The Impact of the Common

Core State Standards on

U.S. Mathematics Education

Nicole Murley
Advisor: Susan Toma, Ph. D.
Fall 2016
 What were some of the outcomes of
the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in U.S. mathematics
education?

Thesis How did the CCSS change

mathematics instruction?
While the effectiveness of the
Did the CCSS affect student
CCSS remains unclear, it is
achievement?
evident that they have
significantly impacted U.S.
education in lasting ways.
Introduction

● The CCSS were a solution to U.S. failing internationally

● They resulted in significant shifts in
○ Curriculum coherence, rigor, and focus
○ Classroom practices
○ Assessment quality and method
○ Political and human resource structure of the U.S. education system
Introduction

● They were readily adopted by 46 states in 2010

● However, the CCSS were highly controversial
○ Several states withdrew or repealed from the CCSS in 2014-2016
○ Michigan is considering repealing the CCSS in favor of the
Massachusetts state standards from 2008-09
 Coherence: Drawing connections
between related subjects and topics
within the discipline
Changes in
Focus: Developing in-depth
instruction explorations of fewer topics

resulting from Rigor: Increasing cognitive demand

from recall to synthesis and analysis
the CCSS
Emphasis on coherence, rigor,
and focus
Increased coherence

● Pre-CCSS: “Textbook math”

○ Teachers covered textbooks in sequence
○ Concepts were poorly connected or not connected at all
○ Poor retention
● CCSS mathematics
○ Fewer different topics per year
○ Classroom focus is on drawing connections
○ Recalling prior knowledge
○ Interdisciplinary connections
Increased coherence
Example: Elementary Fractions

the CCSS expected that third grade students

“understand a fraction as a number on the number line;

represent fractions on a number line diagram,” and “explain

equivalence of fractions in special cases, and compare

fractions by reasoning about their size” (CCSSI 2010, p. 24).

Increased
coherence

Using equivalent portions of a square and equivalent segments on a

number line to illustrate the concepts related to fractions (Wu 2014).
Fractions were previously presented as parts of a whole with no further
explanation. This approach develops student concept of fractions as
numbers.
Increased coherence
Example: Elementary Fractions

Students then used concepts of fractions to complete

more difficult estimations and calculations in fifth grade.

Increased coherence

Engage NY. 2016. 2016 grade 5 mathematics released questions.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/released-2016-3-8-ela-and-mathematics-state-test-questions
Increased coherence

Engage NY. 2016. 2016 grade 5 mathematics released questions.

https://www.engageny.org/resource/released-2016-3-8-ela-and-mathematics-state-test-questions
Increased
coherence

Engage NY. 2016. 2016

grade 5 mathematics
released questions.
https://www.engageny.org/
resource/released-2016-3-
8-ela-and-mathematics-sta
te-test-questions
Increased rigor

● Higher demands of cognitive complexity

● Standards aim for application and synthesis of knowledge
● Students are asked to understand and present concepts
from multiple perspectives
 Increased rigor

CCSS
Target

Coffey H. Bloom’s taxonomy. Old Standards

UNC College of Education.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages
Target
/4719
Increased rigor

Example: Middle school geometry

In the state of Michigan, 28% of the geometry CCSS were

presented in earlier middle school grades than Michigan’s

pre-CCSS standards, and 14% were entirely new to the

state (Teuscher, Tran, and Reys 2015).

Increased rigor

Constructing and examining properties of geometric figures (Teuscher, Tran,

and Reys 2015, p. 10) Students in 6th grade were asked to “Draw a triangle (if
possible) that has one angle of 30° and one angle of 60° and a side length of 4 units.
How many triangles can be drawn with these given conditions?”
Increased rigor

Visual representation of a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (Teuscher,

Tran, and Reys 2015, p. 11). Students in 8th grade were asked to explain
how the two squares were related using the guided questions, “how are the
areas of the various shapes related to each other,” and “can these figures be
used to derive and explain the Pythagorean Theorem?”
Increased focus

● Instead of covering more topics per year, students cover

fewer topics and “dive deeper” into learning
● Additional class time devoted to mathematical practice
standards
○ New standards in the CCSS
○ Recommendations from NCTM process standards and National
Research Council’s Adding It Up
○ Purpose: to strengthen mathematical process knowledge while also
learning content knowledge
Practice standard 1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
(Gaddy et al. 2014)
Practice standard 2: reason abstractly and quantitatively (Marchitello and Wilhelm
2014)
The Heartland Institute. 2016. Common core.
https://www.heartland.org/sebin/x/u/heartland-commoncore-math.png
Practice standard 3: critique the reasoning of others (Engage NY 2016).
Practice standard 8: Find regularity in repeated reasoning (Silbey 2016, p. 519)
 Impact on Do the CCSS impact student

Student achievement?

Achievement
Data from the SAT and National
Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP)
Measures of Student
Achievement
● GPA
○ Commonly used for college acceptance
○ HIGHLY subjective
 GPA vs. SAT score
High school GPA and SAT
scores for high school
graduates from 1998 -
2016. GPA inflation
occurred from 2008 - 2014,
when more students were
graduating with GPAs in the
“A” range while SAT scores
remained fairly constant or
slightly decreased over time
(College Board 2016).
Measures of Student
Achievement
● GPA
○ Commonly used for college acceptance
○ HIGHLY subjective
● SAT scores
○ Standardized
○ Comparability to ACT - but not exact
○ Inconsistently used among states in various regions
SAT participation
variability by
state

Percentage of SAT test-takers and average SAT math scores by state in 2009.
States who scored highest on the SAT also held the lowest student participation
percentages. This makes the SAT an unreliable measure for inter-state
comparisons (Rampell 2009).
Measures of Student
Achievement
● GPA
○ Commonly used for college acceptance
○ HIGHLY subjective
● SAT scores
○ Standardized
○ Comparability to ACT - but not exact
○ Inconsistently used among states in various regions
● NAEP
○ Administered every other year in grades 4-12
○ High participation in public schools nationwide
Research Methodology

● States with full CCSS implementation: Idaho, Kentucky,

New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Wyoming
○ Study 1: years of implementation vs. change in SAT math score
○ Study 2: change in grade 4 NAEP scores 2011-2015
● States without CCSS adoption: Alaska, Minnesota (ELA
only), Nebraska, Texas, Virginia
○ Study 1: change in SAT score from 2011-2016
○ Study 2: change in grade 4 NAEP scores 2011-2015
● Do the CCSS have a significant impact on student
achievement?
 Linear regression for the change in mean SAT math score over time among
states with full CCSS implementation
Idaho Kentucky New Hampshire Ohio Rhode Island Wyoming

Slope of -2 1.4 0.1 0 -1.7 -0.5

Results from SAT regression:

Correlation: -0.366 0.540 0.134 0 -0.544 -0.5

States with and without
CCSS implementation
followed similar Linear regression for the change in mean SAT score over time among
states without CCSS adoption
patterns in mean SAT
math score growth. Alaska Minnesota Nebraska Texas Virginia

Slope of
regression:
-3.086 1.771 1.657 -1.771 -0.057
Correlation: -0.623 0.575 0.742 -0.861 -0.104
 t P t P
(year 1 ≠ year 0)- (year 1 ≠ year 0)-- (2016 ≠ year 0)- (2016 ≠ year 0)--

Idaho -2.602 0.009 -5.171 < 0.0001

Kentucky 1.002 0.316 7.734 < 0.0001
New
Hampshire 1.398 0.162 2.066 0.039
Ohio 0.894 0.371 0.848 0.396
Rhode Island 3.357 0.001 -0.554 0.580
Wyoming -1.230 0.220 0.087 0.931
Significance test for improvement in SAT math score among states with full
CCSS implementation.
 t P
(2016 ≠ 2011)- (2016 ≠ 2011)--
Alaska
-13.377 < 0.0001
Minnesota
4.436 < 0.0001
Nebraska
0.666 0.506
Texas
-64.590 < 0.0001
Virginia
12.555 < 0.0001

Significance test for improvement in SAT math score among states without
CCSS adoption.
Limitations of the
SAT
Mean SAT math score
versus number of
test-takers of selected
states in 2016. Mean SAT
math scores were
negatively associated with
number of test-takers in
any given state in 2016 (R
= -0.429), confirming
findings from Rampell
(2009).
Limitations of the
SAT Kentucky (implementation year: 2011-2012)
Year I Academic N test-takers Change in N Mean SAT math SD Change in mean
year score score
0 2011 2692 0 572 109 0
1 2012 2526 -166 575 107 3
2 2013 2158 -368 584 108 9
3 2014 1944 -214 585 109 1
4 2015 1731 -213 587 112 2
5 2016 1528 -203 599 109 12

The number of graduates taking the SAT also varied within individual states over
time.
Results from
grade 4 NAEP Year State Mean scale Significance test (y2 ≠ y1)
score
Grade 4 NAEP math
2013 New Hampshire 253 x, P = 0.22
scores for the majority of
2015 New Hampshire 249 2015 < 2013,
states did not significantly
P < 0.001
change from 2011-2015.
2011 Wyoming 244 --
Both states with and 2013 Wyoming 247 2013 > 2011,
without CCSS P < 0.001
implementation Significant changes in NAEP mean scale score for states with
experienced significant full CCSS implementation
growth and regression.
Results from Year State Mean scale Significance test (y2 ≠ y1)

grade 4 NAEP score

2011 Minnesota 249 --

2013 Minnesota 253 2013 > 2011,
P = 0.005
2015 Minnesota 250 2015 < 2013,
P = 0.02
2011 Nebraska 240 --
2013 Nebraska 243 2013 > 2011,
P = 0.02

Significant changes in NAEP mean scale score for states

without CCSS adoption
 Inconsistency in the standards

Difficulty implementing the

standards

Criticisms of the Difficulty evaluating effectiveness of

standards

CCSS Political controversy surrounding

the CCSS
There are numerous.
Difficulty
implementing the
standards

Teachers’ perceptions about

professional development
related to the CCSS
(Education Week Research
Center 2014, p. 19).
Difficulty
implementing the
standards

Teachers’ perceptions about

professional development
related to the CCSS
(Education Week Research
Center 2014, p. 19).
 Shifts in instruction toward
coherence, rigor, and focus

Shifts in achievement: no significant

Summary improvements or regressions

The CCSS have significantly Criticisms for lack of consistency

impacted U.S. mathematics and difficulty implementing the
education although their effect standards
on student achievement has not
been confirmed.

Conclusion
For better or for worse, the CCSS
have permanently changed the
nature of mathematics
education.
Proponents say Michigan may be
giving up on the CCSS too soon.
Those against are happy to see them
go.
The CCSS may have been
theoretically beneficial but
impractical to implement.
Both the successes and the failures
of the CCSS will drive educational
decisions for years to come.
 University of Michigan, Brown
University, and Stanford University
study (expected 2021):

Will use the Stanford Database to

Future Work examine longitudinal outcomes of
the CCSS on student achievement
“fully implementing the CCSS is
a complex undertaking that will take
Focused on the impact of the CCSS
time and will affect many aspects of
on educational disparity based on
the education system-from
curriculum, instruction, and race
assessment to teacher policies and
higher education” (Center on
Education Policy 2012, p. 10).
References
Academic Benchmarks. 2016. Common Core State Standards adoption map [accessed 3 Sept 2016].
http://academicbenchmarks.com/common-core-state-adoption-map/

Beckers GG, Saal LK. 2014. MIA: text complexity in the mathematics common core state
standards? Childhood Education 90.2.

Bidwell A. 2014 Feb 27. The history of common core state standards. U.S. News & World Report;
2014 Feb [accessed 2016 Oct 24].
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-common-core-state
-standards

Center for American Progress. 2014. Fact sheet: Michigan common core: advancing student
achievement [accessed 2016 Oct 24].
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCSS-MI.pdf

Center on Education Policy. 2012. Year two of implementing the common core state standards:
states’ progress and challenges [accessed 2016 Oct 26]. http://www.cep-dc.org/

Chandler K, Fortune N, Lovett JN, Scherrer J. 2016. What should common core assessments
measure? Phi Delta Kappan 97.5: 60.
References
Chavez O, Tarr JE, Grouws DA, Soria VM. 2013. Third-year high school mathematics curriculum:
effect of content organization and curriculum implementation. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education; 2015: 13(Suppl 1):S97-S120.

Codding RS, Mercer S, Connell J, Fiorello C, Kleinert W. 2016. Mapping the relationships among
basic facts, concepts and application, and common core curriculum-based mathematics measures.
School Psychology Review 45.1: 19.

College Board. 2016. SAT program participation and performance statistics. The College Board;
2016 [accessed 2016 Nov 9]. https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). 2010. Common core state standards for
mathematics.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). 2016. About the standards: myths vs. facts
[accessed 2016 Oct 25]. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts/

Comparing the common core state standards in mathematics and japan's mathematics curriculum in
the course of study. achieving the common core. 2010. Washington, DC: Achieve. 5 p.

Comparing the common core State Standards in mathematics and Singapore’s mathematics syllabus.
Achieving the common core. 2010. Washington, DC: Achieve. 5 p.
References
Comparing the common core state standards in mathematics to california and massachusetts
standards. achieving the common core. 2010. Washington, DC: Achieve. 5 p.

Doorey N. 2012. Coming soon: a new generation of assessments. Educational Leadership

70(4):28-34.

EWRC (Education Week Research Center). From adoption to practice: teacher perspectives on the
common core. 2014. Bethesda (MD): Education Week. 35 p.

Gaddy AK, Harmon SE, Barlow AT, Milligan CD, Huang R. 2014. Implementing the common core:
Applying shifts to instruction. Mathematics Teacher 108(2):108-13.

Hirsh S. 2012. Common-core work must include teacher development: Standards movement must
embrace teacher professional learning. Education Week 31(19):22-24.

Hughes GB, Daro P, Holtzman D, Middleton K. 2013. A study of the alignment between the NAEP
mathematics framework and the common core state standards for mathematics (CCSS-M).
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 78 p.

IES (Institute of Education Sciences). 2015. National assessment of educational progress (NAEP),
2011, 2013 and 2015 mathematics assessments. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics; 2016 [accessed 2016 Nov 9]. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/
References
Jenkins S, Agamba JJ. 2013. The missing link in the CCSS initiative: professional development for
implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 17(2):69-79.

Jochim A, McGuinn P. 2016. The politics of the common core assessments. Education Next 16(4):
45-52.

Marchitello M, Wilhelm M. 2014. The cognitive science behind the common core. Center for
American Progress.

McVicar B. 2016 Apr 26. Senate committee approves legislation to drop 'disastrous' common core
standards. MLive; 2016 [accessed 2016 Oct 26].
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/04/senate_committee_approves_legi.html

Meyer L. 2016. U Michigan to lead $5 million common core study. THE Journal; 2016 [accessed
2016 Oct 26].
https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/10/06/university-of-michigan-wins-$5-million-grant-to-study-co
mmon-core.aspx

Michigan Department of Education (MDE). 2016. Annual report 2015-2016 [accessed 2016 Oct 28].
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MDE_Annual_Report_2015-2016_526801_7.pdf

Permuth S, Dalzell N. 2013. Driven by history: mathematics education reform. International Journal
of Educational Reform 22.3:235.
References
Rampell C. 2009 Aug 28. Why the midwest rules on the SAT. The New York Times; 2009 [cited
2016 Nov 9].
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/why-the-midwest-rules-on-the-sat/?_r=0

Rentner DS, Kober N, McMurrer J, Yoshioka N, Frizzell M, Ferguson M. 2013. Year 3 of

implementing the common core state standards: states prepare for common core assessments.
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. 14 p.

Rowan B, Cohen DK, Moffitt SL, Reardon SF. 2016. Under construction: the rise, spread, and
consequences of the common core state standards initiative in the U.S. education sector - a study
co-investigated by Susan Moffitt. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown
University; 2016 [cited 2016 Oct 25].
http://watson.brown.edu/news/2016/under-construction-rise-spread-and-consequences-common-cor
e-state-standards-initiative-us

Schmidt WH, Houang RT. 2012. Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for
mathematics. Educational Researcher 41(8):294-308.

Sforza D, Tienken CH, Kim E. 2016. A comparison of higher-order thinking between the common
core state standards and the 2009 New Jersey content standards in high school. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice 12(4):5-31.
References
Silbey R. 2016. A closer look at standard 8: look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
Teaching Children Mathematics 22(9):519. Reston (VA): National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Teuscher D, Tran D, Reys B. 2015. Common core state standards in the middle grades: what’s new
in the geometry domain and how can teachers support student learning? School Science and
Mathematics 115(1):4-13.

Will 2014 Nov 10. In transition to common core, some schools turn to ‘integrated’ math. Education
Week; 2014 [accessed 2016 Nov 9].
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12cc-integratedmath.h34.html

Wu H. 2011. Phoenix rising: bringing the common core state mathematics standards to life.
American Educator 35.3.

Wu H. 2014. Teaching fractions according to the common core state standards. University of
California, Berkeley. 88 p.

Wurman Z, Wilson WS. 2012. The common core math standards. Education Next 12(3).
 Dr. Susan Toma, for guidance and
Acknowledgements assistance
Questions?