Reaching the Goal:
The Applicability and
Importance of the
Common Core State
Standards to College and
Career Readiness
David T. Conley
Katie V. Drummond
Alicia de Gonzalez
Jennifer Rooseboom
Odile Stout
Research Questions
① How applicable are the Common Core standards to
college courses?
② When they are perceived as applicable, how
important are the Common Core standards to
college courses?
 1897 postsecondary instructors made two
straightforward judgments on a per-standard basis.
 All instructors were asked to rate all standards.
2
Summary of Findings
 Most Common Core standards received high ratings for applicability
and importance.
 ELA and literacy standards with highest ratings include those at higher
levels of scope and breadth:




mastering comprehension of nonfiction text with grade-appropriate complexity
extracting key ideas and details from text
possessing general writing skills and writing routinely
using research to support written analysis.
 Mathematics standards with highest ratings include those with an
emphasis on thinking, reasoning, problem solving:
 reasoning quantitatively
 interpreting functions
 The Standards for Mathematical Practice (emphasizing problem solving, analytic
thinking, and other thinking skills)
 96% of respondents agree that the Common Core State Standards
sufficiently challenge students to engage higher-level cognitive skills.
3
1897 Courses Rated
Content area
English
language arts
Course category
Composition I
Composition II
English Literature
Calculus
Mathematics
College Algebra
Statistics
Biology
Science
Chemistry
Physics
Introduction to Economics
Introduction to Psychology
Social science Introduction to Sociology
U.S. History
U.S. Government
Human Resource Management
Business
Introduction to Accounting
management Introduction to Business Management
Introduction to Marketing
Computer Science I
Computer
Database Management Systems
technology
Fundamentals of Programming
Anatomy and Physiology
Foundations of Nursing
Healthcare
Human Development
Pharmacology
N
Total
312
302
281
1315
420
243
153
582
186
4
1819 Respondents: 2-year vs. 4-year
Figure 5. Breakdown of Courses (n = 1897) by Institution
Type: 2-year vs. 4-year
2-year
40.4%
Figure 6. Breakdown of Courses (n = 1897) by Content Area and Type of Institution: 2-Year vs.
4-Year
4-year
59.6%
500
2-year
4-year
400
142
300
124
127
200
110
99
278
100
188
175
171
144
62
103
91
83
Computer
technology
Healthcare
0
English language
arts
Mathematics
Science
Social science
Business
management
Respondents Geographically Distributed
6
Respondents by Institution Type
Figure 1. Breakdown of Respondents (n = 1815) by
Institution Type: Public vs. Private Figure 3. Breakdown of Respondents (n = 1815) by Size of
Institution
Special focus
4.9%
Very large
2.5%
Very small
11.4%
Large
16.3%
Private
36.1%
Public 63.9%
Small
36.3%
Medium
28.6%
7
Applicability and Importance Rating Scales
 Instructors rated applicability of the CCSS for success in their course.
Prerequisite
Reviewed
Introduced
Subsequent
Not
Applicable
 If applicability rated in first three categories, then importance rated.
Least
Less
More
8
Most
Number of Rated Statements
English language arts and
literacy
Reading for Literature
Reading for Informational Texts
Mathematics
Writing
Number and Quantity
Speaking and Listening
Algebra
Language
Functions
Reading for Literacy in History/Social
Studies
Geometry
Reading for Literacy in Science and
Technical Subjects
Mathematical Practices
Writing for Literacy in History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical
Subjects
Total statements
Statistics and Probability
Total statements
200
113
9
Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy:
General Education Courses
Figure 14. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standar d within the ELA and Literacy Strand as
Applicable a to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science
ELA (312 respondents)
Math (302 respondents)
Science (281 respondents)
Social science (420 respondents)
Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0
Reading for
Literature
aApplicable
Reading for
Informational Texts
Writing
Speaking and
Listening
Language
is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Reading for
Reading for Writing for History/
History/Social
Science and
Social Studies,
Studies
Technical Subjects Science, and
Technical Subjects
10
Applicability Ratings for ELA and Literacy:
Career Oriented Courses
Figure 15. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standar d within the ELA and Literacy
Strand as Applicable a to their Course, for Business Management, Computer Technology, and
Healthcare
Business management (243 respondents)
Computer technology (153 respondents)
Percent
100
Healthcare (186 respondents)
80
60
40
20
0
Reading for
Literature
Reading for
Informational
Texts
aApplicable is considered
Writing
Speaking and
Listening
Language
a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Reading for
History/Social
Studies
Writing for
Reading for
History/Social
Science and
Technical Studies, Science,
and Technical
Subjects
Subjects
11
Overall Applicability for ELA & Literacy
• Percent of all respondents who rated at least one standard as either
Figure 13. Percent
of Respondents
Ratingintroduced,
at Least One Standar
d within the ELA and Literacy
prerequisite,
reviewed,
or subsequent.
Strands as Applicable a to their Course
Percent
100
100
99
96
94
All (1897 respondents)
85
79
80
82
ELA (312 respondents)
67
56
60
40
28
26
30
27
20
0
Reading for
Literature
Reading for
Informational
Texts
Writing
Speaking and
Listening
Language
Reading for
History/Social
Studies
Reading for
Science and
Technical
Subjects
Writing for
History/Social
Studies,
Science, and
Technical 12
Subjects
Importance Ratings
 Importance and average ratings rolled up to the
strand level
 Respondents chose from among an interval
scale:
 4 = most, 3 = more, 2 = less, and 1 = least.
 Means are to summarize responses only.
 Modal responses found in appendices indicate
most popular responses.
13
Reading Standards for Literature
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Bar chartRating
shows
averageforimportance
rating at strand level by subject area.
Figure 16.•Respondents
Importance
Reading
Standards for Literature
Strand
(n =bars
532),are
Percent
by Figure
• Light
green
subjects
with
<5% Importance
of responses.
17. Mean
Ratings for Reading Standards for
Content Area
Literature Respondents (n = 532), by Content Area
Computer
Technology
3.8%
4.00
Healthcare
5.5%
Overall mean a
3.2
3.00
Business
Management
13.0%
Social
Science
13.5%
2.00
ELA
54.9%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts
(n = 26)
(n = 292)
Science
4.5%
Math
4.9%
Science
(n = 24)
Social science Business
(n = 72)
management
(n = 69)
Computer
technology
(n = 20)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that respondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
aThe nine standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=532
Healthcare
(n = 29)
14
Reading Standards for Informational Texts
Figure 18.
Rating respondents
Importance for Reading
• Respondents
Pie chart shows
to this strand by subject area.
Standards for Informational Texts Strand (n = 487), Percent
• Bar
by Content
Areachart shows average importance rating at strand level by subject area.
• Light green bars are subjects with <5% of responses.
Computer
Technology
2.7%
Figure 19. Mean Importance Ratings for Reading Standards for
Informational Texts Respondents (n = 487), by Content Area
Healthcare
5.5%
4.00
Overall mean a
3.3
3.00
Business
Management
12.9%
Social
Science
10.5%
Science
3.3%
Math
3.5%
2.00
ELA
61.6%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts
(n = 17)
(n = 300)
Science
(n = 16)
Social science Business
(n = 51)
management
(n = 63)
Computer
technology
(n = 13)
Healthcare
(n = 27)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
aThe 10 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=487
15
Writing Standards
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Figure 20.•Respondents
Importance
Writing
Bar chartRating
shows
averageforimportance
rating at strand level by subject area.
Standards Strand (n = 504), Percent by Content Area
Figure 21. Mean Importance Ratings for Writing Standards
• Light green bars are subjects with
<5%(nof= 504),
responses.
Respondents
by Content Area
4.00
Computer
Technology Healthcare
5.2%
2.0%
Overall mean a
3.3
3.00
Business
Management
13.3%
2.00
Social
Science
10.7%
ELA
61.5%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 20)
(n = 310)
Science
3.4%
Math
4.0%
Science
(n = 17)
Social science Business
(n = 54)
management
(n = 67)
Computer
technology
(n = 10)
Healthcare
(n = 26)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
n=504
The 28 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
a
respondents for each standard.
16
Speaking and Listening Standards
Figure 22. Respondents Rating Importance for Speaking
and Listening
Strandrespondents
(n = 1500), Percent
by strand by subject area.
• PieStandards
chart shows
to this
Content• Area
Bar chart shows average importance rating at strand level by subject area.
• Light green bars are
Figure 23. Mean Importance Ratings for Speaking and Listening
Standards
Respondents
(n = 1500), by Content Area
subjects
with <5%
of responses.
4.00
Computer
Technology
7.4%
Overall mean a
3.1
Healthcare
10.2%
Business
Management
13.5%
3.00
ELA
17.7%
Math
11.2%
2.00
1.00
Social
Science
24.7%
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 168)
(n = 265)
Science
15.3%
Science
(n = 230)
Social science Business
(n = 370)
management
(n = 203)
Computer
technology
(n = 111)
Healthcare
(n = 153)
n=1500
aThe
10 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
17
Language Standards
Figure 24. Respondents Rating Importance for Language
• PieStrand
chart(nshows
to this
Areastrand by subject area.
Percent by Content
= 1549),respondents
Standards
• Bar chart shows average importance
strand
level
subject
area.
Standards
Language
for by
Ratings
Importance
25. Mean at
Figure rating
by Content Area
= 1549),
• Light green bars are subjectsRespondents
with <5%(n of
responses.
4.00
Computer
Technology
6.2%
Overall mean a
2.9
Healthcare
10.7%
Business
Management
13.1%
3.00
ELA
20.1%
2.00
Math
10.5%
1.00
Social
Science
24.3%
Mathematics
English
language arts (n = 162)
(n = 311)
Science
15.2%
Science
(n = 236)
Social science Business
(n = 376) management
(n = 203)
Computer
technology
(n = 96)
Healthcare
(n = 165)
The 17 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
n=1549
respondents for each standard.
a
18
Reading Standards Literacy in History/
Social Studies
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
gure 26. Respondents Rating Importance for Reading
27. Meanat
Importance
Reading
Standards
for
• Literacy
Bar chart
shows average
rating
strandRatings
levelforby
subject
area.
andards for
in History/Social
Studies importance
Strand (n Figure
=
History/Social Studies Respondents (n = 571), by
1), Percent by Content
Area
• Light
green bars are subjectsLiteracy
within<5%
of responses.
Content Area
4.00
Healthcare
6.3%
Computer
Technology
1.1%
ELA
14.5%
Business
Management
11.7%
Overall mean a
3.3
Math
2.1%
3.00
Science
2.5%
2.00
1.00
Social
Science
61.8%
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 12)
(n = 83)
Science
(n = 14)
Social science Business
Computer
(n = 353) management technology
(n = 67)
(n = 6)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that respondents from the content area compose less
n=571
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
aThe
10 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
Healthcare
(n = 36)
19
Reading Standards for Literacy in Science
&Technical Subjects
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Figure 29. Mean Importance Ratings for Reading Standards for
Figure 28. Respondents Rating Importance for Reading
•
Bar
chart
shows
average
importance
rating at strand level by subject area.
Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects
Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects Respondents (n =
Light
green
bars are
subjects1063),
with
responses.
Strand (n = •1063),
Percent
by Content
Area
by <5%
Contentof
Area
4.00
ELA
3.5%
Overall mean a
3.3
3.00
Healthcare
15.1%
Math
20.0%
2.00
Computer
Technology
11.9%
Business
Management
14.8%
Social
Science
10.0%
Science
24.6%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 213)
(n = 37)
Science
(n = 262)
Social science Business
Computer
(n = 106) management technology
(n = 157)
(n = 127)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that respondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
aThe 10 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=1063
Healthcare
(n = 161)
20
Writing for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
&Technical Subjects
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Figure 30. Respondents Rating Importance for Writing
chart
shows average
importance
strandRatings
level
subject
Figure rating
31. Mean at
Importance
for by
Writing
Standardsarea.
for
Standards• forBar
Literacy
in History/Social
Studies,
Science,
History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
• Light
green
are
subjects
within<5%
of responses.
and Technical Subjects
Strand
(n =bars
1257),
Percent
by Literacy
Respondents (n = 1257), by Content Area
Content Area
4.00
ELA
2.9%
Computer
Technology
8.1%
Healthcare
12.3%
Overall mean a
3.0
Math
12.5%
3.00
2.00
Science
19.6%
Business
Management
14.5%
1.00
Social
Science
30.1%
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 157)
(n = 37)
Science
(n = 247)
Social science Business
(n = 378) management
(n = 182)
Computer
technology
(n = 102)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the strand.
aThe 19 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=1257
Healthcare
(n = 154)
21
Additional Data in Full Report
• We present additional data in the report:
• average importance ratings at the topic level (the two to four
organizing categories or sub-areas)
• ratings at the standard level, with the four importance ratings
categories collapsed into dichotomous ratings: (1) more or
most important, or (2) less or least important
• standards that were rated above or below the average of
other standards in the strand
22
Additional Data in Full Report
• In an appendix, we show full ratings (applicability and importance
frequencies) for each standard.
FOR EXAMPLE:
23
Applicability Ratings for Mathematics:
General Education Courses
Figure 34. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standar d within the Mathematics
Conceptual Category as Applicable a to their Course, for ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science
ELA (312 respondents)
Percent
Math (302 respondents)
100
Science (281 respondents)
Social science (420 respondents)
80
60
40
20
0
Number and
Quantity
Algebra
Functions
Geometry
Statistics and
Probability
Mathematical
Practices
24
aApplicable
is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Applicability Ratings for Mathematics:
Career Oriented Courses
Figure 35. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standar d within the Mathematics
Conceptual Category as Applicable a to their Course, for Business Management, Computer
Technology, and Healthcare
Business management (243 respondents)
Percent
100
Computer technology (153 respondents)
Healthcare (186 respondents)
80
60
40
20
0
Number and
Quantity
aApplicable
Algebra
Functions
Geometry
Statistics and
Probability
Mathematical
Practices
is considered a rating of prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
25
Overall Applicability for Mathematics
Figure 33. Percent of Respondents Rating at Least One Standar d within the
• Percent
of all
respondents
who ratedPractices
at least one
standarda as
Mathematical
Conceptual
Categories
and Mathematical
as Applicable
to either
their Course prerequisite, reviewed, introduced, or subsequent.
Percent
100
100
94
93
89
All (1897 respondents)
Math (302 respondents)
80
73
60
50
42
42
40
49
40
32
18
20
0
Number and
Quantity
Algebra
Functions
Geometry
Statistics and
Probability
Note. The graphic shows ratings for the 302 r espondents of mathematics courses
separately.
a
Mathematical
Practices
26
Importance Ratings
 Importance and average ratings rolled up to the
strand level
 Respondents chose from among an interval
scale:
 4 = most, 3 = more, 2 = less, and 1 = least.
 Means are to summarize responses only.
 Modal responses found in appendices indicate
most popular responses.
27
Number and Quantity Standards
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
• Respondents
Bar chartRating
shows
average
importance
rating at strand level by subject area.
Figure 36.
Importance
for Number
and
Figure 37. Mean Importance Ratings for Number and Quantity
Quantity Conceptual Category (n = 796), Percent by
• One English response.
Respondents (n = 796), by Content Area
Content Area
Healthcare
8.4%
Computer
Technology
9.4%
4.00
ELA
0.1%
Overall mean a
2.9
3.00
Business
Management
9.5%
Math
35.2%
2.00
Social
Science
7.5%
1.00
Science
29.8%
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 280)
(n = 1)
Science
(n = 237)
Social science Business
(n = 60)
management
(n = 76)
Computer
technology
(n = 75)
Note. Because there was only one English language ar ts respondent, the rating is not
displayed.
aThe 32 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=796
Healthcare
(n = 67)
28
Algebra Standards
Figure 38. Respondents Rating Importance for Algebra
• Pie
chart(n shows
respondents
toArea
this strand by subject area.
Conceptual
Category
= 792), Percent
by Content
Figure 39.
Mean Importance
Ratings
for Algebra
Respondents
(n =
• Bar chart shows average importance
rating
at strand
level
by subject
area.
792), by Content Area
• No English responses.
4.00
Healthcare
8.2%
Overall mean a
3.0
Computer
Technology
10.9%
3.00
Math
36.0%
Business
Management
10.5%
Social
Science
7.3%
2.00
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 285)
(n = 0)
Science
27.1%
Science
(n = 215)
Social science Business
(n = 58)
management
(n = 83)
Computer
technology
(n = 86)
n=792
The 34 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
a
respondents for each standard.
Healthcare
(n = 65)
29
Functions Standards
Figure 40.
Importance
Ratings to
for this strand by subject area.
• Respondents
Pie chart Rating
shows
respondents
Functions Conceptual Category (n = 603), Percent by
• Bar chart shows average importance
rating
at strand
level
subject
area. ( n
Figure 41.
Mean Importance
Ratings
for by
Functions
Respondents
Content Area
603), by
Content
Area
• Light blue bars are subjects=with
<5%
of responses.
4.00
Healthcare
3.2%
Business
Management
4.5%
Overall mean a
2.9
Computer
Technology
13.1%
3.00
Math
44.4%
Social
Science
8.6%
2.00
Science
26.2%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 268)
(n = 0)
Science
(n = 158)
Social science Business
(n = 52)
management
(n = 27)
Computer
technology
(n = 79)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the conceptual categor y.
aThe 45 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=603
Healthcare
(n = 19)
30
Geometry Standards
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
• Respondents
Bar chart Rating
shows
averageforimportance
rating
at strand
level
by subject
area.(n
Figure 42.
Importance
Geometry
Figure 43. Mean
Importance
Ratings
for Geometry
Respondents
Conceptual Category
(n = green
331), Percent
• Light
bars by
areContent
subjects
<5%Area
of responses.
=Area
331),with
by Content
Computer
Business
Management Technology
7.6%
2.4%
Healthcare
1.8%
4.00
Overall mean a
2.6
Social
Science
3.9%
3.00
Math
45.3%
Science
39.0%
2.00
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 150)
(n = 0)
Science
(n = 129)
Social science Business
(n = 13)
management
(n = 8)
Computer
technology
(n = 25)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the conceptual categor y.
aThe 45 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
respondents for each standard.
n=331
Healthcare
(n = 6)
31
Statistics and Probability Standards
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Figure 44. Respondents Rating Importance for Statistics
• Bar chart shows average importance
rating
at strand
by subject
area.
Figureby45. Mean
Importance
Ratingslevel
for Statistics
and Probability
and Probability Conceptual Category (n = 739), Percent
Respondents
= 739),
Content Area
with(n<5%
ofbyresponses.
Content Area • Light green bars are subjects
ELA
Healthcare 1.1%
8.4%
Computer
Technology
6.1%
4.00
Overall mean a
2.9
Math
19.8%
Business
Management
11.2%
Social
Science
24.8%
3.00
2.00
Science
28.7%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 146)
(n = 8)
Science
(n = 212)
Social science Business
(n = 183) management
(n = 83)
Computer
technology
(n = 45)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
n=739
than 5% of respondents for the conceptual categor y.
aThe
36 standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
Healthcare
(n = 62)
32
Mathematical Practices
• Pie chart shows respondents to this strand by subject area.
Figure 46. Respondents Rating Importance for Standards
• Bar chart
shows
average
importance
for Mathematical
Practices
(n = 1339),
Percent
by Content rating at strand level by subject area.
Figure 47. Mean Importance Ratings for Standards for
Area
• Light green bars are subjects
with <5% of responses.
Mathematical Practice Respondents (n = 1339), by Content Area
4.00
ELA
4.7%
Overall mean a
3.2
Healthcare
10.9%
Computer
Technology
10.8%
3.00
Math
22.6%
2.00
Business
Management
14.0%
Social
Science
16.7%
Science
20.4%
1.00
English
Mathematics
language arts (n = 302)
(n = 63)
Science
(n = 273)
Social science Business
(n = 223) management
(n = 187)
Computer
technology
(n = 145)
Healthcare
(n = 146)
Note. Lighter shading indicates that r espondents from the content area compose less
than 5% of respondents for the conceptual categor y.
n=1339
The eight standard statements were weighted to account for the var ying number of
a
respondents for each standard.
33
Are the English Standards, Taken as a Whole, a
Coherent Representation of the Fields of Knowledge
Necessary for Success in Your Course?
Figure 48. Answer from Respondents (n = 1769) to Question "Are the English Standards, Taken
as a Whole, a Coherent Representation of the Fields of Knowledge Necessary for Success in Your
Course?" n = 1769
No
16.2%
Yes
83.8%
34
Are the Mathematics Standards, Taken as a Whole, a
Coherent Representation of the Knowledge and Skills
Figure 50. Answer from Respondents (n = 1706) to Question "Are the Mathematics
for Success
inandYour
Course?
Standards, Taken as a Necessary
Whole, a Coherent Representation
of the Knowledge
Skills
Necessary for Success in Your Course?"
n = 1706
No
38.2%
Yes
61.8%
36
Do the Standards Reflect a Level of Cognitive
Demand Sufficient for Students Who Meet the
Standards to Be Prepared to Succeed in Your Course?
Figure 52. Answer from Respondents (n = 1798) to Question "Do the
Standards Reflect a Level of Cognitive Demand Sufficient for Students Who
Meet the Standards to be Prepared to Succeed in Your Course?" n = 1798
No
4.3%
Yes
95.7%
38
Do the Standards You Just Reviewed Omit Key
Knowledge and Skills?
Figure 54. Answer from Respondents (n = 1785) to Question "Do the Standards You
Just Reviewed Omit Key Knowledge and Skills?"
n = 1785
Yes
16.3%
No
83.7%
40
Comments from Additional Questions
 Two most common deficits of standards mentioned:
 The standards should focus more on problem solving and
critical thinking.
 The wording of the standards could be improved for clarity.
42
How Applicable Are the Common
Core Standards to College Courses?
 Overall applicability is high.
 Variations exists among content areas and across different
strands.
 The Speaking and Listening and Language strands are
rated applicable across essentially all subjects.
43
How Important Are the Common Core
Standards to Success in a Wide Range of
Postsecondary Courses?
 Importance rating of most ELA/L and many math
standards exceeds 3 on a four-point scale.
 The mathematics standards show a wider range of
applicability and lower overall importance ratings.
 Geometry category may be a candidate for further review.
 The Standards for Mathematical Practices received the
highest importance ratings from a very broad crosssection of respondents.
44
Do the Standards Prepare Students for
Both College and Career?
 Respondents tended to rate the reading and writing
standards at the same applicability level for both
baccalaureate and career-oriented courses.
 Respondents from career-oriented course categories rated
the Standards for Mathematical Practices importance
nearly as high as mathematics and science instructors.
 Some important overlap exists among Common Core
standards that are applicable to and important for many
general education courses and for many career-oriented
courses.
45
Will Students Who Do Well on the Common
Assessments Be Ready for College?
 College and career readiness is a multidimensional
construct, and content knowledge is only one of several
key dimensions.
 Achieving the goal of a college- and career-ready
student is dependent on other factors that are not
addressed by the Common Core standards.
 The Common Core standards appear to be well aligned
in English Language Arts/Literacy and mathematics, but
other dimensions exist as well.
46
The Four Keys to College and Career Readiness
Future Directions for Subsequent
Research and Analysis
 Look more in-depth at elements such as the ratings from specific
content areas or from specific types of institutions.
 Analyze content from the ~1800 syllabi submitted by
respondents.
 Compare the results from this survey with findings from other
surveys that ask postsecondary faculty about the preparation of
high school students.
 Determine the relationship between the Common Core
standards and the new version of the General Education
Development (GED) certificate currently under design.
48
Feedback
We welcome feedback or questions about the report:
david_conley@epiconline.org
49