The Common Core Math Standards –
Can We Get There From Here?
How American Students Measure Up
James R. McBride
VP, Chief Psychometrician
Renaissance Learning, Inc.
1
Outline
Background
Methods
Results
Interpretation
Next Steps
2
Background
In 2010, the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed the
Common Core State Standards in Math and English/Language
Arts.
Designed to help make U.S. students more competitive
internationally, the Common core standards are intended to be
higher than current standards, with college and career readiness
as their end goal.
To date, all but a handful of U.S. states and territories have
adopted them, and are now working to revise state curriculum
standards to reflect the “Common Core” standards.
3
Two federally-funded consortia of states have been
formed to develop innovative assessment systems based
on the Common Core.
Common Core summative assessments are scheduled for
first use in state accountability testing in the 2014-2015
school year.
Little is known about how U.S. students currently
perform relative to these new standards. Renaissance
Learning has initiated a program of research to provide
advance information about the status of US students
relative to the Common Core Math Standards.
4
Project Overview
Each year, several million K-12 students take STAR Math,
Renaissance Learning’s computerized adaptive interim
assessment of general math achievement. Beginning in 2008,
Renaissance Learning has developed and field tested almost 10
thousand new STAR Math items measuring more than 500
standards-based skills, and calibrated them using the Rasch
model. Thousands of those items have been aligned to the
new Common Core Math Standards.
Selected items that align to the Common core were chosen
for use in a research program designed to provide an early
appraisal of U.S. proficiency on some of the Common Core
Math Standards. What follows is a summary of the design of
that research, as well as the early findings.
5
Methods
The study consists of a number of Common
Core-aligned items embedded as “experimental
items” in STAR Math, and randomly chosen for
administration to the universe of students taking
STAR Math on the Renaissance Place RealTime™
platform. Response data from that platform is
available to Renaissance Learning for research
use.
6
Standards
2011, Spring and Fall:
-- 52 CCSS skills/objectives
-- spanning grades 1 through 10,
These were deemed exemplars of the core
standards.
2012, Spring:
-- 7 additional standards were added.
7
Test Items
2011, Spring and Fall:
-- 105 CCSS-aligned STAR Math items
-- 2 to 15 items per grade
-- 2 or more items per objective
2012, Spring:
-- 14 more items were added
-- 119 items in all
8
Item Counts by Domain and Grade Level
Domain
Item Grade Level
1
2
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
6
0
7
2
8
2
9 10 Total
4 2
14
Data Analysis
& Statistics
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Geometry &
Measmt
2
0
0
2
5
2
0
4
0
0
15
Numbers &
Operations
14
7 10 12
6
2
0
88
Total
18 10 16 15 14 12 14 12
6
2
119
Algebra
8 16 13
9
Students
All students taking STAR Math on the RP
RealTime™ platform took one or more unscored
CCSS-aligned test items, randomly chosen from the
grade-specific sets of items
-- random assignment of items to students
-- items embedded in random positions
within the STAR Math tests.
Most students took 1 or 2 Common Core-aligned
items. Each item was administered to students in
its target grade, as well as the next higher grade.
10
Time of Year
2011, Spring: Data from May and June 2011
– End of the 2010-11 school year
-- More than 200,000 students
2011, Fall: Data from August and September 2011
-- Start of the 2011-12 school year
-- More than 300,000 students
2012, Spring: Data from mid-April – mid-May 2012
-- End of the 2011-12 school year
-- More than 450,000 students
-- 3,259 schools
11
Student Data in the 2012 Study:
462,845 students
3,259 schools
Number
Grade of Tests
1 58,248
Grade
6
Number
of Tests
31,574
2
79,306
7
23,417
3
91,256
8
25,456
4
78,765
9
9106
5
57,408
10
8309
12
Outcome Variables
Percent Correct was calculated for each Common
Core-aligned item. On-grade percent correct was
the variable of primary interest.
Other item statistics, including item-score
correlations and Rasch difficulty parameters, were
calculated but are not reported here.
13
Selected Results
14
Average Rasch Item Difficulty
By Grade
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
15
Average Percent Correct
Overall: 59%
70%
60%
50%
All
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Average Percent Correct
16
Average Percent Correct
by Grade
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
Interpretation
-- Overall proficiency level (59%) is
misleading, due to large differences
among grades.
-- Grades 1-3 overall proficiency seems
satisfactory now, even though CCSS is
not yet implemented.
18
-- Steady decline from grade 4 to 10
gives pause. What does it signify?
- Difficulties ahead?
- Differences between 20102012 curricula and CCSS?
- Is it attributable to curriculum?
Instruction? Teacher preparation?
More than one of these?
19
Percent Correct
Spring 2011 (x-axis) vs. Spring 2012 (y-axis)
105 original HASMU items
100%
80%
60%
Reference Line
40%
20%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
- Percent correct on each item hardly
changed from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012
-- Average difference =1%
-- Little variation (SD = 2%)
-
-Remarkably similar results both years
-- Suggestive of a “stable system”?
-- Will implementation of CCSS make
a difference?
-- How large?
-- How soon?
21
Percent Correct
Fall 2011 and Spring 2012
100%
80%
60%
Reference line
Grades 1-3
40%
Grades 4-6
20%
Grades 7-10
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
22
- Percent correct did increase from Fall
2011 to Spring 2012
-- Largest changes: Grades 1 to 3
-- Smaller changes: Grades 4-6
-- Least change: Grades 7-10
-What does this suggest?
-- Closer alignment of current curricula
to CCSS in lower grades?
-- More effective instruction there?
-- Do younger kids just grow faster?
23
-- “Can we get there from here?”
24
Next Steps
-- Technical report on 2010-12 study
-- Replicate for 2012-13 with expanded
scope
- Assess Fall-Spring 2012-13 growth
- Expand coverage of CCSS content
- Still too early to see impact of
CCSS-based curricula?
25
Questions
For further information:
james.mcbride@renlearn.com
26