for college-level work.

Recent Developments
The CCSS drafting process made it difficult to obtain the large scale, higher education
sector buy-in for the standards prior to their finalization and release. That said, there are now
important efforts underway to engage the higher education sector as a critically important, if not
equal, partner. One reason this has become a higher priority is that the usefulness and credibility

12

of the CCSS system rests on the assumption that it is pegged to true standards of college
readiness. Interviewees noted two ways that this is likely to be verified in the eyes of key
stakeholders, including policymakers. One is for higher education to become involved in the
process of validating and implementing the standards across the states. The other is for colleges
to accept the 11th grade (final) assessment associated with the CCSS as indicating college
readiness in English and math, permitting students who pass the test6 to place out of
developmental education in college. 7

Multiple initiatives have been established in order to involve higher education
representatives in discussions and action related to the CCSS, led by both state and national
players. At the state level, different approaches are being used, some of which are described in
the state profiles in Section 4. At the national level, we identified six initiatives. These include
two associated with the two assessment consortia and four that are national higher education-
focused projects to engage states in CCSS-related planning and implementation.

The states participating in each initiative are shown in Table 1 (next page). These six
initiatives, explicitly designed to further engage higher education representatives in discussions
or actions related to the CCSS and their aligned assessments, are described below. The majority
are in very early stages of development, meaning that they are still in the process of defining
their purposes and activities.

6
The definition of pass has yet to be determined.
7
The implementation of a college readiness test in 11th grade raises a number of key questions. First,
if students are deemed college-ready in 11th grade, what should be the focus of their 12th grade year?
Would they then begin college (dual enrollment) courses? Will there be options for students who are not
deemed college ready to make up any deficits during the 12th grade year? Will the 11th grade test results
arrive in time for students to make informed course selections in the 12th grade?

13

Table 1
CCSS Higher Education Involvement Initiatives

Initiatives
Core to
States CRPa Collegeb CCPCc CBANd SMARTERe PARCCf
Alabama X X
Alaska
Arizona X
Arkansas X
California X
Colorado X X X
District of Columbia X
Connecticut X
Delaware X
Florida X X
Georgia X X
Hawaii X X
Idaho X
Illinois X
Indiana X X X
Iowa X
Kansas X
Kentucky X X X
Louisiana X X
Maine X X
Maryland X X X
Massachusetts X X X
Michigan X
Minnesota
Mississippi X X
Missouri X X
Montana X
Nebraska
Nevada X X X
New Hampshire X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
New York X
North Carolina X X
North Dakota X X
Ohio X
Oklahoma X X
Oregon X X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X
South Dakota X
Tennessee X X

14

Initiatives
Core to
States CRPa Collegeb CCPCc CBANd SMARTERe PARCCf
Texas
Utah
Vermont X
Virginia
Washington X X X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X X
Wyoming X
NOTES:
a
The College Readiness Partnership (CRP) was initiated by the Council of State School Officers (CCSSO),
the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the State Higher Education
Executive Officers (SHEEO), with funding from Lumina Foundation for Education and the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation.
b
Core to College is managed by Education First and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and funded by the
Lumina and Hewlett foundations, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
c
The Common Core Postsecondary Collaborative (CCPC) is a new project created through a partnership of the
Education Delivery Institute (EDI) with the National Association of System Heads (NASH) and the National
Governors Association (NGA).
d
The College Board Affinity Network (CBAN) is convening an affinity network to strengthen connections
between K–12 and higher education.
e
Smarter Balanced (SMARTER) higher education initiatives: Higher education representatives on the
executive committee and the higher education advisory committee.
f
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) higher education initiatives:
Advisory committee on college readiness and the higher education leadership team.

Core to College
Managed by Education First and the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and funded by
Lumina Foundation for Education (Lumina), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
(Hewlett), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates), this three-year project is engaging
10 states in state-selected activities designed to address this project goal:

…To promote successful implementation of the Common Core State Standards
and the aligned assessments and shared ownership of college readiness by the
K–12 and postsecondary sectors, including specifically through the use of the
aligned assessments in the determination of a student’s readiness for placement
into credit-bearing courses by postsecondary institutions. (Rockefeller
Philanthropy Advisors, pp. 1–2)

Each participating state has a funded, full-time staff person whose job is to coordinate
this effort. States are also assigned coaches who assist them with implementation and facilitate

15

opportunities to learn from one another. The desired outcome of the project is for each state to
arrive at

…a statewide definition of college readiness, postsecondary institution use of
CCSS assessments as a determinant of a student’s readiness for credit-bearing
course enrollments, and K–12/postsecondary sector alignment to the CCSS
around academic courses and sequences, data and accountability, and teacher
development. (Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, p. 3)

As of summer 2012, most states involved with Core to College were at the planning or
implementing stages: states had held meetings on CCSS implementation (seven states),
meetings to discuss the use of CCSS assessments for college placement purposes (six states), or
meetings to create a communications plan around the CCSS (six states).

College Readiness Partnership
The College Readiness Partnership (CRP) was initiated by the Council of State School
Officers (CCSSO), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and
the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) with funding from the Lumina and
Hewlett foundations. As organizations with high levels of commitment to the CCSS, they
developed a project intended to bring leaders and faculty across K–12 and higher education
together around the implementation of the CCSS. The aim is to delineate the specific steps that
must be taken to improve teaching and learning in ways that will promote the goal of college
and career readiness by the end of high school. Priority objectives are to make college and
career readiness expectations more transparent, to align curricula, to assess student performance
more effectively, and to improve teacher preparation and professional development.

In our interview with SHEEO Executive Director Paul Lingenfelter, he stated that seven
states will work together, trying to figure out how to carry out this work and engage increasing
numbers of people in the process. He strongly believes that many different organizations need
to get involved because of the importance of this issue, and he remarked that the CCSS are “the
most promising idea for improving instruction and student learning that I’ve seen.” Initial work
on the CRP, which began in early 2012, has involved the recruitment of states to participate and
initial planning activities.

Common Core Postsecondary Collaborative
This new project involves a partnership of the Education Delivery Institute (EDI) with
the National Association of System Heads (NASH) and the National Governors Association
(NGA). This effort is especially concerned with effective implementation of the CCSS and
ways to further engage the higher education sector. The collaborative proposes to deploy a

16

process developed by Michael Barber of Great Britain, designed to facilitate strong
implementation of new initiatives.8 It will work with three states not yet participating in the
other initiatives that support K–12 and higher education sector alignment.

EDI Deputy Director Rebecca Martin informed us that the collaborative plans to work
with state and system teams to assess their capacity to implement the new standards. It will
prepare maps of state policy and regulatory authorities in each state so that decisions can be
made on where to focus efforts in implementing the CCSS. The EDI will then assist in the
development of an implementation plan with a clear timeline and sequencing of actions, with a
particular focus on reaching out to and engaging college faculty.

College Board Affinity Network
In April 2012, the College Board launched an Affinity Network to strengthen
connections between K–12 and higher education and to facilitate a smooth transition from high
school to college (College Board, 2012). Each year, they bring together a new group of
participants to discuss a critical issue that requires collaboration across the two sectors. The
focus of the work of their first cohort, comprised of colleges from six states, is the
implementation of the CCSS and addresses the following two questions:

How could the Common Core State Standards result in changes/shifts in the
alignment of high school exit expectations with postsecondary entrance
expectations? And what supports (legislative, institutional, research, resources,
conversations, etc.) need to be in place to successfully accomplish this
alignment?

How could the Common Core State Standards impact the design of remedial
education courses on college campuses? (College Board, 2012, p. 1)

Smarter Balanced Higher Education Initiative
According to Jacqueline King, director of higher education collaboration for the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, the organization recognizes the importance of active
participation of higher education representatives in the development and use of the CCSS-
aligned assessments. She noted that, while large numbers of colleges signed documents

8
See http://www.deliveryinstitute.org/delivery-approach

17

expressing the intent to use the CCSS assessments in college placement, there needs to be much
deeper and more wide-ranging discussions about the ways in which they might be used.

Smarter Balanced has taken several steps to increase its engagement with higher
education. First, the consortium has two higher education members on its executive committee,
as well as designated higher education leads for each member state with whom the consortium
communicates at least once each week. Second, each of the 10 Smarter Balanced working
groups, collectively charged with all aspects of development of the new assessments, now has
two higher education representatives, mainly faculty members. Higher education faculty are
also recruited to serve on topical advisory committees and working groups. For example,
higher education faculty were recruited to work with K–12 teachers to draft detailed descriptors
for achievement levels on the grade 11 summative assessment. The organization also recently
hired five semi-retired higher education leaders; they are serving as regional senior advisors,
each working with three to five states. According to King, their job is to offer “hands-on support
for the states” that are members of the Smarter Balanced consortium.

PARRC Higher Education Initiative
Allison Jones, senior fellow for postsecondary engagement at Achieve, Inc., the
implementing organization for PARCC, has stated that “The ultimate goal of the PARCC
initiative is to ensure that students are ready for college-level work after high school
graduation.” (PARCC, n.d.). With this in mind, the organization recently named an advisory
committee on college readiness to contribute to discussions on how to ensure that the new
assessments are truly aligned to college and career readiness benchmarks. There is also a higher
education leadership team, responsible for coordinating higher education engagement for
PARCC. A separate K–12 team with working committees is responsible for coordinating all
aspects of the development of the assessments (PARCC, n.d.).

These six initiatives demonstrate that there is a perceived need for greater higher
education engagement in the process of implementing the CCSS. In some cases, the initiative
grew out of an excitement about the potential for improved education and student outcomes; in
others it appears to have been undertaken out of a concern that a lack of buy-in from higher
education could be detrimental to the whole enterprise. In any case, these efforts increase the
chances that higher education stakeholders will become aware of the CCSS and be better able to
consider ways to align efforts with the K–12 education sector.

18

4. Implementation of the CCSS in Three States

Progress on the implementation of the CCSS is being monitored and studied, most
notably via a set of surveys conducted by the Center on Education Policy (Kober & Rentner,
2012) and the Education First/EPE Research Center (Porter et al., 2012). However, this research
provides only limited information on the ways that higher education, and community colleges in
particular, have been involved with this process. To understand variations in the implementation
of the CCSS across states and especially the role of higher education, we conducted interviews
with a range of stakeholders in Florida, Kentucky, and Washington State. The interviewees
were mainly officials from state education agencies involved in implementing the CCSS in the
K–12 and higher education sectors.

As illustrated in the table below, the three states represent some diversity in their
implementation of the CCSS. They were members of different assessment consortia; Kentucky
is a participating state in the PARCC consortium while Florida and Washington are governing
and procuring states for PARCC and Smarter Balanced, respectively. At the time that this
research was conducted, Florida was the only state of the three to have received Race to the Top
funds to support the implementation of the CCSS. The states were also at different stages of
CCSS implementation according to the Education First/EPE Research Center (Porter et al.,
2012) report. Each state belonged to at least one national higher education involvement
initiative. It should be noted that the landscape of CCSS implementation has been rapidly
evolving — these profiles represent a particular moment in time.

Table 2 provides an overview of several aspects of CCSS implementation in these three
states.

19

Table 2
CCSS Implementation Information Among the Profiled States
Higher education involvement
State Consortia membership RttTa Level of CCSS implementation initiatives
Curriculum/ Teacher Core to
SMARTER PARCC PDc materials evaluation College CRP CCPC
Kentucky xd x (Phase 3) xe x x x x
f
Florida x x (Phase 2) ~e x x x
g h e
Washington x x (ELC ) ~ no activity no activity x

NOTES:
a
Race to the Top grant, important because those receiving these grants have financial resources available for the
implementation of the CCSS.
b
The three major areas considered essential to the CCSS transition process assessed in the Education First/EPE
Research Center 2012 report: Professional development, curriculum and instructional materials, and teacher
evaluation systems (Porter et al., 2012).
c
Professional development.
d
Kentucky is a participating state in PARCC. See notes in Appendix Table B.2 for an explanation of the terms
participating, procuring, and governing.
e
x indicates fully completed plans in this area, ~ indicates plans in development.
f
Florida is the procuring (and a governing) state for PARCC.
g
Washington is the procuring (and a governing) state for Smarter Balanced.
h
Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge supports early learning and developmental programs for young
children.

Florida

Overview
At the time that the CCSS emerged, the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) was
immersed in the process of revising its state academic standards. Florida’s original standards,
called the Sunshine State Standards (SSS), were created in 1996. They were revised in 2006–
2007 with the goal that they be grounded in empirical research and reflect international
benchmarks; the revised standards were titled the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards
(NGSSS). Work to further refine the NGSSS in English language arts was put on hold pending
adoption of the CCSS.

When the CCSS were released, state education officials conducted a review and
concluded that they were at least as rigorous as Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State
Standards. They agreed that it made sense to adopt the CCSS, as there would be national
resources available to support their implementation and the state would be able to invest less of
its own funds in developing curricular materials and tests. An official at the FLDOE explained
that the department also welcomed the focus within the CCSS on college and career readiness

20

and on improving alignment between the K–12 and the postsecondary sectors. In the past, even
a perfect score on a student’s 10th grade assessment was not a reliable indicator of the student’s
level of college readiness.

Florida adopted the CCSS on July 27, 2010 (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
n.d.). However, until the CCSS are fully implemented in Florida in the 2013–2014 academic
year, the state will continue to use the NGSSS (Florida Department of Education, n.d.). In
addition, Florida is deeply involved in the PARCC consortium and is a governing state as well
as the consortium’s fiscal agent (see notes in Appendix Table B.2 for an explanation of the
terms participating, procuring, and governing).

Role of Higher Education in the Development and Implementation of
the CCSS in Florida
Since February of 2012, Florida has partnered with Core to College to engage higher
education stakeholders in the CCSS implementation process and to build cross-sector
alignment. Much of the work of the three-year Core to College grant is driven by an alignment
director, a position housed within the Division of Florida Colleges. The alignment director’s
role is to engage higher education faculty, particularly those in Florida College System
institutions, in support of the implementation of the standards. The state is undertaking initial
Core to College grant–related activities, with a focus on professional development to build
awareness and knowledge of the CCSS among higher education faculty, particularly those
teaching developmental education and entry-level college courses. The purpose of the
professional development, according to a study participant,

is to get everyone on the same page with the standards. The goal is that the
CCSS assessment be used as a college-ready indicator, which can’t happen if
the faculty don’t understand the standards on which assessments are based.

There has also been cross-sector collaboration around the development of common
assessments aligned to the CCSS. Both the Florida College System, which consists of 28
community and state (four-year) colleges, and the 12 public universities that make up the
Florida State University system have been involved from the beginning with alignment
discussions related to the PARCC assessments. The focus has been on assuring that the 11th
grade assessments measure all of the skills and knowledge that are necessary for college
readiness. In addition, higher education stakeholders will participate in setting the provisional
college-level cutoff scores for the PARCC 11th grade assessment An official involved with the
PARCC assessment work in Florida explained that they plan to track students’ performance
through their initial college courses to learn whether the interim college-ready cutoff scores for
the common assessment, once established, accurately place students into entry-level courses.

21

Policy and Practice Implications for Higher Education in Florida
A Florida state statute maintains that high schools must administer a college readiness
assessment in 11th grade to students that score within a certain range on the state assessment
exam, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT 2.0). School districts may use any
Florida State Board of Education–approved assessment, and many districts have chosen the
Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (PERT) for this purpose. If a student does not attain
the college-ready cutoff score on the PERT, she is required to take college postsecondary
preparatory instruction, called College Success and College Readiness courses. This set of
courses is comprised of college developmental education courses offered at the high school
level and is aligned to the CCSS and to college-level competencies.

In terms of the implications of the CCSS for high school exit and college entry and
placement assessments in Florida, an interviewee speculated that the PARCC 11th grade exam
could replace the existing college readiness assessments that are conducted while students are
still in high school. However, the interviewee doubted that the 11th grade assessment would
entirely displace regular college placement tests because returning adults would not be able to
use a CCSS assessment.

Implications for the Demand for and Delivery of Developmental
Education in Florida
An official with the Florida Division of Colleges was hopeful that the implementation
of the CCSS would decrease the demand for developmental education in Florida, but said that it
was too early to know what the initiative’s impacts may be on developmental education in the
state.

Challenges to CCSS implementation in Florida
One challenge to CCSS adoption and implementation was the timing of the emergence
of the CCSS in relation to Florida’s planned revision of its state academic standards. Florida
began full implementation of the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) in fall
2011, aligning all instruction, accountability, and assessment systems to those standards. An
interviewee from the FLDOE acknowledged that it will be challenging to transition to yet
another set of standards, but that the NGSSS provided a logical stepping stone between the
previous standards and the CCSS. Interviewees also noted that the size and diversity of the state
presents unique challenges to building K–12 and higher education sector alignment.

22

Kentucky

Overview
The appearance of the CCSS was timely for Kentucky. In 2009, legislators enacted a
new state law, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which required the state to revamp both its standards and
assessments by spring 2012. SB1 included a mandate that the Kentucky Council on
Postsecondary Education (CPE), the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE), and the Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE) collaborate to create a unified college and career readiness
plan that would lead to a reduction in remediation rates and an increase in college graduation
rates (Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, 2013).

As soon as this law went into effect, the CPE, in partnership with the KDE, began work
to define new Kentucky academic standards, revising those that had been in place for over 20
years. However, soon after they started this process, the CCSS emerged. Kentucky quickly
moved to adopt the new standards, as SB1 required the state to revamp educational standards by
December 2010 and the CCSS had materialized at an ideal moment. Kentucky was the first state
to adopt the CCSS on February 10, 2010 (Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d.); in
fact, the state adopted the standards before they were officially finalized (Alliance for
Excellence in Education, 2012). They were renamed the Kentucky Core Academic Standards.

Kentucky developed its own system of assessments aligned to the CCSS because the
SB1 legislation also required the implementation of an assessment aligned to the new state
standards no later than spring 2012. Kentucky was thus not in a position to wait to use the
consortium-generated assessments, which would not be ready until 2014–2015. Kentucky
became a member of both the PARCC and Smarter Balanced consortia, and has since left
Smarter Balanced and remains a participating state in PARCC. The state initially participated in
both consortia to see how the assessments would develop and to determine which would be the
best fit for Kentucky. The state eventually dropped out of Smarter Balanced because PARCC is
considering a high school end-of-course component and because the demands for active
participation in two consortia were too great. According to a state education official, Kentucky
may not ever use the assessments developed by the consortia, but they want to continue to
partner with PARCC and decide whether the PARCC assessments will meet the state’s testing
needs.

the CCSS in Kentucky
One interviewee from the KDE described the involvement of the higher education
sector in the CCSS implementation process as “comprehensive.” Higher education faculty

23

members were involved in the CCSS standards draft review process in Kentucky. One
interviewee from the CPE created and led statewide teams that consisted of over one hundred
postsecondary faculty members who provided feedback on every draft of the CCSS to ensure
that the expectations for postsecondary education were reflected in the standards. They also
looked at the implications of the CCSS for universities and two-year colleges, such as how these
new standards would impact the teaching of introductory-level general education courses.
Among the three states profiled for this study, Kentucky was the only state where those
interviewed reported that the higher education sector had played a substantial role in reviewing
and providing feedback on the drafts of the CCSS.

The higher education sector was also involved in developing a statewide definition of
college and career readiness, also required by SB1. The staff of the CPE went through a two-
year process working with postsecondary faculty to arrive at a common understanding of
college readiness that integrated all the different standards of the state’s college and university
systems. In this way, the college readiness standards in Kentucky were set by the entire higher
education sector. Further, if students completing high school meet that definition of college
readiness, all public colleges and universities have agreed to enroll those students in credit-
bearing courses. 9

Kentucky has also created a professional development structure in which leadership
teams from each of the 174 school districts participate in monthly, full-day professional learning
sessions on the CCSS. The district teams, called the Kentucky Content Leadership Networks,
consist of 3–4 math teachers, 3–4 ELA teachers, 3–4 school-level leaders, and 3–4 district-level
leaders. Higher education faculty members lead these “learning communities.” The meetings of
the leadership networks are meant to facilitate the implementation of requirements set forth in
SB1 by focusing on the Kentucky Core Academic Standards and other related topics.

Policy and Practice Implications for Higher Education in Kentucky
As part of the SB1 legislation, the state of Kentucky established goals to (1) reduce the
need for remediation at the postsecondary level by 50 percent in five years and (2) to increase
college completion rates of underprepared students by 3 percent per year from 2009–2014. State
education officials feel that the increased rigor of the CCSS and the improved alignment

9
For more information, see http://www.cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FDA8331F-B247-4740-8AAD-
F5721C73B2B6/0/10_College_Admission_Regulation_Revision.pdf

24

between the K–12 and higher education sectors, facilitated by the implementation of the
standards, will support the state in reaching these goals.

Several colleges are looking at ways to align college course syllabi with the CCSS. For
example, at Eastern Kentucky University, faculty involved in the CCSS review process have
created professional learning communities that are reviewing course syllabi in light of the
standards to ensure that they are reflected in the content of entry-level and developmental
education courses in math and English. An interviewee at the CPE explained that this is often
the first time that developmental education instructors and general education instructors have
worked together to discuss substantial changes to course syllabi.

Education in Kentucky
An interviewee at the CPE expects that, following implementation of the CCSS, there
will be an increased demand for developmental education in the short term because students
will not be able to meet the more rigorous standards associated with the CCSS. She believes
that the developmental education system in Kentucky will need to “rethink itself” and
implement programmatic changes that will help students build the skills they need to move
forward in a more efficient way. She also believes that developmental education will need to
create and implement better diagnostic assessments. “It is not effective to place people based on
a single score; we need to diagnose exactly what students need.” She believes that the education
system will evolve so that more interventions happen during the earlier grades, such as middle
school transition courses, to ensure that students are ready to move forward into high school.

Institutions that offer adult basic education have also adopted and are implementing the
CCSS. Adult basic education serves those who have been outside of formal education programs
for a long time and who want to return and pursue higher education. One such program in the
community and technical college system is called “Learn on Demand” and is aligned with the
CCSS. This is an online, open entry, and open exit program that offers modularized
developmental education courses designed to minimize the time required to prepare a student
for college-credit-bearing coursework in a given subject area. These courses are recognized by
the entire higher education system in Kentucky as pegged to college readiness standards.
Students who complete them will be recognized as not needing remediation.

Challenges to CCSS Implementation in Kentucky
Two interviewees at the KDE enumerated some of the challenges to the CCSS
implementation process. Under the new CCSS-aligned assessment system, students will be
assessed once a year. However, a study participant at the KDE felt that a single yearly

25

assessment would not provide enough information on student performance. Diagnostic or
formative assessments are not part of the KDE system; they are relying on the districts to create
the formative tests from state-provided collections of test items, local collections of test items,
or vendor tests.

Kentucky did not win Race to the Top funds in rounds one or two and, according to
interviewees at the KDE, this has limited the state’s ability to create comprehensive structures
to support transition to the CCSS. As a result, they have had to curtail their professional
development activities at the state level. Though they have created district leadership networks
to provide ongoing professional development, the training is decentralized and less consistent in
quality. State officials worry about what this will mean for CCSS implementation. As one state
official said,

All along, we’ve known that just standards won’t change practice; you don’t
implement standards without trying to have a systemic impact on the way that
teaching and learning are happening in every classroom every day. So,
financially that’s a huge challenge because we want to provide effective support
… to every district.

Finally, from the perspective of KDE officials, it has been challenging to communicate
to stakeholders that the CCSS are not just another set of academic standards. They believe that
these standards will require huge shifts in the way that schools go about teaching and hope that
there will be widespread support for effective and full implementation.

Washington

Overview
A higher education official described a history of education reforms in the state that set
the stage for Washington’s adoption of the CCSS. Washington implemented a comprehensive
education reform initiative in the 1990s that created a set of standards, called the Essential
Academic Learning Requirements (EARLs), similar to the CCSS in that they explicitly defined
what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. However, they stopped at 10th
grade because high school assessments were not conducted thereafter. Several college readiness
projects were subsequently designed to bridge the gap between 10th grade and college.

Washington State became involved with the CCSS initiative in 2009 when the governor
and superintendent of public instruction signed onto the CCSS adoption process; this allowed
the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to review the standards as they were
being developed. The OSPI wanted to adopt the standards when they were first released in June

26

2010, but the legislature was hesitant to do so before seeing the final public version. Delays in
the legislative process caused Washington State to adopt the CCSS late, and, according to an
interviewee at the OSPI, contributed to the state not receiving Race to the Top grant funding.
The grant application required that states adopt the CCSS by August 2010, and Washington
formally adopted the CCSS in July 2011.

A key motivation for adopting the CCSS, according to an interviewee in the OSPI, was
a desire to obtain textbooks that are clearly aligned with the academic standards of Washington
State. Whereas previous textbooks were aligned with large textbook markets such as California,
publishers are now creating instructional supports that are linked to a single set of standards;
Washington State teachers and students would benefit from this closer link.

As with Florida, the timing of the emergence of the CCSS did not align well with
Washington’s standards revision processes. Washington had just created and adopted new
mathematics and science standards in 2008–2009. One state official explained that she initially
felt that it would place too much pressure on the state education system to change standards yet
again. However, she went on to say that she eventually came to see that the goal of the CCSS is
to create deeper and more focused standards, and she believed that this was not something that
Washington State could achieve as effectively alone.

Washington is the procuring and a governing state for the Smarter Balanced
consortium. 10 Because Washington State was interested in creating a new system of assessments
based on a computer adaptive test model, the state was a natural fit to lead the Smarter Balanced
consortium. Also, according to study participants, Washington’s past work on college readiness
and the connection to K–12 standards positioned the state well to lead the Smarter Balanced
consortium work. The state has close ties to the consortium, as Washington’s former assistant
superintendent for assessment and student information, Joe Willhoft, is now the executive
director of Smarter Balanced.

the CCSS in Washington
According to a state higher education official, the higher education sector played no
formal role in the early stages of the adoption process for the standards and, outside of
connections to teacher education programs, there had been minimal outreach to higher

10
See notes in Appendix Table B.2 for an explanation of the terms participating, procuring, and
governing.

27

education representatives to participate. However, they have become more involved with the
CCSS implementation process in recent months.

Washington, like Florida, partners with Core to College to encourage K–12 and higher
education alignment activities. A higher education official involved in this work has assembled
a CCSS review group comprised of mathematics and English faculty from two-year and four-
year colleges, along with a number of K–12 representatives. The review group convened in the
spring of 2012 to compare the CCSS to Washington State’s college readiness standards,
developed in the mid-2000s and built as an extension of the existing Washington K–12
standards. The group will look at how the two sets of standards compare and comment on the
extent to which the CCSS truly represent what students need to know to be ready for college.
One goal of this activity is to build greater understanding of the CCSS among college faculty,
especially in English and mathematics, with the review group working to disseminate
information about the CCSS to their colleagues in two-year and four-year colleges.

The official facilitating this work expects that the faculty will find that the CCSS aligns
with or surpasses Washington’s current standards for college readiness. However, they are
trying to be clear that there is no opportunity to actually implement faculty feedback on the
standards or to change the CCSS. The goal is to encourage discussions about whether or not
higher education will utilize the CCSS, or the aligned assessments, in an official way.
According to this interviewee,

No matter what was promised on the state level, if they don’t get the faculty
and individual institutions on board and show them concrete ways to use the
CCSS and assessments, the initiative won’t have much impact in higher
education.

Another higher education sector interviewee observed that there has been little activity
to engage schools of education to support P–12 educators to implement the CCSS. This person
went on to note, “If CCSS implementation requires significant shifts in pedagogical practice,
knowledge of the standards alone will not have the impact on student learning hoped for in
CCSS implementation.”

Higher education officials are also supporting six local teams that will meet beginning
in fall 2012 to build K–12 and higher education partnerships and to discuss how best to
implement the CCSS. The local teams will also consider the role that the CCSS assessments
will play in college placement decisions. Unlike some of the other states involved in Core to
College, according to a higher education official, the state of Washington has already had
extensive conversations about college readiness. They want to implement the CCSS and the
aligned assessments in a way that is grounded in past college readiness initiatives and standards
and supportive of local articulation and alignment initiatives.

28

Policy and Practice Implications for Higher Education in Washington
Despite their role as lead of the Smarter Balanced consortium, Washington State has not
yet committed to using any of the developed assessments. A higher education interviewee
reported that they are going to wait until the tests are finalized before they decide on how they
will use the 11th grade assessment in higher education. If the assessment is considered
appropriate for placement purposes, the higher education system will explore, through the Core
to College effort, whether a system-wide approach would be both feasible and supported by the
colleges and universities in the state. If not, it’s likely that some two-year colleges will still use
the assessment, but it will be up to individual institutions to decide on how they will use the
results.

Although there has been limited discussion about how the implementation of the CCSS
may impact four-colleges, one interview participant in Washington referred to discussions about
the use of the CCSS assessments in the admissions process. According to this interviewee, to be
used in admissions, the assessments would have to demonstrate alignment to the ACT or the
SAT. Currently, Washington state policy requires the submission of ACT or SAT test scores as
part of admissions applications. A policy change would be necessary for four-year colleges to
be able to consider using the consortium assessment scores in their student admissions
decisions.

The same higher education interviewee went on to point out that questions have been
raised as to whether they should align pre-college (developmental) curriculum to these
standards. Clearly, they would need faculty buy-in on the standards in order to do that. Colleges
in the state are already considering new approaches to pre-college mathematics, possibly using
more technology or taking a modular approach to developmental education. The intent is for
faculty to infuse the CCSS into conversations about changing and improving developmental
education in the coming years.

Education in Washington
One higher education official interviewed hopes that implementation of the CCSS will
decrease the need for developmental education in Washington. He noted that adults who have
been out of school for a long time will still require developmental education courses but thinks
that the initiative will have a more significant impact on recent high school graduates. He
believes that developmental education will continue to be a large part of the work done by
community and technical colleges.

29

Challenges to CCSS Implementation in Washington
An official at the OSPI reported that engagement with the higher education sector
around CCSS implementation is a challenge because higher education stakeholders often take
the perspective that the CCSS are just “another set of standards.” They have not been at the
table for all conversations about the CCSS and its implementation, and that makes it harder for
them to understand the potential impacts. However, the fact that this is a nationwide initiative is
helpful for drawing higher education stakeholders into the conversation. Further, the higher
education sector generally expects the K–12 sector to align to higher education standards; they
are not as inclined to engage in conversations about how higher education should align to K–12
standards.

A higher education official also commented that, though stakeholders in Washington’s
P–16 education system learned a lot during past college readiness projects, there are still
important differences between the K–12 and higher education sectors. In his view, “The
systems aren’t really designed to be well connected; they’re designed to be separate.” He
described talking across sectors as a “cross-cultural conversation” that requires attention to
clarifying language and terms.

Another interviewee cited the proliferation of instructional resources available to
support the transition to the CCSS as a problem. He described the amount of resources available
and emerging as “overwhelming.” He discussed the need for curating, vetting, and focusing the
resources being developed in order to make them useful for higher education. He believes that it
is the state offices’ and alignment directors’ jobs to pare down and classify the resources
available to support CCSS implementation.

In past iterations of state assessments in Washington, education officials found it
challenging to balance the costs of testing with the desire to assess students using multiple
measures. The state became interested in the computer adaptive approach as a way to assess
students in a balanced time- and cost-efficient manner and hopes that the computer adaptive
assessments developed in the Smarter Balanced consortium will work in this way.

Summary
The three state profiles illustrate some of the successes achieved and challenges
encountered in implementing the CCSS in state and local contexts. While the states were
selected to illustrate a range of experiences in CCSS implementation, we noted several common
factors that appeared to facilitate or impede progress in CCSS implementation.

30

Timing
The timing of states’ adoption of the CCSS with respect to existing processes for
revising statewide academic standards played a role in the CCSS adoption process. In
Kentucky, all interviewees attested to the fact that the state’s early adoption and comprehensive
implementation of the CCSS was largely due to fortunate timing. The CCSS emerged just after
the passage of legislation that required the state to revamp its academic content standards in an
18-month timeframe. Kentucky was in the market for revised academic standards, and the
CCSS were released at the ideal moment for swift adoption. Further, Kentucky had not
implemented any major revisions to its academic standards for 20 years prior to the adoption of
the CCSS, and it was widely agreed that the time was ripe to do so. Conversely, in both Florida
and Washington State, interviewees identified the timing of the release of the CCSS as a
challenge in their adoption and implementation processes. Both states had recently revised their
academic content standards at the time that they embarked on the CCSS adoption process, and
the prospect of changing over to yet another set of academic standards led to resistance among
teachers and other education stakeholders in those states.

Legislation
The passage of legislation linked to the adoption and implementation of the CCSS was
a significant facilitating factor for Kentucky. Numerous interviewees in this study identified
Kentucky as a state considered to be at the forefront of CCSS implementation work, particularly
in terms of building K–12 and postsecondary sector collaboration. Interviewees within
Kentucky attribute much of the state’s success to the passage of legislation in 2009 that
mandated cross-sector collaboration around academic standards and college readiness. As a
result of this legislation, which started the state on the road to CCSS adoption quite early,
Kentucky is the only state among the three in which there was broad higher education sector
engagement in the CCSS draft review process. Thus, the postsecondary sector in Kentucky
played a role in shaping the standards themselves, whereas in Washington, higher education
officials and faculty members are only now being invited to review the standards and provide a
postsecondary perspective on their content and utility in higher education.

Funding
Interviewees from Kentucky and Washington discussed challenges that resulted from a
lack of funding to implement the CCSS in a comprehensive manner. An education official in
Washington State described how a lack of funding weakened implementation efforts as only a
limited number of staff are able to effectively engage in the work. From the early days of the
CCSS, national education experts have expressed concern that declining state education budgets
and lack of funding would imperil CCSS implementation efforts (Lewin, 2010). It was also

31

predicted that only states that received Race to the Top funding would have the resources and
incentive to implement the standards with fidelity (Lewin, 2010). At the time that interviews for
this study were conducted, only Florida had received Race to the Top grant money, and it was
the only state out of the three in which officials did not name funding as one of the barriers to
CCSS implementation.

32

5. Implications for Community Colleges and Others

Despite the tremendous amount of activity surrounding the CCSS and recent efforts to
raise awareness of them in many corners, these standards and the Smarter Balanced and
PARRC assessments are still relatively unknown in higher education. Interviewees noted that
those in the K–12 and higher education sectors continue to live in very different worlds and
speak different languages, although some believe that this is slowly changing.

The preceding sections discussed ways that higher education involvement in
discussions about the CCSS and the related assessments has been expanding, with considerable
encouragement from national educational organizations and foundations. But how will (or
could) the CCSS affect the life and daily practice of those in community colleges? Those
participating in interviews for the current study responded to a series of questions on this topic.
In some cases, interviewees spoke about changes that are already taking place; in other cases
their responses were more speculative, especially as regards the yet-to-be developed CCSS-
aligned assessments. Below we group analysis of their comments into three topical categories:
(1) college assessment and placement, (2) changes to the college curriculum, and (3)
partnerships with high schools related to college-readiness. Under each of these categories we
summarize the status of the CCSS initiative in relation to the higher education sector and
consider implications for community colleges and others. We also offer a recommendation on
each topic based on the findings of the current study as well as on consideration of relevant
prior research. This paper ends with brief concluding thoughts about the broad potential of this
ambitious initiative.

College Assessment and Placement
The two consortia involved in developing assessment systems, PARRC and Smarter
Balanced, are designing 11th grade tests that are aligned with the CCSS college and career
readiness standards. These summative assessments will serve as the official state standardized
tests for accountability purposes (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act) in the states that sign on to use them. As noted in the state profiles, some states
are taking a wait-and-see attitude about which test they will use. However, the assumption of
most people we interviewed was that, at the end of the day, almost all states will sign on to use
one of the two assessments.

Higher education officials, in large numbers, have already agreed to use these test
scores for placement purposes. In most cases, their agreement to do so took the form of letters
that were prepared to accompany funding requests for Race to the Top grants or federal waivers
from NCLB requirements, often carried out on a short timeline. According to interviewees,

33

there were few opportunities for discussions of the implications of the CCSS and aligned
assessment systems before signing on. Further, they noted that colleges were agreeing to use the
assessments as part of an overall placement system rather than as the only or primary way that
they would place students into or out of remedial coursework in college. An interviewee from
Smarter Balanced pointed out that Smarter Balanced expected and encouraged colleges to
consider additional data points, such as courses completed in high school, grades, and other test
scores, to support the placement process.

A number of our interviewees consider it very important to the ultimate success of the
CCSS initiative that higher education institutions agree to use the CCSS 11th grade test results
for placement purposes. They believe that this would add a great deal of credibility to the CCSS
and accompanying assessments, which would mean a lot to state legislators and others
concerned with public education. Many are conscious of the fact that, while there is great
momentum behind the CCSS, the initiative could easily be derailed, as has happened with past
efforts to establish common standards (see Rothman, 2011). The use of the assessments for
placement purposes is seen as the most concrete indication that the higher education sector
agrees that the standards are pegged to accurate benchmarks of college readiness.

However, several interviewees noted that many in higher education are approaching the
tests cautiously. In particular, people are waiting on the results of studies that indicate whether
the new assessments do a good job of placing students as well as evidence of their concordance
with other key measures such as the SAT and the ACT. Both assessment consortia are actively
engaging higher education representatives in setting the college-ready cutoff scores for the
assessments as one way of making sure that they have direct involvement in this key aspect of
the work.

Based on an analysis of the interviews conducted, there are a number of possible
implications for community colleges related to the availability of the new 11th grade
assessments:

• Use of the CCSS assessments for placement purposes: Decisions will have to
be made on whether and how to use the CCSS assessments for college
placement purposes. CCRC research (e.g., Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2012)
has pointed to a number of inadequacies in current practice. The tests that are
most commonly used are not highly predictive of college success. What is
more, they frequently misplace and sometimes “severely misplace” students
with the result that considerable numbers of students take remedial courses
that are not needed. Additional remedial courses cost money and are
associated with lower and/or slower rates of college completion. Higher
education representatives aware of this research are searching for alternatives

34

to current testing systems and may well be open to the use of alternative
measures.

• The use of CCSS assessments in combination with other measures: Research
from CCRC and others points to the value of using multiple measures of
college readiness when considering whether students should be placed into
remedial courses. In general, studies find that no one measure does a good
job of placing students. In most cases, combinations of measures do better,
although the best combination may differ by subject area (Scott-Clayton,
2012) and other factors. A number of interviewees suggested ways that the
CCSS assessments might be combined with other measures to improve
placement decisions. One suggestion was to establish a “fuzzy cutoff score”
on the CCSS assessment; students who place within a certain range of the
cutoff score would be then be re-assessed using other instruments.

• Demand for dual enrollment: Presumably, a considerable number of students
will be deemed college ready in math and/or English by the end of 11th
grade once the CCSS assessments are administered. It is not hard to imagine
that this could increase the demand for access to dual enrollment courses. 11
Colleges in some states are already serving large numbers of high school
students; in some locations, they would be able to serve more. In others,
however, they are straining to meet the needs of already enrolled students
and may not have the capacity to meet increased demand (Barnett & Stamm,
2010)

• Demand for college readiness interventions: In addition, large numbers of
11th grade students will probably learn that they are not yet college ready
and that they need to take measures to become better prepared. Research on
California’s Early Assessment Program (Howell, Kurlaender, & Grodsky,
2010) indicates that students who receive information on their preparedness
for college are more likely to take steps to become college ready.

11
Dual enrollment courses are college courses offered to high school students; institutions may or
may not offer the opportunity to earn dual credit.

35

Recommendation 1: Use the CCSS 11th grade assessment as one measure in a set of
multiple measures used in placement decisions for students entering college directly after
high school. Research indicates that the use of multiple measures is likely to result in better
placement decisions and, potentially, better college outcomes. The first CCSS test scores of
graduates will be available to colleges for placement purposes in (for most students) the fall of
2016. Thus, colleges interested in the possibility of incorporating CCSS 11th grade test scores
into their placement assessment system have ample time to consider the costs, benefits, and
logistics involved in using them. The initial incorporation of these scores could be done on a
pilot basis to allow time to assess the extent to which they contribute to the accuracy of student
placement decisions.

Changes to the Community College Curriculum
Some interviewees raised questions about whether developmental education should
change in response to the establishment of the CCSS. As developmental education is essentially
high school–level work, it could make sense to align these courses to the CCSS. While it is an
open question whether there was sufficient postsecondary input into the development of the
original anchor college readiness benchmarks, they are receiving widespread acceptance across
the country. What is more, many in higher education perceive that there is value in having
agreed-upon criteria for college readiness to provide clear signaling to high schools about
college expectations. For example, Graff and Birkenstein (2008) argue that students benefit
when expectations are clear and well known, rather than just the purview of those guided by
prosperous and savvy parents. Further, some interviewees proposed that introductory college-
level courses in math and English composition could be designed to take up where high school
education leaves off. Discussions were underway in several states about this at the time of this
study.

Clearly, calls for aligning curricula with a set of K–12 standards fly in the face of
historical precedent and are unlikely to sit well with many college faculty, who generally value
high levels of control over the design of their courses. But at least one of the interviewees
considered this a necessary step, stating, “There will be resistance from all sorts of quarters, and
a challenge is to address those areas of resistance respectfully, but to address them.”

Some of the implications of the CCSS for the design and delivery of developmental
education are as follows:

• Alignment of developmental education and introductory college-level courses
with CCSS: Assuming that colleges agree that the CCSS are pegged to
appropriate college readiness standards, it makes sense that their
developmental education courses would cover the same material. In addition,

36

initial college-level courses could be designed to take up where the CCSS
leave off. This would allow recent high school graduates who enter college to
move into college-level material more seamlessly, building on a foundation
of recently completed courses in high school and facilitating a smooth
transition from high school to college.

• Improved pedagogy: To the extent that the CCSS encourage better critical
thinking and other key academic skills, they might serve as a good
foundation on which to work toward improving pedagogy in community
colleges. Research by Grubb et al. (2011) and Arum and Roska (2011)
suggests that both college pedagogy and student learning outcomes could be
improved and that too little attention is paid to problem solving and critical
thinking in typical college classrooms.

• Better textbooks and learning materials: Many in the K–12 sector are
expecting the emergence of better quality textbooks and materials that are
more closely aligned to the CCSS. It is likely that costs could be reduced due
to the volume of purchases that will be made. Further, some of the newly
created learning materials may involve the use of emerging, effective
technologies with high initial development costs. These resources may be
useful in community colleges as well, particularly in developmental
education courses that are essentially teaching high school–level content.

Recommendation 2: Align developmental education and introductory college-level courses
in math and English composition to the CCSS to smooth the transition for recent high
school graduates entering college. As seen in this study, in some states and colleges,
discussions are already underway on how to align developmental education and/or introductory
college-level courses in math and English to the CCSS. We contend that these conversations
could be taking place more widely. There would be many advantages to creating greater
alignment between high school, developmental (and/or adult) education, and college courses,
creating a smoother transition for students at each stage. Greater alignment would also mean
that students transferring among colleges would be less likely to experience problems with
transfer.

37

College Readiness and Partnerships with High Schools
Colleges have long called on the K–12 sector to better prepare students for college.
Strong high school preparation is closely tied to good college outcomes. In many studies (ACT,
Inc., 2010; Adelman, 2006), the most powerful predictor of college success is high school
performance as indicated by enrollment in rigorous coursework, GPA, and/or standardized test
scores. If implementation of the CCSS helps high schools to graduate more students who have
attained an agreed-upon college-ready benchmark, more students will arrive at college well
prepared. One interviewee underscored that this expectation would be the principal driver of
higher education support for the CCSS; as pressure continues to mount on higher education
representatives for better completion rates, it is in their interest to do everything possible to
enroll better prepared students.

Several of the interviewees pointed out that it has not been easy for those in the K–12
sector to get clear and actionable information on what higher education representatives mean by
college readiness. While college placement tests such as the ACCUPLACER and COMPASS
are used to place students, there are no easy, accessible ways for high schools to get information
on what is covered in these tests. As shown in research by Barnett et al. (2012), colleges are
increasingly working with local high schools to inform them of what they expect students to
know and to proactively develop approaches to improving student preparedness for college.

Implications of the CCSS that relate to defining and working toward higher levels of
college readiness are as follows:

• Increased conversations on the definition of college readiness: While a
college readiness definition is already established and embodied in the
CCSS, there are a number of states and colleges that are setting up
opportunities for postsecondary faculty to review it. The idea is to broaden
awareness of this definition and encourage its use in communications with
high schools around preparing students for college.

• Strengthened partnerships with local high schools: Community colleges are
typically concerned with meeting the needs of their local regions. Students,
families, colleges, employers, and civic life can all be enhanced by the
creation of an education system in which everyone works together to make
sure that students have good educational opportunities. In addition, colleges
are increasingly held accountable for their graduation rates. As previously
discussed, students who graduate high school college ready are considerably
more likely to complete college in a timely manner. Colleges can work
closely with K–12 partners to develop initiatives to promote college
readiness.

38

Recommendation 3: Work directly with local K–12 partners to make sure that every
student completing high school is ready to enter college without needing remediation, and
with skills that are strong enough to complete a college credential in a timely manner.
Discussions related to the CCSS could pave the way for more postsecondary involvement in
preparing high school students for college. In particular, students identified as not-yet-college-
ready in the 11th grade could benefit from participation in explicit college-readiness activities in
the 12th grade. Involvement of local colleges in designing and implementing these initiatives
could lead to improved student preparation for college and better college outcomes.

Concluding Thoughts
A recent report from the 21st Century Commission on the Future of Community
Colleges (American Association of Community Colleges, 2012) offers support for the CCSS. It
recommends that community colleges work to “dramatically improve college readiness: By
2020 reduce by half the number of students entering college unprepared for rigorous college-
level work…” (p. 26). It goes on to encourage colleges to use more explicit definitions of
college readiness that are in alignment with the CCSS. We support the idea that college
readiness definitions should be clear and comprehensible. We also contend that there are
opportunities for community colleges that grow out of national and state efforts to implement
the CCSS and related assessments. Current challenges in higher education can be addressed and
possibly ameliorated by taking advantage of these opportunities. Indeed, exploration of these
possibilities has the potential to increase the number of students who, at every level of the
education system, have access to better experiences and outcomes.

39

Appendix A: Overview of the Common Core State
Standards

This is a summary of the information assembled as of June 2012 regarding the design,
development, and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

What are the basic facts about the CCSS initiative?
• A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in 2009 between 48
states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
National Governor Associations (NGA), and Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) committing to the development of the CCSS (Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2011).

• The standards were released in June 2010.

• States’ participation in CCSS is voluntary.

• The initiative is state-led, not federal. However, the federal government
incentivized states to participate through grant money and relaxing
enforcement of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in states that adopt rigorous
college and career standards (Phillips & Vandal, 2011).

• As of December 15th, 2011, 45 states and three territories have signed on to
the initiative. Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia have not adopted the
standards, and Minnesota has adopted the ELA standards only (Common
Core State Standards Initiative, 2011).

• Quick adoption of the standards by states is attributed to monetary incentives
through the Race to the Top competition (Lewin, 2010), and the perception
by adopting states that the CCSS will guide statewide education
improvement (Center on Education Policy, 2011).

• The purpose of the CCSS initiative was to create a set of fewer, clearer, and
more rigorous standards that will be consistent across all states and territories
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011).

• Participating states have agreed that the standards will represent 85 percent
of the state’s standards in mathematics and language arts (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2011).

41

What are the goals of the CCSS?
1. To create clearer expectations among parents and the general public
regarding what students should be able to do and know by the end of each
grade and when they graduate from high school (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2011)

2. To facilitate the alignment of U.S. materials and curriculum to rigorous
international standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011)

3. To set the foundation for more focused professional development for
educators (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011)

4. To provide opportunity for states to come together to develop multiple,
common, and innovative assessments aligned with the standards (Common
Core State Standards Initiative, 2011)

What led to the creation of the CCSS?
• Uneven state standards/policies, which were further exacerbated under
NCLB, in which some states weakened education standards to avoid
penalization under NCLB (Lewin, 2010)

• The desire to become competitive with higher performing nations (Sawchuk,
2011)

How were the CCSS created? 12
• The CCSSO and NGA created three groups to work on different aspects of
the CCSS:

1. Standards development work group, a group of content experts from
Achieve Inc., ACT, Inc., and the College Board who were charged with
writing the common state standards (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2011);

12
Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011.

42

2. Feedback group, charged with revising the standards (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2011);

3. Validation committee, ensured that the standards are research- and
evidence-based and meet the following criteria: “aligned with college
and work expectations, inclusive of rigorous content and application of
knowledge through high-order skills, and internationally benchmarked
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011).”

• Teachers, researchers, administrators, policymakers, higher education
officials, and other state leaders informed the development of the standards
(Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2011).

• Public feedback was solicited throughout the process (Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education, 2011).

Who was/is most involved in the creation of the CCSS?
• The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers led the effort (Lewin, 2010).

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided financial backing to most of
the organizations involved in drafting, evaluating, and winning support for
the standards (Lewin, 2010).

Who/what organizations support the CCSS?
• There are many. “Voices of Support” (see website below) features
endorsements from individuals including high school teachers, high ranking,
state-level education officials, and business leaders. The endorsing partners
are associations, and non-profit and for-profit organizations devoted to
education and the development of educational tools. See:

o Statements of support: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-
standards/statements-of-support

o Voices of support: http://www.corestandards.org/voices-of-support

o Common Core Endorsing Partners: http://www.corestandards.org/about-
the-standards/common-core-endorsing-partners

43

Where are states/districts in the process of implementation?
• As of January 2012, all participating states and the District of Columbia had
finalized formal CCSS implementation plans (Porter et al., 2012); 20 states
had completed teacher professional development plans; 17 states had
completed plans for the creation of curriculum guides or instructional
materials; and 15 states had completed plans for teacher evaluation systems.
Only seven states (Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
North Carolina, and West Virginia) have completed plans in all three areas
(Porter et al., 2012).

• Other common activities that roughly one third to one half of districts were
engaged in, or planned to engage in, by the 2011–2012 school year were the
following: developing or purchasing new curriculum materials, developing
new local assessments, providing professional development, assigning
resource teachers to assist teachers in integrating the CCSS in instruction,
designing a teacher evaluation system aligned to the CCSS, and aligning the
content of teacher training programs in schools of education to the CCSS.

• Thirty-three to 74 percent of districts, depending on the activity, did not plan
to implement any of the above by the 2011–2012 school year (Center on
Education Policy, 2011).

• Most adopting states expect to make changes to professional development
programs by 2012, but anticipate that to fully implement changes to
assessment, curriculum, teacher evaluation, and teacher certification could
take until 2013 or longer (Center on Education Policy, 2011).

What are anticipated challenges to implementation?
• More than half the districts in CCSS-adopting states believe that
implementing the CCSS will require new or substantially revised curriculum
materials (Center on Education Policy, 2011).

• Decreases in school districts’ budgets may slow down or stop
implementation of the standards (Center on Education Policy, 2011).

• Lack of guidance from states on how to implement the CCSS is seen as a
challenge by a majority of districts (Center on Education Policy, 2011).

44

• There are challenges associated with adjusting teacher education programs
and revising in-service professional development (Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education, 2011).

• Teachers require greater and deeper content knowledge to effectively teach
according to the CCSS (Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education, 2011).

Who is developing the CCSS-aligned assessments?
• Winners of the Race to the Top Comprehensive Assessment Systems
Competition (announced in September 2010): Partnership for the Assessment
of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) (Tamayo, 2010)

• PARCC and Smarter Balanced assessments are grounded in the following
principals (Tamayo, 2010):

1. Assessments are common across states and are aligned to the CCSS.

2. Students take “performance-based” assessments for accountability.

3. The assessment systems are “computer-based” for more sophisticated
design and quick, reliable scoring.

4. Transparent reporting systems are intended to drive effective decision
making. Results will show whether students are “on-track” for college
and career readiness.

• There are differences between the PARCC and Smarter Balanced approaches
to system design. States will use either Smarter Balanced or PARCC
depending on which consortium they join. PARCC has governing and
participating states. Smarter Balanced has governing and advisory states.
Advisory and participating states may join both consortia until the
assessments are fully implemented in 2014–2015. At that point, states must
choose one assessment system; governing states may belong to only one
consortium (Tamayo, 2010). See Appendix B for a more detailed comparison
of the two consortia.

• CCSS assessments will replace the NCLB-mandated assessments currently
used in participating states in the 2014–2015 academic year (Tamayo, 2010).

45

What was higher education’s role in the development of the
standards and assessments?
• Leaders from higher education participated in the advisory group that
provided feedback and guidance on the development of the CCSS. These
experts included representatives from: Achieve, Inc., ACT, Inc., the College
Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education, and the State
Higher Education Executive Officers (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2011).

• The American Council on Education (ACE) convened panels of faculty in
cooperation with leading disciplinary groups (Modern Language Association
and Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences) to provide input on the
college and career readiness anchor standards. The Race to the Top
Comprehensive Assessment Systems competition, which awarded grant
money to state consortia to develop assessment systems aligned with the
CCSS, awarded up to 20 points for “buy-in” from higher education
(Sawchuk, 2010).

• In order to win higher education “buy-in” points, both consortia secured
commitments from public colleges and universities to use the results of high
school–level assessments developed by the consortia to place students who
met college-ready benchmarks on the assessments into credit-bearing,
college-level courses. The PARCC consortium secured the agreement of 184
institutions and systems of higher education across the states (representing 90
percent of direct-matriculation students), and Smarter Balanced secured
agreement from 162 institutions and systems (representing 74 percent of
direct-matriculation students) (Sawchuk, 2010).

• Both consortia have staff positions and committees or working groups
devoted to outreach to and collaboration with the higher education sector.

What are some implications for higher education?
• There is hope that the effective implementation of the CCSS will facilitate
greater alignment between K–12 and higher education sectors (Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2011), but officials from most
adopting states were unsure of whether they would align undergraduate
admission requirements to the CCSS (Center on Educational Policy, 2011).

46

• Most discussions about the impact of CCSS focus on students attending
college directly after high school, while adults (above 25 years old) comprise
39 percent of college enrollment. There has been little discussion of how the
CCSS may impact this population (Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 2011).

• There has also been discussion that the consortia-generated 11th grade
assessments may be used by two-year colleges to place students into
developmental education, and that colleges may align developmental
education and general education courses to the CCSS. For more information
on these implications for higher education, see the state profile section of this
report.

What are some critiques of the CCSS?
• Who will control the national standards? Politics could inform the curriculum
of certain subjects, particularly social studies (Goldstein, 2010).

• The CCSS will diminish individuality and creativity in classrooms (Fuller,
2011).

• The CCSS does not require students to pass Algebra I in 8th grade, which has
long-term implications for advanced mathematics course-taking (Stotsky,
2010).

• States that are not winners in the Race to the Top competition may have less
incentive to carry out standards (Lewin, 2010).

• Lack of funds makes it difficult to implement all aspects of the CCSS (Center
on Educational Policy, 2011).

• The lack of funding for assessment research will make it difficult for the
PARCC and Smarter Balanced consortia to develop effective, new, large-
scale tests (Sawchuk, 2010).

What are some claims of CCSS supporters?
• Because of alignment between states, it will be easier to share curriculum
(Goldstein, 2010).

47

• National standards pair well with the rise of blogs and self-publishing (i.e.,
BetterLesson.com), which will give teachers greater flexibility to buy
curricula that meets their needs (Goldstein, 2010).

• Fewer resources will need to be spent by individual states on developing
their own standards and tests (Lewin, 2010).

• Given the mobility of the American population, it makes sense to create
common standards across states (Kahlenburg, 2011).

• Three fifths of states found the CCSS standards to be more rigorous than
those that they will replace (Center on Educational Policy, 2011).

What resources are available or are being proposed for
implementation?
• As of January 2011, the majority of adopting states planned to make changes
to assessments, curriculum guides or materials, professional development
programs, and revising educator certification and evaluation policies (Center
on Educational Policy, 2011), and by September 2011, one third to half of
participating districts were developing or planned to develop curriculum
materials, local assessments, professional development, and teacher
evaluation programs (Center on Educational Policy, 2011). This information
implies that the development of resources to support the implementation of
the CCSS is underway, though it is unclear who is developing materials or
how they are being developed. As of January 2012, roughly one half to
roughly one third of states had finalized plans in at least one of the above
areas. See the section 4 for more details on state and district progress on
implementation.

• Student Achievement Partners has produced publisher’s guides to both help
frame the development of new materials and assist states and districts in
making purchasing decisions.

• Mastery Connect, a web company that allows educators to share formative
assessment tools, developed a Common Core app, available on iTunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/common-core-standards/id439424555?mt=8

48

Appendix B: Comparison of CCSS Assessment
Systems

Table B.1
Consortia

PARCC Smarter Balanced
Name Partnership for Assessment of Smarter Balanced Assessment
Readiness for College and Careers Consortium
Grants $186 million from the U.S. $175 million from the U.S. Department
Department of Education to create of Education to create assessment
assessment systems aligned to the systems aligned to the CCSSb
CCSSa

NOTES:
a
PARCC (n.d.).
b
Sawchuk (2010).

Table B.2
Governance

Procuring State Florida Washington
Governing States Arizona, Arkansas, District of California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan., Missouri, Montana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Mississippi, New Jersey, New Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont., Washington,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Tennessee
Participating States Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, Alabama, North Dakota, Pennsylvania
North Dakota, Pennsylvania Wyoming
What are states in either Sign an MOU stating agreement to:
consortium required to • Adopt a common core of content for ELA and math by December 12, 2011
do?
• Use consortium’s tests as federal accountability system by 2014–2015
school yeara
Project Management Achieve, Inc. WestEd

49

Committees or Working • Governing board • Executive committee (full governing
Groups • Advisory committee on college board consists of K–12 leads from
readiness governing states)
• Technical advisory committee • Higher education leads
• Leadership team • Technical advisory committee
• Postsecondary leadership team • Students with disabilities advisory
committee
• Technical advisory
• English language learners advisory
• Technical working groups
committee
• Operational working groups
• Accessibility and accommodations
• Content leadsa working group
• Formative assessment practices and
professional learning working group
• Item development working group
• Performance tasks working group
• Reporting working group
• Validation and psychometrics
working group
• Technology approach working group
• Test administration working group
• Test design working group
• Transition to CCSS working groupb
SOURCE: Adapted from Sawchuk (2010).

NOTES: The procuring state is the “fiscal agent” that oversees all financial procurement on behalf of the
consortia. Governing states are those states that have fully committed to implementing their consortium’s
assessment system by the 2014–2015 school year. Each governing state controls one vote in either the
governing board (PARCC) or the steering committee (Smarter Balanced), which are the main
policymaking bodies for the consortia. Participating or advisory states can belong to either consortia, and
participate in activities of both for now, but they must decide by the 2014–2015 school year which
assessment system they will implement and thereby commit to one consortium.
a
Achieve, Inc. (2010).
b
State of Washington (n.d.).

50

Table B.3
Grade Level and Timing of Assessments

Grade level assessments Both consortia designed assessments for primary and secondary school.
High school assessments Requires tests in grades 9–11 One required test in 11th grade, and
optional interim assessments for grades
9 and 10

SOURCE: Table adapted from Tamayo (2010).

Table B.4
Types of Assessments

End of year One end of year assessment in ELA One summative assessment per year in
and one in mathematics reading; one in writing, listening,
speaking, and language; one in
mathematics; assessments consist of
computer adaptive test and
performance tasks
Through-course Quarterly assessments in ELA and N/A
mathematics that are included in
the summative, end-of-year scores
for accountability
Performance-based Both consortia use “performance-based” assessments, including research and
essay writing, to measure higher-order critical thinking
Formative Both consortia offer the option of accessing a broad range of formative
assessments to provide teachers with feedback on students’ learning needs
throughout the year


51

Table B.5
Content of Assessments

Assessment description: • End of year literacy • Summative assessment instrument
ELA in English language arts/literacy
• “Through-course” focused
literacy (including reading, writing,
listening and research)
• “Through-course” extended
research/writing
• “Through-course” speaking and
listening
Assessment description: • End of year math • Summative assessment instrument
math in math (concepts and procedures,
• “Through-course” focused
assessment of essential topics problem solving, communicating
reasoning, modeling and data
• “Through-course” extended analysis)
math assessment
Measure higher order Both consortia will explore the use of “technology enhanced” items that
thinking ability measure higher order critical thinking abilities. This could include requiring
students to interact with an on-screen graph, for example.

52

Table B.6
Procedural Issues

a
Technology for test Computer-based, web-delivered Computer-adaptive, web-delivereda
delivery Smarter Balanced will offer a paper
and pencil option for the first 3 years of
operational testing
Scoring of tests Combination of human and Combination of human and computer
computer scoring, but allow states scoring, but stronger approach to
to determine whether teachers teacher scoring as tool for professional
would participate in scoringa developmenta
Cutoff scores Finalize assessment standards and Set initial cutoff scores in summer
cutoff scores after full-scale 2014 after field testingb
administration in 2014–2015b
Data sharing capability Both consortia plan to develop systems for sharing data with educators,
parents, and teachers throughout the year,a including annual and periodic
reports for individual students, classes, schools, districts, and statesb
Unique features Development of assessment Development of “interim” assessments
instrument to determine whether to gauge student progress and pinpoint
students can succeed in college areas of weakness which are not linked
without remediation, and/or to accountability determinations;
graduate with proficiency for entry- computer adaptive testing
level jobsa
Timeline Implementation at scale at all consortia sites by 2014–2015b
NOTES:
a
Sawchuk (2010).
b
Tamayo (2010).

53

Table B.7
Higher Education Involvement

Agreements of 755 colleges and universities have 175 public and 13 private
collaboration with committed to participating in systems/institutions of higher education
institutions of higher PARCCa
education
Alignment with higher Participating institutions of higher education will use consortia assessments as
education indicators of students’ readiness for placement into entry-level, credit-bearing
courseworkc
Higher education Postsecondary faculty from math, Higher education representatives were
representatives or English, and composition on the committee, advisory
faculty participation in participated in the design, committees, and all working groupsb
drafting process development, and review of
assessmentsa
Professional positions • Higher education leadership • Director of higher education
or bodies devoted to team collaboration position
higher education
• National-level advisory • 5 part-time regional senior advisors
collaboration
committee on college readiness • Higher education leads for each
(ACCR)a stateb
• Senior fellow for postsecondary
engagement positiond
• Program associate for
postsecondary engagementd
NOTES:
a
PARCC (n.d.).
b
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2012).
c
Sawchuk (2010).
d
PARCC (n.d.).

54

References

Achieve, Inc. (n.d.) What is college- and career-ready [Position Paper]. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/AchievingThePossible-
FinalReport.pdf
ACT, Inc. (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different? (Brief). Iowa City,
IA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ReadinessBrief.pdf
ACT, Inc. (2010). What are ACT’s college readiness benchmarks? (Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/benchmarks.pdf
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational
and Adult Education.
Alliance for Excellence in Education. (2012, April 12). The principal’s role in the Common
Core State Standards [webinar]. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/blog/webinar_principals_role_common_core_state_standards
American Association of Community Colleges (2012). Reclaiming the American dream: A
report from the 21st-Century Commission on the future of community colleges.
Washington, DC: Author.
Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Attewell, P. A., Lavin, D. E., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886–924.
Bailey, T. (2009). Rethinking developmental education in community college (CCRC Brief No.
40). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2011) Introduction to the CCRC assessment of
evidence series. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community
College Research Center.
Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2010). Student progression through developmental
sequences in community colleges (CCRC Brief No. 45). New York, NY: Columbia
University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Barnett, E. A., Corrin, W., Nakanishi, A., Bork, R. H., Mitchell, C., Sepanik, S., … Clabaugh,
N. (2012). Preparing high school students for college: An exploratory study of college
readiness partnership programs in Texas. New York, NY: National Center for
Postsecondary Research.

55

Barnett, E. A., & Hughes, K. L. (2010). Community college and high school partnerships (Issue
Brief). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Barnett, E.A., & Stamm, L. (2010). Dual enrollment: A strategy for educational advancement of
all students. Washington, DC: Blackboard Institute.
Belfield, C., & Crosta, P. (2012). Predicting success in college: The importance of placement
tests and high school transcripts (CCRC Working Paper No. 42). New York, NY:
Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Boatman, A. (2012). Evaluating institutional efforts to streamline postsecondary remediation:
The causal effects of the Tennessee developmental course redesign initiative on early
student academic success (An NCPR Working Paper). New York, NY: National Center
for Postsecondary Research.
Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does remediation work for all students? How the effects of
postsecondary remedial and developmental courses vary by level of academic
preparation (An NCPR Working Paper). New York, NY: National Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). States’ progress and challenges in implementing Common
Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
College Board. (April 16, 2012). The College Board launches Affinity Network, convening K-12
and Higher ed sectors to create best practices in education. Retrieved from
http://press.collegeboard.org/releases/2012/college-board-launches-affinity-network-
convening-k-12-and-higher-ed-sectors-create-best-pra
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). In the states. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.) States that have formally adopted the Common
Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Volume 3). Eugene, OR: Educational
Policy Improvement Center.
Conley, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Seburn, M., Stout, O., Rooseboom, J.
(2011). Lining up: The relationship between the Common Core State Standards and five
sets of comparison standards. Eugene, OR: Education Policy Improvement Center
(EPIC).
Education Trust. (2011). Opportunities (and perils) for systems moving towards the Common
Core State Standards: A white paper commissioned for the National Association of
System Heads. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.clarion.edu/281139.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Next generation sunshine state standards. Retrieved
from http://www.fldoe.org/bii/curriculum/sss/

56

Fuller, B. (2011 January 5). Room for debate: Understandable but wrong. The New York Times
Opinion Pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Goldstein, M. (2010 July 29). Room for debate: At risk children will benefit. The New York
Times Opinion Pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2008). A progressive case for educational standardization: How
not to respond to the Spellings report. Academe Online. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/MJ/Feat/graf.htm
Grubb, N., Boner, E., Frankel, K., Parker, L., Patterson, D., Gabriner, R., … Wilson, S. (2011).
Basic skills instruction in community colleges: the dominance of remedial pedagogy
(Working Paper No. 2). Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley and the RP Group.
Hirsh, S. (2012, January 31). Common-Core work must include teacher development.
Education Week, 31(19). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Howell, J. S., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E. (2010). Postsecondary preparation and
remediation: Examining the effect of the early assessment program at California State
University. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(4), 726–748. doi:
10.1002/pam.20526
Hughes, K. L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community
colleges (CCRC Working Paper No. 19, Assessment of Evidence Series).New York,
NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Karp, M. M., & Bork, R.H. (2012). “They never told me what to expect, so I didn’t know what
to do”: Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student (CCRC
Working Paper No. 47) New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
Kahlenburg, R. D. (2011 April 7). Room for debate: Common Standards are helpful. The New
York Times Opinion Pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. (2013). Senate Bill 1 (2009) College and Career
Readiness. Retrieved from
http://cpe.ky.gov/policies/academicinit/senbill1/
Kober, N., & Renter, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Education
Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=391
Lewin, T. (2010, July 21). Many states adopt national standards for their schools. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Martorell, P., & McFarlin, I. J. (2011). Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on
academic and labor market outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2),
436–454.

57

PARCC. (n.d.). About PARCC. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/about-parcc
Phillips, B. C., & Vandal, B. (2011, November 1). Standards: A critical need for K-16
collaboration. Education Week, 31(10). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Porter, W., Riley, R., Towne, L., Hightower, A. M., Lloyd, S. C., Sellers, K. L., & Swanson, C.
B. (2012). Preparing for change: A national perspective on the Common Core State
Standards implementation planning (Report). Seattle, WA: Education First and
Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/preparingforchange-17standards.pdf
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. (2012). Core to College request for proposals. New York,
NY: Author.
Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: the Common Core Standards and the next chapter
in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). Do high-stakes placement exams predict college success? (CCRC
Working Paper No. 41). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
Scott-Clayton, J., & Rodriguez, O. (2012). Development, discouragement, or diversion? New
evidence on the effects of college remediation (NBER Working Paper No. 18328).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2012). Smarter balanced: Sample items and
performance tasks [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/pubdocs/SmarterBalanced_SampleItems_Webinar.p
ptx
Sawchuk, S. (2011, May 27). U.S. reforms out of sync with high-performing nations, report
finds. Education Week, 30(33). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Sawchuk, S. (2010, July 9). Three groups apply for Race to Top Test grants. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
State of Washington. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/resources-events/faqs/
Stotsky, S. (2010, September 23). Equalizing mediocrity. The New York Times Opinion Pages.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Tamayo, J. R. (2010). Assessment 2.0: “Next-Generation” comprehensive assessment systems.
Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute Education and Society Program.
U.S. Department of Education, Press Office. (2010). U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan
announces winners of competition to improve student assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-
winners-competition-improve-student-asse

58

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2011). The Common Core Standards:
Implications for higher education in the West. Boulder, CO: Author.

59

Ccrc%20+%20common%20core 2

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Ccrc%20+%20common%20core 2 (20)

Ccrc%20+%20common%20core 2