How Common Core Lives - Successes and Challenges of the “New” College-and Career-Readiness Standards

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

Brief examining whether the “new” college-and-career readiness standards are effectively replacing the former Common Core brand in Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky. The analysis summarizes seven implementation trends, highlighting local control, demand for instructional resources and coaching, movement away from punitive accountability, and varying educator buy-in. Special focus covers English learners’ roles in WIDA and ELPA21, and infrastructure gaps for teachers serving students with disabilities that reduce standards support.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Trend 1 - Local control and instructional guidance

Trend 2 - Aligned resources and professional development

Trend 3 - Coaching and the risks of one-time interventions

Trend 4 - Moving away from No Child Left Behind-era accountability

Trend 5 - Teacher buy-in for state standards

Trend 6 - English learner policy roles of WIDA and ELPA21

Trend 7 - Support gaps for students with disabilities

APRIL 2019 How Common Core Lives: Successes and Challenges of the “New” College-and CareerReadiness Standards BY ADAM K. EDGERTON This brief is derived from “Successes and Challenges ofthe ‘New’ College-and Career-Ready Standards: Seven Implementation Trends” by Laura M. Desimone, Amy Stornaiuolo, Nelson Flores, Katie Pak, Adam Edgerton, T. Philip Nichols, Emily C. Plummer, and Andrew Porter. Is the Common Core really “dead”? Though no longer called the Common Core in our three study states, the “new” college-and-career readiness standards still guide much of education policy in Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky. In our new feature article in Educational Researcher, lead author Dr. Laura Desimone, along with other faculty and doctoral students at the Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL), reveals seven trends guiding standards implementation today. Trend 1: “Local control” is king again, which creates new openings for states and districts. Policymakers are taking advantage of more policy flexibility to provide more detailed guidance on how to implement their state’s standards. Across our principal surveys, three-quarters of respondents report receiving specific guidance on instructional content in math and English, and on the order in which it should be taught. This specificity may be helping principals to serve as instructional leaders. Likewise, teachers feel that they understand the standards well, but they want more resources on how to implement them, especially digital tools. Trend 2: In this environment of local control, districts are struggling to provide well-aligned resources, including curricula and professional development. Thereis a wide range in the amount of time practitioners spend on professional development. Teachers report receiving only about 10 hours, on average, of mentoring or coaching during a school year, despite the well-established effectiveness of coaching. Based on our interviews and the existing research (e.g., Kraft & Blazar, 2018), we recommend investing in coaching instead of other forms of professional development. Trend 3: Districts that are succeeding at providing specific and aligned guidance provide more professional development. One rural district that we surveyed investsin school-based coaches in every school. Other districts, however, struggle to provide this level of support because of financial constraints, including one-time infusions of grant money that evaporate over time. Consistent with the large body of literature on professional development, we caution against one-time interventions, as they may decrease teacher buy-in towards standards (Edgerton & Desimone, 2018) . The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning [c-sail.org](c-sail.org) 1 Trend 4: We find a clear turn away from No Child Left Behind-era accountability. Across our interviews, states and districts are moving away from harsh consequences for poor achievement scores. Across our surveys, teachers, principals, and district officials also report relatively weak sanctions. We find no appetite for returning to harsh accountability despite some mixed and positive evidence for these practices (see Polikoff & Korn, 2018) . Trend 5: We find relatively high buy-in towards individual state standards among teachers. This finding stands in stark contrast to negative public opinion surrounding the Common Core. Without the burden of the Common Core label, states and districts are implementing standards in ways that seem to build buy-in among educators for each state’s standards. Trend 6: For English learners (ELs), we find that two consortia, WIDA and ELPA21, are playing increasingly prominent roles in shaping standards-based policies. This trend is especially true in Ohio and Kentucky, two states with smaller proportions of ELs compared to Texas. Districts are appreciative of the specificity these consortia provide to help ELs reach grade-level expectations. We recomm

FAQs

Why is local control considered important in the standards implementation?

The brief reports that local control creates openings for states and districts and enables more flexible policy guidance, including specific direction on math and English instructional content and sequencing.

What professional development approach is recommended based on the findings?

The brief recommends investing in coaching, noting that teachers reported limited mentoring or coaching time despite evidence supporting coaching effectiveness.

What challenges are identified for teachers supporting students with disabilities?

Teachers of students with disabilities lack needed infrastructure, leading to more disparate and disconnected resources and significantly lower buy-in for the standards across all three states.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret