Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics...

Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common

Core State Standards for Mathematics and Related Assessment and

Teacher Evaluation Systems

Amy Roth McDuffie, Washington State University Tri-Cities

Corey Drake, Michigan State University

Jeffrey Choppin, University of Rochester

Jon D. Davis, Western Michigan University

Margarita V. Magaña, Washington State University Tri-Cities

Cynthia Carson, University of Rochester

Teachers’ Perceptions of CCSSM 2

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants DRL-746573 and DRL-1222359.

Corresponding Author:Amy Roth McDuffie, Washington State University Tri-Cities, 2700 Crimson Way, Richland,WA 99354, USA.Email: [email protected]

Abstract

We investigated U.S. middle school teachers’ perceptions of

Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM), CCSSM-

related assessments, teacher evaluation processes, and resources

for implementing CCSSM. Using a mixed methods design, we surveyed

a national sample of 366 teachers and interviewed 24 teachers.

Findings indicated that teachers viewed CCSSM as including new

content for their grade level. Teachers also reported using

multiple curriculum resources to align with CCSSM and indicated

that new assessments would serve as a proxy for the CCSSM.

Implications for rapidly changing policy, curriculum, assessment,

instruction, and professional development related to CCSSM are

discussed.


KEY WORDS: curriculum materials, mathematics, curriculum

standards, teachers’ perceptions.


In an unprecedented national development, a vast majority of

states and territories of the United States adopted the Common

Core State Standards (CCSS), making these standards a de-facto

intended U.S. national curriculum (Porter et al., 2011).

According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI,

2010), CCSS1 are intended to provide a more focused and coherent

curriculum and establish learning benchmarks for teachers and

students. The development of these standards was motivated, in

large part, by the existence and impact of national standards in

countries with high achievement in mathematics, mostly Pacific

Rim countries, such as Singapore, China, and Japan (CCSSI, 2010;

Porter et al., 2011; Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005). In

comparison to the development of standards in these countries,

however, the creation, adoption, and implementation of CCSS have

been rapid and untested. In Japan, for example, there is

typically a three or four year period between the release and

implementation of a new set of national standards (Yoshikawa, 1 While the focus of our study is on the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, previous surveys have investigated teachers’ conceptions of the Common Core State Standards in which the Mathematics Standards are not distinguished from the English Language Arts Standards. Throughout this paper we use CCSSM to refer to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and CCSS to refer to the document incorporating both the Mathematics Standards andEnglish Language Arts Standards.


2008); furthermore, new Japanese standards are revisions of prior

standards that have been utilized and critiqued extensively by

teachers over a period of years.

By contrast, CCSS in many cases are being introduced to

teachers at the same time they are asked to teach them. Moreover,

researchers’ analyses of the Common Core State Standards for

Mathematics (CCSSM) found that the standards represent a shift

from past and existing U.S. states’ standards with more rigorous

content (Porter et al., 2011) and more focus and coherence

(Schmidt & Houang, 2012; Woolard, 2013). In this article, we

explore teachers’ perceptions early in the implementation of

CCSSM in order to better understand resources teachers use to

interpret and implement CCSSM, teachers’ experiences implementing

CCSSM in their classrooms, and teachers’ views on the influence

on CCSSM implementation of CCSSM-related high-stakes assessments

and teacher evaluation systems.

Background on CCSSM and Teachers’ Perceptions of Standards

Two parallel developments to the adoption and implementation

of CCSS are likely to influence perceptions of CCSS and how they

are implemented. The current U.S. federal educational policy,


Race to the Top (RTTT), requires funded states to implement CCSS-

based standardized assessments and to use results from those

tests to evaluate teachers (Duncan, 2009a; 2009b). As a result,

all RTTT-funded states and others hoping to be RTTT funded now

include the use of student data from standardized assessments in

teacher evaluations. As of 2013, 38 states require the use of

student achievement in teacher evaluation, with 23 of these

states using student achievement for at least half of teachers’

evaluation (Hull, 2013, p. 13).

The high-stakes nature of CCSS-based assessments is of

particular interest given previous research that found that high

states assessments often lead to a narrowed and fragmented

curriculum (Au, 2007; Palmer & Rangel, 2011). In Au’s (2007)

metasynthesis of 49 studies that examined how high-stakes tests

affect curriculum, he found that in a strong majority of the

studies, high-stakes testing was linked to a narrower and more

fragmented curriculum, mirroring test items rather than

curricular concepts. In addition, Au (2007) concluded that high-

stakes tests led to more teacher-centered pedagogy in order to

cover the breadth of concepts and procedures tested. In a small


number of high-stakes assessments related to social studies, an

expansion of the curriculum and a shift toward student-centered

pedagogies was linked to tests. For these cases, it seemed that

the tests were constructed to focus on critical analysis (Au,

2007).

Similarly, in a study of teachers in bilingual classrooms in

Texas, Palmer and Rangel (2011) found that the high-stakes state

test pressured teachers to prioritize test preparation in

instructional decision making. This pressure resulted in teachers

narrowing the curriculum to match the test content and format,

and teachers shifting from pedagogical approaches that emphasized

critical thinking and problem solving to more direct instruction

emphasizing isolated skills represented on the test (Palmer &

Rangel, 2011). Thus, the nature of high-stakes assessments based

on CCSS will likely influence how CCSS are implemented, but

whether this influence is consistent with the goals of CCSS is

yet to be determined.

Teachers’ perceptions of standards and the supports provided

to implement standards influence teachers’ willingness and

ability to enact new forms of curriculum and instruction (Cohen &


Hill, 2001). Several groups of researchers have conducted surveys

related to CCSS over the last two years addressing teachers’ and

instructional leaders’ perceptions of CCSS, ongoing preparation

for CCSS, development of professional support and aligned

curriculum materials, and the potential impact of standardized

tests on classroom practice and teacher evaluation. Results from

these surveys are summarized below.

Strong majorities of teachers in the surveys reported being

familiar with CCSS (78% – 82%) (Cogan, Schmidt, & Houang, 2013;

EPE Research, 2013; Hart Research Associates, 2013) and approved

of CCSS (75% - 94%) (Cogan et al.2013; Hart Research Associates,

2013); furthermore, state education officials from all 40

responding states on one survey felt that CCSS were more rigorous

than current state standards (Rentner, 2013a). In terms of

preparation and support, most teachers felt a need for curriculum

materials better aligned with CCSSM than their current materials

(Cogan et al., 2013; EPE Research, 2013). Roughly three quarters

of teachers had received some professional development, but few

had received more than four days of professional development

related to CCSS (EPE Research, 2013). Approximately half of the


teachers in the surveys reported that their districts were

prepared to implement CCSSM, percentages that dropped for urban

and poor schools, and only about a quarter of all teachers felt

they had received adequate resources to implement CCSSM (Hart

Research Associates, 2013).

In terms of the impact of the high-stakes standardized tests

associated with CCSS, less than half of surveyed teachers (36% –

40%) agreed that standardized test scores, including those

associated with CCSS, should contribute to teacher accountability

measures (Cogan et al., 2013; Gates Foundation & Scholastic Inc.,

2012), though a large majority agreed that some measure of

student growth should contribute to teacher evaluations (Gates

Foundation & Scholastic Inc., 2012). A majority of teachers (60%)

indicated that the content of standardized tests would impact

what they teach (Gates Foundation & Scholastic Inc., 2012), and

an even larger portion (73%) agreed that such tests, particularly

those implemented rapidly, would focus instruction on testing and

test preparation, especially if teachers do not have adequate

time to understand the standards (Hart Research Associates,

2013).


Although perceptions of and support for standards impact

teachers’ willingness to implement new forms of curriculum and

instruction, the link to teacher practice is less clear. For

example, Tarr and colleagues (2008) found that teachers using

commercially developed materials and teachers using U.S. National

Science Foundation-funded materials reported equal support for

and implementation of the recommendations in the National Council

of Teachers of Mathematics standards document (2000), despite

considerable differences in the curriculum programs and in

observed instructional practices. Thus, an open question exists

about the ways in which standards documents influence teachers’

practices, including their understanding and use of curriculum

materials. In addition to factors pertaining to individual

teacher characteristics, myriad external factors (e.g. adopted

curriculum materials, curriculum and other educational policies,

professional development experiences and support available,

classroom and school environments, testing, and teacher

evaluation systems) often constrain attempts to implement

challenging forms of curriculum and instruction (Cohen et al.,

2003; Liang & Akiba, 2013; Tarr et al., 2008).


Although a strong body of research related to teachers’

understanding and implementation of mathematics standards exists

(Ball, 1990; Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Spillane & Zeuli,

1999; Thompson & Zeuli, 1999), the unprecedented speed and scale

of CCSS implementation provide an opportunity and a need to

investigate the ways in which teachers are interpreting and

understanding CCSSM and how CCSSM influence teachers’

instructional priorities. This study aimed to understand and

describe teachers’ perceptions of CCSSM in relation to their

curricular and instructional contexts. By exploring teachers’

perceptions early, before the full implementation of the high-

stakes tests and related teacher evaluation systems, we establish

a baseline for tracking and understanding the development of

teachers’ perceptions and practices relating to CCSSM over time

in shifting policy, assessment, and instructional contexts.

Research Methods

We investigated how U.S. teachers perceived CCSSM, resources

teachers used to interpret and implement CCSSM, teachers’

experiences implementing CCSSM in their classrooms, CCSSM-related

assessments, and the teacher evaluation processes linked to CCSSM


with a focus on middle school teachers (grades 6 through 8).

Middle school teachers are important to study because in the U.S.

they often hold certifications to teach secondary mathematics,

teach only mathematics (especially 7th and 8th grade teachers),

and are in the RTTT-grades bands for mandatory achievement tests.

In addition, a number of topics have been moved from high school

state standards into the middle school within CCSSM (Reys et al.,

2012).

In order to gain an understanding of a broad range of

teachers’ perspectives while also exploring teachers’

perspectives in depth, we used a mixed methods research design

(Creswell, 2014) including a survey and interviews. We

constructed and administered a survey to a national sample of 366

middle school mathematics teachers (Authors, 2013a). This survey

represented a revision of an earlier survey (Authors, 2013b).

Survey questions involving Likert scale items as well as open-

ended responses examined primary and secondary issues related to

CCSSM. For more details on the survey design, see Authors

(2013a).


To gain a deeper understanding regarding teachers’

experiences and contexts that could influence their perceptions,

we conducted individual interviews with 24 middle school

mathematics teachers. The interviews lasted between 20 and 45

minutes. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. The

survey items and interview protocol both asked about teachers’

perceptions of CCSSM and comparisons between their past state

frameworks and CCSSM, teachers’ planning practices, teachers’

perceptions of their district’s CCSSM preparations, curriculum

documents used for planning, teachers’ perceptions of new state

assessments, and teachers’ perceptions of new teacher evaluation

systems.

Data Collection and Participants

Survey. The survey was administered to 366 middle school

teachers working in 42 of the 45 CCSSM-adopting states by Market

Data Retrieval (MDR) during late April and early May of 2013.

Survey invitations were randomized nationally based upon state,

and the question order was randomized during each administration

of the survey. The demographics associated with surveyed teachers

are shown in Table 1. Overall, more teachers had a primary


teaching responsibility in eighth grade, and a substantial

majority of the participants were female (for both the survey and

the interviews). Previous research has shown that 84% of public

school teachers in the United States are female (Feistritzer,

2011). Thus the percentages in our sample of 77% for female

teachers and 23% for male teachers are similar to these national

figures.

Interviews. Between November 2012 and May 2013, we

interviewed 24 middle school mathematics teachers from five

districts and three states in different regions of the U.S. to

gain more in-depth information regarding their perceptions of

CCSSM and the influence of CCSSM on their practices. Each of the

selected districts was in the process of implementing CCSSM.

Background information on these teachers is shown in Table 1.

[Insert Table 1 here]

The 24 interview participants were from six different

schools, two in New York, three in Michigan, and one in Indiana.

The participants used a number of curriculum programs, including

digits (Fennel et al., 2010), Connected Mathematics 2 (CMP2, Lappan et

al., 2006), Connected Mathematics 3 (CMP3, Lappan et al., in press),


Glencoe Math (Carter et al., 2013), and MATH Thematics (Billstein &

Williamson, 1998)2, with four to six participants using each

program.

Data Analysis

Consistent with a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the

survey data using quantitative methods and the interview

transcripts through qualitative methods (Creswell, 2014) and used

both forms of data and analysis to inform each other. For

example, after reviewing early interview data, we noticed that

teachers mentioned concerns about state testing and future

teacher evaluation systems. At that point, we developed survey

items about these issues. Later, results from the survey analysis

informed deeper analysis of the teacher interviews for patterns

found in survey responses, integrating methods and findings from

each source. Our analysis methods are described in detail below.

Survey. Building on results from an earlier survey (Authors,

2013), the data analyses of Likert-type items consisted of

enumerating each response category by item and calculating

percentages. Responses to open-ended items were broken down into

2 Hereafter, we italicize the titles of curriculum materials referenced but donot interrupt quotations with citations.


categories. For instance, participants were asked to identify

other types of resources that they used in their planning. We

sorted these resources into different categories based upon their

format and purpose (e.g., online). For each of the open-ended

response items some teachers supplied unclear responses that we

were unable to categorize. Those responses were not included in

the findings reported below.

Interviews. To analyze participants’ interview responses,

we applied qualitative data analysis methods of analytic

induction and constant comparison to identify patterns in

responses and to confirm or refute our interpretations for

emerging themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Miles et al., 2014;

Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This initial phase resulted in a code

book including the following codes as examples:

• Perspectives and comparisons regarding CCSSM and past

state /district standards.

• Preparations for implementing CCSSM

• Curriculum materials in use or planned for use

• Descriptions of lessons taught or planned


• Descriptions of planning processes for a lesson, unit, or

year

• State assessments

• Students’ understandings

• Mathematics Content

• Mathematical Practices

As part of creating the code book, we developed descriptions for

each code and decision rules for the coding process. For example,

we defined a stanza (Saldaña, 2013) of text as including both the

question and the participant’s response, as well as additional

text needed for context.

The second phase of data analysis entailed coding all

transcripts in the qualitative data analysis software

HyperResearch (Researchware, 2011). During this phase we sorted

the data by topic and continued generating themes. To achieve

interpretive convergence (Saldaña, 2013) and ensure consistency in

coding and sorting data so that all data on a topic were

identified with appropriate codes, two researchers independently

coded each transcript, and then met with a third researcher to

discuss any discrepancies and reach agreement in coding.


Mixed methods. After survey data were analyzed and the

second phase of interview data analysis was completed, we

identified similarities in survey and interview participants’

responses for three primary themes (as described in the next

section). We then engaged in a third phase of data analysis for

the interview data by focusing on data related to these themes.

Using HyperResearch, we compiled all data that were coded with

codes relevant to each theme and generated a report for each

theme. We then analyzed each report to generate findings within

each theme.

Findings

We found that teachers’ perceptions were consistent across

the survey and the interviews. Teachers’ perceptions and reported

practices relating to CCSSM clustered into the following three

overarching categories: (1) how teachers report using curriculum

resources and collaborating with others in order to interpret and

implement CCSSM, (2) the extent to which teachers perceive

curriculum resources and student learning as aligning with CCSSM,

and (3) how teachers perceive CCSSM-based state assessments and

teacher evaluation systems. In the sections that follow, we


discuss the findings for each of the three categories in greater

detail using both survey and interview data.

In considering teachers’ responses to the survey items, it

is important to consider the extent to which teachers’

perceptions were based on informed views of CCSSM. Survey

responses indicated that a strong majority of teachers surveyed

were moderately to extensively familiar with CCSSM and received

support and encouragement from their districts to learn about and

implement CCSSM (Table 2). Moreover, a majority of the responding

teachers reported that they felt prepared to teach CCSSM with

51.1% agreeing that they were prepared to teach CCSSM, and

another 12.0% strongly agreeing that they were prepared to teach

CCSSM.


As shown in Tables 2 and 3, teachers’ perceptions of CCSSM

in the survey were consistent with the idea that CCSSM involve a

shift toward more active forms of instruction, with a strong

majority viewing CCSSM as emphasizing mathematical communication,

solving complex problems and student exploration. Most teachers

perceived that CCSSM includes new content for their grade, and a


strong majority viewed CCSSM Content and Practice Standards as

more rigorous than the teachers’ state standards. A strong

majority perceived CCSSM as requiring more focus on supporting

students’ learning of mathematics concepts, and yet a substantial

portion of teachers (41.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that CCSSM

will require them to teach more procedurally. Wondering to what

extent the same teachers were responding that CCSSM requires more

of both concepts and procedures, we investigated these responses

further and found that of the 152 teachers who agreed or strongly

agreed that CCSSM would require them to teach more procedurally,

144 (94.7%) also agreed or strongly agreed that the CCSM would

require them to teach more conceptually.


Teachers Use a Variety of Curriculum Resources and Collaborate

with Others to Interpret and Implement CCSSM

CCSSM provides little guidance with respect to what – or

what kinds of – curriculum materials should be used to address

CCSSM. Consequently, we asked teachers what resources they use to

design instruction they perceive as being aligned with CCSSM. In

the survey responses and the interviews, teachers indicated that


they use various curriculum resources, as well as collaborating

with colleagues, to interpret CCSSM and to guide and plan lessons

intended to address CCSSM. Teachers mentioned two forms of

curriculum resources at two different grain sizes: (1) curriculum

materials directly used in lessons and/or with students, and (2)

documents (e.g. CCSSM, district-developed documents) used for

analyzing alignment between curriculum materials and CCSSM and/or

developing plans across the year for a scope and sequence of

topics.

Teachers used newly adopted curriculum materials as a

primary source for planning and implementing CCSSM. In the survey

and interviews, we asked teachers about the regularity with which

they use certain curriculum documents when planning instruction.

In the survey, 60.7% reported that they referred daily or weekly

to their school- or district-adopted textbook (see Table 4).

Although teachers reported using other resources (as will be

discussed in the next section), the percentage of teachers

reporting daily use of textbooks (38.5%) is higher than reported

daily use of any other documents. Similarly, in the interviews,

20 of 24 teachers reported that they used their district-adopted


textbooks as their main source of information, alignment, and

planning for teaching CCSSM. These materials were either new and

recently adopted by their districts to align with CCSSM or new

editions of materials, purportedly revised to align with CCSSM.


In the interviews, teachers explained that they did not

simply following textbooks, but instead used textbooks as

resources for planning with CCSSM. For example, in the interview

response below, Sprague3 described the process used for planning

with her newly adopted Glencoe curriculum materials:

So right now we’re following the textbook we have, the

Glencoe Resources textbook that is for the Common Core, so

it’s kind of helping us, … guiding us through this for the

first year jumping in. So we follow that a lot, but we do

plan …[asking], “How can we teach this?” (Sprague, New

York).

In addition to using textbooks, teachers reported regular

use of supplemental resources, especially electronic resources.

Over half of the teachers responding to the survey (56.3%) were

3 All names used are pseudonyms.


using digital and/or electronic supplemental resources daily or

weekly for practice or remediation, while 39.3% reported using

electronic resources for supplemental inquiry-based activities.

Teachers use CCSSM and related documents to analyze

alignment between curriculum materials and CCSSM and/or to

develop plans across the year for a scope and sequence of topics.

Teachers reported using CCSSM document and/or other documents

that show how CCSSM aligned with their state standards and/or

curriculum materials (e.g. documents for scope and sequence

within a grade, vertical alignment across grades). These

documents assisted teachers’ understandings of the breadth and

depth of concepts and skills to be taught. They also supported

teachers in determining alignment between their curriculum

materials and CCSSM. On the survey, when planning instruction, a

majority of the teachers reported daily or weekly use of: CCSSM

document (57.6%), the state curriculum framework (57.9%), and the

district curriculum framework (58.8%), with a slightly lower

percentage for “other documents that explain CCSSM” (40.7%), as

shown in Table 4. Almost all of the teachers interviewed (22 of

24) indicated that they used at least one of these types of


documents in interpreting and implementing CCSSM. For example, in

the response below, a teacher explained that she used a document

to gain understanding of what needs to be taught and to align

their curriculum with CCSSM.

Interviewer: So … is there a particular way that you keep

track of which standards that you’re covering?

Teacher: There are [district] documents that would help to

prepare and then also that other people have prepared that

tell us…which … problems [to use to align with CCSSM]. Today

was one [example]…out of the Variables and Patterns book [from

CMP 3]…So before I teach, I go and look at [the document and

say], “Well … these are the things that I need to pull out.

This is what I’m making sure comes out of today’s discussion

and today’s lesson.” I don’t necessarily really check

[CCSSM] off literally, but … I believe that we are supposed

to have some way of doing that, but no I do not currently do

that in my room, I just kind of rely on those documents.

(Nitardy, Michigan)

Another teacher described how he used a district-developed

document with colleagues in unit planning.


Interviewer: What does it mean to design a unit?

Teacher: Unpack the standards, see what [CCSSM] entail,

[decide] where you begin.

Interviewer: So is [this document is] a pacing chart, or

does it include the instructional activities?

Teacher: It includes the central question, the outcomes that

we’re looking for, the standards, it looks at the pacing

chart, and then we’ve broken up the task analysis of what we

ultimately would like to teach per lesson, suggested

formative assessment, the summative assessment for the unit.

(Leonard, Glencoe, New York)4.

Teachers collaborate with colleagues to interpret and plan

instruction with CCSSM.

As is evident from quotations above, teachers were not working in

isolation to interpret and plan with CCSSM. Teachers reported

many forms of collaboration to gain understandings for how to

implement CCSSM in their classrooms. These interactions occurred

in more formalized forms (e.g. grade-level team meetings,

4 For quotations that do not include a reference to the curriculum materials used, we include the name of the curriculum materials so that readers can understand the teacher’s context.


professional development workshops) and in less formalized

settings (e.g. conversations in the hallway or during planning

periods). In regard to planning practices, 64.2% teachers

surveyed responded that they regularly studied student work with

colleagues, 84.5% frequently discussed mathematics with

colleagues, and 65.3% regularly planned with colleagues

(percentages reflect a total of “agree” and “strongly agree”

responses). Of the 24 teachers interviewed 21 teachers indicated

that collaborating with colleagues was a regular part of their

planning practices for CCSSM.

To illustrate how teachers collaborated informally, one

teacher described informal conversations and how teachers

regularly shared resources, interpretations, and planning

strategies for CCSSM. This teacher indicated that she hoped this

support and collaboration would continue during the on-going

process of implementing CCSSM.

Interviewer: Do you feel is there anything else that you

feel that would help you to be more prepared to teach the

Common Core?


Teacher: It’s going to be so different, I think just the

support of my colleagues here in the building, and we just

keep an open communication, and when we find something

that’s really cool, then we pass it along. And that will

build our toolbox of things. And [in these conversations]

we’ll say, “Oh that was great!” Or, “No, that didn’t work,

and this worked out real well.” And as long as we do that,

I think that [collegial support] will be the most helpful

thing that we have. …And then if we don’t understand

something we can say, “You know, I saw this in the Core,

this math practice. … This is the way I interpret it - Is

this how you’re interpreting it?” And I think that if we

keep that open communication, that will be helpful.

(Jameson, MATH Thematics, Indiana)

In another example, a teacher explained that structured

professional development opportunities also supported planning

efforts. The teacher explained that through workshops, available

online classes, and meetings, the teachers aligned curriculum and

CCSSM to further their knowledge of CCSSM and understand how to

implement CCSSM across grade levels.


Interviewer: What [has] your district done to help

prepare you for the Common Core?

Teacher: We were given workshops as far as working with

the digits. We have met and talked through the standards,

and we’ve mapped out [how the previous state standards

compare with CCSSM]. [We ask questions such as,]

“These are old [state] standards that we usually teach

in 7th grade, but now it’s taught in 6th grade. So what

students have gaps? And how are we going to fix those

gaps?” So we’ve met in small groups as far as grade

level, and then we’ve met as a math department. We’ve

met at the administration building with some of the

high school teachers to see where the gaps are still

going to be and what needs to be done with that.

Interviewer: Have [these meetings] been over this

year? Last year? How long has that been going on?

Teacher: …We did it when we were doing [the new

curriculum] adoption, and I kind of feel like it’s an

ongoing process. I feel like we’re always meeting to

discuss it and to find out what’s not working, what’s


missing. You know I know that the 7th grade curriculum

is a pretty rough curriculum. So the 7th grade teachers

have been talking and saying we might have to rework

this for the future.

(Shaw, digits, Indiana)

Summary of teachers’ use of resources in planning and

implementing CCSSM. In planning for and implementing CCSSM, even

when teachers used published curriculum materials that were

revised to align with CCSSM, teachers were not simply following a

textbook as has been reported (Freeman & Porter, 1989; Grouws,

Smith, & Sztajn, 2004). Instead, they were analyzing their

materials in regard to CCSSM, selecting materials from within a

range of resources provided by a publisher and/or finding

additional supplemental resources, with substantial and regular

use of electronic and/or digital resources. Moreover, teachers

are not doing this work in isolation – they were working

regularly with colleagues in multiple venues ranging from

informal conversations between classes and during planning

periods to structured time for collaborative planning and/or

learning about CCSSM.


Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences Regarding How Their

Curriculum Materials and Students’ Learning Align with CCSSM

Given the prominent role most teachers attributed to their

curriculum materials in regard to understanding and planning

lessons for CCSSM, we explored teachers’ perceptions about how

well their materials and their students’ learning needs were

aligned with CCSSM. We found that teachers expressed mixed views

about alignment, and teachers recognized that alignment results

from a teacher-curriculum-student interaction and is not merely a

function of their curriculum materials.

For the surveyed teachers, a slight majority, 57.3%, agreed

or strongly agreed that their current curriculum materials

focused on computational or procedural fluency, which contrasted

with their views about the conceptual emphasis of CCSSM,

suggesting that they viewed their curriculum materials as not

aligned with CCSSM. To further explore the [mis]alignment

between perceptions of CCSSM and of their textbooks, we

investigated the interview data for deeper insights on teachers’

perceptions of their materials in relation to CCSSM.


Teachers held mixed views about alignment. Teachers

identified a number of dimensions along which their curriculum

materials both were and were not aligned with CCSSM. Of the 24

teachers interviewed, only seven teachers stated that their

curriculum materials were completely or almost completely aligned

with CCSSM. These teachers expressed a belief that the editions

of textbooks labelled as “Common Core” or developed by authors

and/or publishers they trusted (e.g. CMP authors) were mostly

aligned with CCSSM. Eight other teachers, however, provided

counter-examples to this finding and indicated that their

materials, even those that were labelled as aligned with CCSSM,

needed adaptation to support greater alignment. Two teachers

explicitly stated that they did not trust the claims provided by

curriculum developers regarding alignment with CCSSM. In

addition, teachers did not always view alignment as positive, in

that they perceived the scope and pace of CCSSM (i.e. topics

moved earlier in the curriculum from past standards) as

inappropriate for some students. Moreover, teachers expressed

concern that important mathematics topics were lost in the

process of aligning curriculum materials with CCSSM. These


perspectives are illustrated with representative responses from

interviews below.

Eleven teachers reported that their materials were aligned

in some ways and not aligned in other ways. This mixed view

included perceptions that alignment varied by grade, as well as a

view that materials could be aligned in terms of content but not

practices or vice versa. One comment indicated a positive view

alignment overall when Roitman said,

A lot of the [CCSSM] happens relatively naturally with these

[CMP2] units. So [aligning materials with CCSSM] hasn’t

been a huge focus because so much of it occurs if you’re

teaching [CMP2]. I mean this curriculum supports that

easily so it’s not like we’re shifting our classroom dynamic

too much. (Roitman, New York)

Yet, at another point in the interview, Roitman indicated that

the alignment varies by grade level when she explained, “Eighth

grade is very lucky….I think it’s harder at 6th grade, I think

you see a lot more figuring out how to piece things together. So

I think [teachers] are even more curious how you’re going to make

this fix, again it isn’t a perfect match [with CMP2].”


Eight teachers noted that alignment between materials and

CCSSM varied by mathematics topics and units. In the next

example, Leonard described how he and his colleagues used Glencoe

for most of their teaching, but for some units they needed to

find supplemental resources to achieve alignment. Leonard stated,

“About 85% of our teaching comes from there [Glencoe] but I know

some units coming up, and as we’ve gotten more familiar with the

Common Core, we’re going to be pulling in some of our other

resources to adapt.”

Teachers expressed skeptical views of alignment. Another way

teachers expressed these mixed views of alignment was in regard

to the extent to which teachers trusted or followed their

teachers’ manuals provided by publishers of the curriculum

materials. We saw a full range of the extent to which teachers

were willing to trust that publishers had aligned their materials

with CCSSM. In this first example, the teacher indicated that she

and her colleagues completely trusted the curriculum developers

to include the content stipulated in CCSSM when she said, “All of

us have agreed to try to be on the same page. …We follow [digits]

because the digits program has all of the [CCSSM content]. It has


all the standards that we need to cover in it. We cover it

sequentially. We go through it sequentially because it has

already done the hard work for you. …It’s presenting the material

in the most logical order possible.” (Cartwright, digits,

Indiana). This teacher focused on alignment in terms of content

coverage but not necessarily in terms of the mathematical

practices.

Another teacher indicated that she trusts the curriculum but

also needed to evaluate the alignment and not just rely on the

curriculum developer. The teacher reported that she used the

teacher’s manual for information on aligning with CCSSM; however,

this teacher also indicated a need to check that the materials

indeed were addressing standards sufficiently, explaining, “In

the teacher manual it tells what practices it hits… Because I’ve

even like checked it … just to make sure, and I’ve gone through

just to make sure they are being hit and the standards are being

hit” (Blackburn, Glencoe, New York).

A third way teachers talked about the extent to which they

could depend on materials to be aligned with CCSSM related to

sufficiency. Teachers indicated that even when the materials are


purported to align, they do not necessarily provide sufficient

resources for teachers to enact CCSSM with students. For example,

Guinness described her district’s process and her concerns with

the materials:

We have just adopted a new textbook. It’s Holt-McDougall,

and [the district] went with the Common Core version of that

book. So we just got it, and we’re just trying to put those

pieces together and look at what the differences are between

them. … [The district leaders] went to these materials with

the thought that they would focus more on the Common Core

and give us more examples of that deeper level thinking and

the connections, but … it’s very difficult to see how that’s

going to be done, … and that’s again one of the concerns I

have is being able to say, “Okay you need to have this

higher level of thinking,” but [the materials do not

provide] direction on how you’re supposed to get the kids

there… (MATH Thematics, Indiana)

Teachers also noted that when materials are aligned, this

alignment is not necessarily beneficial for students’ learning

because they viewed CCSSM as not providing time to fully develop


important topics and not recognizing the needs of their students.

For instance, the teacher below expressed concern that some

topics appear in CCSSM too early in terms of students’ cognitive

development and that they do not provide adequate time before

formalized understandings are expected.

In that [the curriculum developers] really have gone for

making sure that they address the Common Core, I do think

that there are things that are rushed…and maybe pushed a

little bit too early. [For example,] the fractions I would

say, some of the formalizing of concepts may be a little

rushed. …. And some kids are ready and some kids are maybe

not. (Nitardy, CMP3, Michigan)

Another teacher indicated that revisions to CMP2 to align

with CCSSM were detrimental for the coherence of the materials.

Davidson explained,

Given the constraint of they had to align with the Common

Core Standards, some of them simply don’t fit. They don’t

fit into a bigger picture. [CMP2] units are crafted in a

way that understanding is developed over a four to six week

period, in-depth about a concept, and when you suddenly have


to shove in this one [standard] because gosh this is where

it might fit. For example,…doing cross sections of prisms,

and what are those going to look like. [It seems as if the

curriculum developers say,] “Well I guess we’re going to put

that in the unit where they’ve just done a prism and figured

the volume of a prism so now we might as well slice it.”

Well yes and no, it’s just that they had to stick it

somewhere. So there are times in this new CMP3 where I feel

like there are things that they had to stick it somewhere,

and it feels like it was stuck there. (Michigan)

Teachers recognized that alignment depends on teacher-

curriculum-student interactions. Recognizing the complexity of

implementing curriculum, eight of the 24 teachers interviewed

explicitly mentioned the importance of the teacher-curriculum-

student interactions in understanding and evaluating the

alignment of curriculum materials with CCSSM. For these teachers,

alignment is not just a function of the materials as written, but

instead it depends on how the materials are used by the teacher

to engage students. For example, in discussing Glencoe, Gagnon

explained that much of the work to incorporate the Standards for


Mathematical Practices depends on how the teacher uses materials

in instruction:

It’s more on the teacher I think to use the curriculum

materials in a way that is appropriate for the practices.

[Glencoe] has questions … called HOT questions, high order

thinking questions. And it will say, “This is a persevering

and problem solving question.” but if you don’t let the kids

problem solve it, and you kind of just do it with them you

can say that they’re doing that practice, but you’re not

doing it justice the way that Common Core would want you do

to it. So I think it’s up to each teacher in how they use

the materials to really show if they are using those

questions that are there that lend itself to the practices

the way that they’re supposed to be used. (Gagnon, New

York).

Another teacher expressed similar views regarding CMP2 when

she said, “If you’re teaching CMP2 correctly, I think how you’re

teaching CMP2 and [how you are] using an inquiry-based program

[determines whether the instruction] will support the Common

Core” (Pless, New York).


Teachers’ perceptions and feelings regarding CCSSM-based

state assessments and teachers’ evaluation. We found that

teachers’ perceptions about CCSSM were almost inseparable from

views on state assessments5 and teachers’ evaluations. Prior

research has shown that testing and evaluations are key external

factors of influence in the complex instructional environments in

which teachers operate (Cohen et al., 2003; Liang & Akiba, 2013;

Tarr et al., 2008). Findings regarding teachers’ perceptions

about state assessments, teacher evaluations, and how these

factors interact with teaching and learning are presented below.

Teachers’ perceptions of new state assessments in relation

to CCSSM. To gain an understanding of how teachers perceive the

state assessments in relation to CCSSM, we included survey items

asking teachers to compare the new state assessments to their

state assessments in place prior to the adoption of CCSSM, and we

identified all instances of teachers mentioning state assessments

in their interview responses. The new assessments had not been

implemented, so in effect we were asking teachers to explain

5 Unless otherwise noted, hereafter, when “state assessments” is used, we are referring to new state exams developed to measure students’ learning of the content and practices included in CCSSM.


their views on what they anticipated the new state assessments

would be like based on their experiences with CCSSM and emerging

policy in their districts and states.

As shown in Table 5, three items elicited teachers’ views on

the focus of the state assessments. Teachers anticipated a high

degree of alignment between new state assessments and CCSSM, with

91.2% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the new test will be

aligned with CCSSM Content Standards (see Table 5). Teachers also

anticipated the new assessments would include more difficult

numbers in the problems (68.9% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and

would separately assess each of the eight mathematical practices

(83.8% agreeing or strongly agreeing).


As we investigated these views more deeply in the interview

responses, we found that not only were teachers expecting that

the state assessments would be aligned, 18 of the 24 teachers

interviewed indicated they viewed the state assessments as a

proxy for CCSSM. As illustrated in the comment below, teachers

explained that the state assessments would determine how CCSSM

are implemented in instruction, especially in regard to the


extent to which the Standards for Mathematical Practice are

emphasized.

I really think that the testing is going to end up dictating

what some of the teaching that goes behind it. If the

testing doesn’t value the Standards for Mathematical

Practice, if [the state assessment is] much more

procedurally based, then I don’t think the instruction is

going to be able to change. However, … if the testing ends

up being… more conceptually based, …then I do think that

that will change or will help facilitate change and how

mathematics instructions take place (Clark, CMP3,

Michigan).

Another teacher explicitly stated that the state assessments

(not mentioning CCSSM) will determine which topics will be

included in instruction and how deeply she will focus on these

topics in her class in the following exchange:

Interviewer: So what will help you decide how deeply you

need to go with certain topics and what to ignore with

certain topics?


Teacher: This is not educationally in my heart and not the

best thing I want to say, but it’s probably state tests.

It’s probably [finding out what is] going to be the

assessment, and seeing where we are supposed to go [based on

the state assessment]. (Gates, Glencoe, New York)

In addition to stating that the state assessments will

determine how CCSSM are implemented in instruction, 13 of 24

teachers directly stated that they wanted to have access to state

assessment items to understand and interpret how specific

standards will be measured. Although 13 teachers is only slightly

over half, this finding is notable in that each of these teachers

mentioned their desire for such items without prompting (i.e. we

did not ask, “Would you like to see state assessment items?”)6.

For example,

I wish I knew what it [the state test] looked like. …We

haven’t seen what the Common Core tests are going to look

exactly, so how am I supposed to know if I’m ahead of the

6 These findings about state assessment emerged during data analysis and afterthese interviews were conducted. After seeing this theme in the data, we addedsurvey questions as shown in Table 5; however, we did not explicitly ask teachers questions about the influence of state assessments on instruction in the interviews. The fact that this influence was discussed without prompting suggests that this influence might be even stronger than our data indicate.


game, if I’m behind, if I’m somewhere in the middle, we

really don’t know. …The test - I don’t even think it’s done

yet, but here we are. And …I don’t teach to the test

necessarily, but again the Common Core is a more challenging

and rigorous curriculum. And it’s asking more of students

than we ever asked before. And so I would like to be able to

see some concrete examples [from the state assessment] …of

what the expectations are exactly… I would hope that digits

is written in a way that it will mirror what is expected on

the Common Core tests, but … I really don’t know. And I

would love to, on all of my [classroom-based] assessments,

have some component that would look exactly like [the state

test]. …. But we are just waiting for [the test], just

waiting. (Cartwright, digits, Indiana).

The next teacher indicated that she needs to see the state

assessments before she can understand what is expected in CCSSM.

She explained,

Interviewer: Do you feel prepared?

Teacher: No. I feel like it’s a shot in the dark. I feel

like …, I read these [CCSSM], and I can see how some


problems align to this, and yeah, we’re doing that “apply

and extend previous understandings of addition and

subtraction for rational numbers on a horizontal vertical

number line diagram” [paraphrasing CCSSM, p. 43]. Awesome

yeah, we’ve done thermometers; I mean we’ve got number lines

on our desks, that’s awesome. And then I see a [potential

test] question, …, it encompasses that [standard] but it

just seems so much beyond what I would think that that

means. (Allen, CMP2, New York).

Teachers’ perceptions regarding how state assessments will

influence instruction. In addition to asking teachers about their

perceptions of state assessments, we sought their views on how

these assessments might influence teaching and learning in their

classrooms. On the survey, large majorities agreed or strongly

agreed that the new state assessments will influence their

instructional decisions (92.0%) and their assessment practices

(91.2%) (see Table 5). A similar percentage agreed or strongly

agreed that the new assessments will help them decide what CCSSM

content and practices to emphasize (90.5%).


To explore more deeply how teachers expect the state

assessments will influence their instructional practices, we

examined interview data by considering all instances when

teachers discussed instruction and state assessment together.

Without specific questioning regarding the influence of state

assessments3 21 of 24 teachers interviewed indicated that the

state assessment was or would be influencing their instructional

planning and decision making. Consistent with the earlier finding

that the state assessments serve as a proxy for CCSSM, teachers

frequently discussed how state assessments influenced instruction

rather than CCSSM directly influencing instruction.

In planning the sequence and timing of units during the

year, teachers reported that the timing of the state assessment

was a key factor in mapping out units for the year. For example,

Gagnon explained how she and her colleagues were rushing

instruction to cover topics before the state assessment.

The content is shifting. When we were originally told about

Common Core we were told that we were going to have much

fewer topics to cover and we were going to be able to go a

lot deeper. So far we have not seen that. So far we have


been rushing and trying to get through content quickly so

that we can make sure that we make it to what we need to

cover before the state exam. So we’re finding it more

difficult. (Glencoe, New York)

In addition to the state assessments influencing

instructional planning across the year, the state assessments

were also affecting how teachers were approaching specific

aspects of mathematics, such as problem solving. In the next

example, a teacher described how she worked with students to

prepare them to respond to problems on the state assessment.

[The state assessment items] have a lot less scaffolding… I

think they’ve become a reading exam almost to some degree

for some kids, so it’s less handholding I think on our part.

…We have to teach them to approach a question … that’s all

one big chunk and pick through it and find out to make sure

they answer all the parts. And if you don’t practice that in

class, … then they won’t stand a fighting chance [on the

state assessment]. They won’t be able to persevere through

the problem, they won’t stick to it and try to continue

different strategies or … be clear in their reasoning. …It’s


a lot of conversations with the kids about, “What are you

going to do next?”, and not that I didn’t ask those things

[prior to the state assessment], but if I knew it was a

difficult topic, or if I knew it was something that was a

little bit of a stretch for the kids, [in the past] I [had

a] tendency to try to create something that was

scaffolded ... I think these questions are going to look a

lot different (Roitman, CMP2, New York).

Teachers’ perceptions and feelings about teacher

evaluations. As we first reviewed the interview responses, we

identified a pattern we had not anticipated: 19 of the 24

teachers expressed strong feelings or worry and concern related

to two overlapping areas. First, teachers expressed concern that

their students would not be prepared for the state assessment

because the content is too difficult for the age and grade of

students. Second, teachers worried about state assessment scores

leading to low teacher evaluations. After finding repeated

instances of anxiety or concern, we developed three items for the

survey, as shown in Table 6. The survey responses indicated that

increased use of student test scores in teacher evaluations


represents a significant change for most teachers. When asked

whether there was going to be an increased emphasis on student

scores in teacher evaluations, 85.5% of the teachers agreed or

strongly agreed that was the case. Furthermore, a majority of

teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation process

would influence their instructional decisions (65.1%) and their

assessment practices (54.2%).


The interviews revealed more about why the teachers were

concerned. Teachers’ concern about students’ readiness for state

assessments was reflected in the below comment. Gates explained

that she was deliberately planning the timing of units to ensure

that they cover material before the state assessment (similar to

Gagnon’s statement earlier), and then expressed concern for

students that fast pace would not support effective teaching and

learning.

Interviewer: So for the adding and subtracting fractions

you had to teach that algorithm rather than trying to get

them to make sense of it?


Teacher: There’s no way, … there’s so much content that

needs to be taught before the state test that right now.

We’re struggling really with coming up with good solid - I

don’t want to use the word activities - but …lessons that

isn’t [sic] algorithm-based. Just because there isn’t any

possible time to get it all in. …We looked at our calendar,

and we realized that if we want to stay on track, we …

probably have to teach a unit a week in order to fit it all

in before the state test. … We mapped it all out. So we’re

moving, and it’s a lot faster because I don’t think that

we’re hitting mastery. (Gates, Glencoe, New York)

Teachers also expressed concern about new teacher evaluation

systems that are linked to students’ performance on state

assessments. Roitman described her understanding of how the new

teacher evaluations will be determined, revealing uncertainty and

anxiety about the process.

Teacher: For my evaluation I’m getting assessed on my kid’s

growth from their 7th grade test, which doesn’t test the

same stuff as the 8th grade test, but somehow … they gave us

a grade from last year based on how the kids performed on


their 7th … grade. And I’m not sure how, I mean it’s been a

while since I taught a statistics course, but I suppose you

can create a growth model if you’re [a statistician].

Interviewer: Not really [indicating that these comparisons

are problematic].

Teacher: Okay, I didn’t think [it was valid] either, but…

it’s being done…. So [our evaluations are] going to be based

on the previous year’s performance. (Roitman, CMP2, New

York)

Similar to the above example, teachers do not understand how

or why the growth scores for evaluations will be valid measures

of their performance, especially when no baseline data is

available.

Teacher: My growth score is going to be way down…

Interviewer: For your teacher evaluation?

Teacher: Yes.

Interviewer: Since this is the first year you’re getting

the new tests, how can they even give you a growth score?

Teacher: Yep. [indicating agreement that this score does

not seem reasonable.]


Interviewer: She’s shaking her head with no idea. Oh my.

(Blackburn, Glencoe, New York)

Teachers were also concerned that the emphasis on

assessments and teacher evaluations will have unintended effects

that result in less focus on high quality teaching and learning

for students and negatively influencing professional

collaborations. Davison expressed this worry as follows:

I would hope that at the district level there isn’t so much

pressure about performing on the test and that we really

look hard at giving our kids time to make sense. I worry, I

just worry that the high-stakes test just seems to get

higher and higher and I worry …. We have …[new common]

tests, and basically … a group of 7th grade teachers … all

agreed that this is the common assessment we were going to

give at the end of the unit. We’ve evolved… to some [tests]

being more authentic kinds of assessments, like in terms of

projects or exploring big ideas in a different way. And so

there are [teachers] that are already worried that there’s

someone on high, unnamed, we don’t really know who at the

district level that’s looking at their scores, and they


worried for their employability if their scores start

looking worse than someone else’s….And that really puts a

layer of anxiety on people that I don’t think is healthy.

You know it sort of squelches collaboration if I’m worried

that if my scores are better than yours. [Teachers are in

the position of thinking,] “I’m protecting my job so why am

I going to help you become a better teacher?” And I worry

about that - that’s what this could become down the line

with the Smarter Balance Assessment or whatever formal

assessment we end up selecting as a state - that’s out of

our control. (CMP3, Michigan)

Discussion and Implications

Our findings reveal some important patterns in teachers’

perceptions and reported practices that provide a baseline for

tracking the development of teachers’ perceptions of CCSSM and

how the CCSSM might impact their instructional practices. These

findings also could inform rapidly changing policy, assessment,

curriculum, instruction, and professional development related to

CCSSM. Moreover, given that national standards are adopted in

many countries, this study might inform other countries embarking


on writing or revising standards with considerations for their

release and implementation. In this section we discuss findings

for each of the three categories presented above, and then

discuss consideration and implications when we look across these

findings.

Teachers’ Perceptions of CCSSM and Efforts to Interpret CCSSM

The survey and interview data indicated that teachers are

using a variety of resources (e.g. district-adopted textbooks,

online/digital materials, CCSSM-related frameworks and documents)

and collaborating with colleagues to interpret and implement

CCSSM. Even when teachers primarily use a district- adopted

curriculum, most teachers indicated that they are analyzing the

curriculum to check that it incorporates CCSSM and/or using other

materials to interpret and/or address CCSSM for their teaching.

Consistent with other research (Cogan, Schmidt & Houang, 2013;

Hart Research Associates, 2013), teachers’ responses evidenced

familiarity with CCSSM, and yet the range of resources reported

suggests that teachers may not have a clear understanding for how

to interpret or enact CCSSM in the context of instructional

practice.


Teachers’ Perceptions of CCSSM and CCSSM’s Alignment with

Curriculum Materials and with Their Students’ Learning

As we focused in further by examining teachers’ perceptions

of CCSSM in regard to alignment with their curriculum materials

and their students’ learning, we found more evidence that

teachers are looking for additional support and direction for

implementation. Teachers’ responses revealed cautious and

skeptical views about the extent to which adopted curriculum

materials are as aligned with CCSSM, as publishers often

indicated. Although a few of the teachers interviewed expressed

trust in their materials, believing that the mathematics trajectory

provided in the materials will support students learning (Drake &

Sherin, 2009) in ways that are consistent with CCSSM, more

teachers were not willing to trust their curriculum materials

and/or did not perceive their materials as fully aligned.

Teachers who did not display trust provided examples and/or

stated that they needed to adapt or supplement their materials.

This finding, in combination with the multiple resources teachers

reported using, indicated that many teachers are not simply

following a mathematics textbook in determining what to teach, as


was common in the past (Freeman & Porter, 1989; Grouws et al.,

2004). Thus, CCSSM seems to be pushing teachers to critically

analyze curriculum materials more; however, with uncertainty

about how to interpret CCSSM, teachers may be lacking a way to

analyze their materials relative to CCSSM and to map CCSSM onto

specific instructional activities.

Teachers also considered how CCSSM aligned with knowledge of

their students. On the survey, a strong majority of teachers

viewed CCSSM as more rigorous than their previous standards and

as requiring more focus on students’ learning of mathematics

concepts. In examining the interview data, while some teachers

welcomed an increased focus on concepts, teachers also questioned

whether the scope and pace of CCSSM provided time needed for

students’ conceptual learning (i.e., CCSSM might require that

students move through the curriculum too quickly). Interestingly,

although documents about student learning progressions with CCSSM

are widely available (Common Core Standards Writing Team, 2011),

in interviews, comments about student thinking and learning

progressions were strikingly absent. It seemed that teachers at

this point were focused on understanding what is expected in


instruction, with little attention to how students will develop

understandings.

Teachers’ Perceptions of CCSSM-Based State Assessments and

Teacher Evaluation Systems

Our findings from both the survey and the interviews

indicated that state assessments will influence teachers’

instructional practices - not only because the assessments hold

high-stakes for students, but also because they will play a role

in teachers’ evaluations. Indeed, teachers consistently

referenced a need to see examples of assessment items as a way to

interpret what is meant by specific standards and what is most

important in CCSSM. Thus state assessments seem to be serving as

a proxy for CCSSM. In interviews, most teachers indicated that

they are making decisions about curriculum in order to “get

through the content quickly… to cover [content] before the state

exam” (Gagnon, Glencoe), rather than making principled decisions

based on students’ learning progressions and coherence in the

curriculum. This finding is consistent with Palmer and Rangel’s

(2011) findings about effects of high-stakes tests on teachers’

decision making and with Au’s (2007) metasynthesis of research


studies on effects of high-stakes tests showing that in a strong

majority of the studies, high-stakes tests lead to narrowing and

fragmenting of curriculum. On the other hand, we found a few

instances for which teachers’ perceptions indicated that the

high-stakes tests are influencing a shift toward teaching and

learning that includes deeper problem solving, a goal of CCSSM.

For example, as shown above, Roitman reflected on state

assessments having “less scaffolding,” and so she is focusing

more on students learning how to “approach a question” (CMP2) – a

shift consistent with CCSSM. This finding is also consistent with

Au’s (2007) research in that a few studies evidenced that when

high-stakes tests were structured to focus on higher level

thinking, teachers expanded curriculum and shifted toward

student-centered pedagogies. As policy is shifting to include

student assessment scores as part of teachers’ evaluation, the

influence of state assessment is likely to increase beyond Au’s

(2007) findings. Thus, just as teachers are “just waiting”

(Cartwright, digits) to see the state assessments, positive and

negative effects of assessment on the implementation of CCSSM are

yet to be seen, but it is clear that state assessments will be a


critical determinant for implementation of CCSSM and may hold far

greater authority for what is taught than CCSSM.

Looking Across the Findings

Findings indicated that teachers need more guidance in

interpreting CCSSM, teachers viewed CCSSM as including content

not previously at their grade level (in past state standards

and/or in past curriculum materials), and teachers are grabbing

multiple resources (with few teachers trusting a single set of

curriculum materials). Further, in comparison to prior efforts at

standards implementation (e.g., Spillane & Zeuli, 1999), there

seems to be intensified uncertainty around the use of materials

in the implementation of CCSSM and higher levels of recognition

among teachers that CCSSM describe ideas about teaching and

learning significantly different from current practices.

Consequently, it seems likely that in the early years of

implementation, CCSSM may not lead to a more focused and coherent

curriculum, as intended. Educational leaders and policy makers

may need to be prepared for a period of confusion and a lack of

coherence in how teacher interpret and use CCSSM, as part of the

transition to implementing CCSSM. These findings suggest that


educational leaders and professional developers should consider

ways to support teachers in implementing CCSSM with coherence,

rather than checking off one standard at a time and potentially

fragmenting the curriculum and working against a primary goal and

potential benefit of the CCSSM (Schmidt & Houang, 2012; Woolard,

2013).

As we examined teachers’ perceptions of CCSSM in combination

with their perceptions of emerging state assessments and teacher

evaluation systems, findings underscored that the design of the

state assessments is critical in how CCSSM are implemented.

Consistently, teachers indicated that their instruction depends

on what is tested. Moreover, if CCSSM are not implemented in ways

intended, policy makers and educational leaders should examine

the state assessments, rather than focusing only on teachers or

CCSSM.

Teachers’ perceptions provide an early signal for potential

challenges and complexities related to CCSSM that could inform

policy, professional development and support, state assessments,

and teacher evaluations. Given that teachers’ practices and

students’ learning are core to implementation of CCSSM, it is


important to attend to teachers’ views and understandings now and

in future research. As CCSSM become fully implemented in the US,

classroom-based research on teachers’ practices in implementing

CCSSM will be a critical component of understanding the role,

benefit, and limitations of standards in education.


References

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A

qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36 (5) 258-

267.

Authors (2013a).

Authors (2013b).

Ball, D. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective

teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal,

90, 449-466.

Billstein, R. & Williamson, J. (1998). Middle Grade MATH Thematics.

Evanston, IL McDougal Little.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Pearson.

Carter, J. Cuevas, J., Day, R., & Malloy, C. (2013). Glencoe Math.

New York: McGraw Hill.

Cogan, L., Schmidt, W., & Houang, R. (January, 2013). Implementing

the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: What we know about

teachers of mathematics in 41 states: Working paper #33. East Lansing,

MI: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State

University.


Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs.

Oublier. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 327-345.

Cohen, D. & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform

works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cohen, D., Radenbush, S. & Ball, D. (2003). Resources,

instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

25 (2), 119-142.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State

Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math

%20Standards.pdf

Common Core Standards Writing Team. (2011). Progressions for the

Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from

http://commoncoretools.files.wordpress.com

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research, 3e.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drake, C. & Sherin, M.G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and

trust: Changes in

http://commoncoretools.files.wordpress.com/


teachers’ curriculum strategies. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-

Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics Teachers at Work:

Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction. Routledge

Education. (pp. 321-337).

Duncan, A. (June 2009a). States will lead the way towards reform. Address

by the Secretary of Education at the 2009 Governors

Education Symposium. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06142009.pdf

Duncan, A. (July 2009b). Partners in reform. Address by the Secretary

of Education at the 2009 Governors Education Symposium.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009-

2.html

EPE Research Center. (2013). Findings from a national survey of teacher

perspectives on the Common Core. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/media/epe_survey_teacher_perspctives_c

ommon_core_2013.pdf

Feistritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011.

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information.

Retrieved from



http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009-2.html

http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/2009-2.html



Fennell, S., Johnson, A., Milou, E., Murphy, S., Schielack, J.,

Sherman, H., Tate, W., & Wiggins, G. (2010). digits. New

York. Pearson

Freeman, Donald J., & Porter, Andrew C. (1989). Do textbooks

dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary

schools? American Educational Research Journal 26(3), 403-421.

Gates Foundation, & Scholastic, Inc. (2012). Primary Sources

2012: America’s teachers on the teaching profession (pp.

138): Gates Foundation.

Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The Preparation

and Teaching Practices of United States Mathematics

Teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester

(Eds.), Results and Interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 Mathematics

Assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 221-

267) Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

Hart Research Associates. (March 2013). Teachers assess implementation

of the Common Core. Retrieved from

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/press/ppt_ccss-pollresultSurvey

2013.pdf


Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher

performance. Retrieved from Center for Public Education

website:

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluating

-performance/Trends-in-Teacher-Evaluation-At-A-Glance/

Trends-in-Teacher-Evaluation-Full-Report-PDF.pdf.

Lappan, G., Fey, J.T., Fitzgerald, W.M., Friel, S.N., & Phillips,

E.D. (2006). Connected mathematics 2. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Lappan, G., Fey, J.T., Fitzgerald, W.M., Friel, S.N., & Phillips,

E.D. (in press). Connected mathematics 3. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Liang, G. & Akiba, M. (2013). Teacher evaluation, performance-

related pay, and constructivist instruction. Education Policy.

Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904813492379.

Miles, M., Huberman, A., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis:

A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and

standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Palmer, D. & Rangel, V. (2011). High stakes accountability and

policy implementation: Teacher decision making in a


bilingual classroom in Texas. Educational Policy, 25 (4), 614-

647.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common

Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational

Researcher, 40, 103-116.

Rentner, D. S. (2013a). Year three of implementing the Common

Core Standards: An overview of states’ progress and

challenges (pp. 20) Washington, DC.: Center on Education

Policy.

Rentner, D. S. (2013b). Year three of implementing the Common

Core Standards: States prepare for Common Core Assessments

(pp. 17) Washington, DC.: Center on Education Policy.

Researchware (2007). HyperResearch v. 3.5.2. Retrieved from

http://www.researchware.com.

Reys, B. J., Dougherty, B. J., Olson, T. A., & Thomas, A. (2012).

Common Core State Standards for middle grades mathematics:

Implications for curriculum and instruction. In C. R.

Hirsch, G. T. Lappan, & B. J. Reys (Eds.), Curriculum issues in

an era of Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (pp. 33-46)

Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.


Saldaña 2013, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los

Angeles: Sage.

Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. (2012). Curricular coherence and the

Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Educational

Researcher, 41, 294-308.

Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum

coherence: an examination of U.S. mathematics and science

content standards from and international perspective. Journal

of Curriculum Studies, 35 (5), 525-559.

Smith, M. & Stein, M.K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive

mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics and Corwin.

Spillane, J. P. , & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching:

Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national

and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis 21(1), 1-27.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from

the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York:

Free Press.


Tarr, J., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., &

Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle-grades

mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment

on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

39(3), 247-280.

Thompson, C. & Zeuli, J. (1999). The frame and the tapestry:

Standards-based reform and professional development. In L.

Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.) Teaching as the learning

profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375) San

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Woolard, J. (2013). Prelude to the Common Core: Internationally

benchmarking a state’s math standards. Educational Policy, 24

(4), 615-644.

Yoshikawa, S. (2008). Education Ministry perspectives on

mathematics curriculum in Japan. In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore

(Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in Pacific rim countries - China, Japan, Korea

and Singapore: Proceedings of a conference (pp. 9- 21). Chicago:

Information Age Publishing.


Table 1

Background for Teachers Surveyed and Teachers Interviewed

TeachersSurveyed

Teachers Interviewed

Grade a Female Male Total Female Male Total

6th 85 32 117 6 0 6

7th 87 21 108 5 2 7

8th 108 33 141 5 0 5

Combination of 6th,7th, and/or 8th

Total

-

280

-

86

-

366

6

22

0

2

6

24

a Only those teachers who indicated that their primary teaching responsibility was grade 6, 7, or 8 were included in this survey.The numbers in the table indicate the primary grade indicated by the teacher.


Table 2

Teachers’ Familiarity with and Perceptions of CCSSM by Item

Item Not at all Not much Moderately ExtensivelyFamiliarity with Content Standards

2 (0.5%) 25 (6.8%) 192 (52.5%)

147 (40.2%)

Familiarity with Practice Standards

7 (1.9%) 54 (14.8%) 186 (50.8%)

119 (32.5%)

Districts encouraged teachers to try new instructionalapproaches

10 (2.7%) 65 (17.8%) 163 (44.5%)

128 (35.0%)

Districts provided opportunities tolearn about CCSSM

10 (2.7%) 85 (23.2%) 164 (44.8%)

107 (29.2%)

CCSSM emphasizesmathematical communication

1 (0.3%) 32 (8.7%) 147 (40.2%)

186 (50.8%)

The CSSSM emphasize the solving of complex problems

1 (0.3%) 19 (5.2%) 122 (33.3%)

224 (61.2%)


Table 3

Teachers’ Perceptions of CCSSM by item

Item StronglyDisagree

Disagree

Agree StronglyAgree

CCSSM will require you to communicate with yourstudents

9(2.5%)

47 (12.8%)

217 (59.3%)

93(25.4%)

CCSSM will incorporate more student exploration

8(2.2%)

47 (12.8%)

197 (53.8%)

114 (31.1%)

CCSSM will emphasize activities in which students explore topics

7(1.9%)

42 (11.5%)

233 (63.7%)

84(23.0%)

CCSSM represent new content for their grade level

10(2.7%)

87 (23.8%)

179 (48.9%)

90(24.6%)

The Content Standards are more rigorous than your state standards

6(1.6%)

51 (13.9%)

170 (46.4%)

139 (38.0%)

The Practice Standards are more rigorous than your state standards

8(2.2%)

48 (13.1%)

171 (46.7%)

139 (38.0%)

CCSSM will require you to teach more procedurally

22(6.0%)

192 (52.5%)

125 (34.2%)

27(7.4%)

CCSSSM will require you to teach conceptually

6(1.6%)

49 (13.4%)

201 (54.9%)

110 (30.1%)


Table 4

Curriculum Documents Referred to when Planning Instruction

None atall

Occasionally

Once ortwice amonth

Once ortwice aweek

Almosteveryday

Does NotApply

The school-or district-adopted textbook

40(10.9%)

57(15.6%)

24(6.6%)

85(23.2%)

141(38.5%)

19(5.2%)

CCSSM document

38(10.4%)

63(17.2%)

47(12.8%

)

115(31.4%)

96(26.2%)

7(1.9%)

Your state curriculum framework

30(8.2%)

67(18.3%)

51(13.9%

)

109(29.8%)

103(28.1%)

6(1.6%)

Your district curriculum framework

32(8.7%)

61(16.7%)

44(12.0%

)

102(27.9%)

113(30.9%)

14(3.8%)

Other documents that explain CCSSM

61(16.7%)

78(21.3%)

62(16.9%

)

86(23.5%)

63(17.2%)

16(4.4%)

Practice orremediationmaterials

28(7.7%)

80(21.9%)

52(14.2%

)

122(33.3%)

84(23.0%)

NA

Supplemental inquiry-based activities

44(12.0%)

87(23.8%)

91(24.9%

)

82(22.4%)

62(16.9%)

NA


Table 5

Teachers’ Views of the Focus of State Assessments

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Will be aligned with CCSSM Mathematics Content Standards

5 (1.4%) 27 (7.4%) 223 (60.9%)

111 (30.3%)

Will contain problems involving largernumbers, more decimals, and more fractions

7 (1.9%) 107 (29.2%)

198 (54.1%)

54 (14.8%)

Will assess eachof the eight CCSSM Mathematical Practice Standards

8 (2.2%) 51 (13.9%)

241 (65.8%)

66 (18.0%)

Will measure content similar to your classroom assessments

12 (3.3%)

75 (20.5%)

241 (65.8%)

38 (10.4%)

Will influence your instructional decisions

8 (2.2%) 21 (5.7%) 200 (54.6%)

137 (37.4%)

Will influence your assessment

7 (1.9%) 25 (6.8%) 200 (54.6%)

134 (36.6%)


practices

Will help you decide what CCSSM mathematics content and practices to emphasize

6 (1.6%) 29 (7.9%) 203 (55.5%)

128 (35.0%)


Table 6

Teacher Evaluations

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

There is an increased emphasis on student test scores in the evaluation of teachers

6 (1.6%) 47(12.8%)

138(37.7%)

175(47.8%)

The teacher evaluation process in your state/district influences your instructional decisions

24(6.6%)

104(28.4%)

173(47.3%)

65(17.8%)

The teacher evaluation process in your state/district influences your assessment practices

24(6.6%)

107(29.2%)

158(43.2%)

77(21.0%)

Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics...

Documents

Transcript of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics...