is not a curriculum. The learning expectations are clear, and although there are many suggested ideas for classroom teachers, there is no national reading list, no list of writing prompts that every teacher must use, no curriculum that is standardized in every classroom, and certainly no list of effective teaching practices (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, 2010b). The decisions about how to test, how frequently to test, and which tests to use firmly remain each state’s prerogative. Although many states have made commitments, through the receipt of federal Race to the Top grants, a growing number of states have defied the federal government as it attempts to enforce commitments made when those grants were being pursued.
How the Common Core Influences Teaching
Although the Common Core does not specify how to teach, the academic expectations within the Common Core certainly should influence many classroom practices. Foremost among these influences is the significant increase in the quantity and quality of classroom writing. In particular, the Common Core shifts the focus of classroom writing from personal narrative and creative writing to descriptive, analytical, and argumentative writing. Certainly there remains space for poetry, creative essays, and personal narratives in the curriculum. But in order to meet the writing requirements of the Common Core, almost every teacher in every discipline needs to make student writing a much greater part of the curriculum.
Another important influence of the Common Core on teaching practices is the increase in the use of scoring guides, or rubrics, to assess student performance. The documents supporting the Common Core provide many examples of scoring guides (NGA & CSSD, n.d.). Of particular help are student work examples featured on the Common Core website, which correspond to each level of performance. This encourages, but does not require, teachers to incorporate the explicit feedback of scoring guides into their daily practice.
By using these guides, teachers tend to be more explicit and consistent in their expectations, and students know what they must do in order to improve their performance. Most importantly, teachers’ expectations regarding student performance are linked explicitly to a set of standards and not to individual teachers’ idiosyncratic expectations. This is a good idea for any set of academic expectations, whether they are the Common Core State Standards or an alternative.
How the Common Core Influences Assessment
The Common Core, like any set of standards, focuses student learning on proficiency as measured against an objective standard. When all students are proficient, then it is possible that all students pass an assessment. When no students are proficient, then it is possible that no students pass an assessment. If the assessment accurately reflects the standards, then the response to low student performance is not to change the test or criticize the standards but simply to get feedback on how each student performed and how he or she can work harder and retake the assessment.
Schools know how to do this. They don’t widen the goal posts in soccer when too few goals are scored, and they don’t lower the height of the basket when basketball scores are low. Schools know how to get feedback, use it, work hard, and improve performance. The great question as the Common Core proceeds and, understandably, student results are lower than expected (this typically happens when more rigorous standards are implemented and less familiar test items are used), is what the reactions will be from educators, school leaders, policymakers, and parents (Linn, 1998). They might say, “It’s obvious that the assessment is flawed. Our kids can’t be that bad!” Or, they might say, “Since we have agreed to a path of more rigorous standards, it looks as if we have some work to do in order to move student performance to a higher level.” Watch the political rhetoric in the years ahead to see which path your jurisdiction takes.
How the Common Core Influences Grading
Although the Common Core State Standards do not contain a syllable about grading, the influence of these standards on grading is unmistakable if they are implemented faithfully. It is illogical, for example, to apply the standards and conclude that a student is proficient and then give that student failing marks for reasons not related to the academic standards. The Common Core doesn’t say a word about homework, extra credit, or attendance, all common elements of grading practices that have a major impact on evaluating the success and failure of students. All of these criteria and more remain the exclusive purview of teachers, schools, and systems.
Although the Common Core influences many matters related to what students should know and be able to do, it is completely silent on one of the greatest influences on student success—feedback and grading. Therefore, whatever standards your school chooses to use, your choice of grading practices remains one of the most important decisions you can make when it comes to improving student achievement.
Whatever the future of the Common Core, enduring influences on student achievement can be immune from the vagaries of political winds. These include feedback, an exceptionally strong influence on student achievement. The next chapter explores feedback and grading, which are inextricably linked. Parents and students do not ask about the details of standards but rather, “What’s the grade?” If we want a meaningful answer to that question, then we must provide effective feedback throughout the school year.
Chapter 3
THE IMPACT OF FEEDBACK ON ACHIEVEMENT
Although grading policies can be the subject of deeply held opinions, debates about grading are more constructive if we first agree on two important premises. First, we should be willing to agree that grading is a form of feedback. Second, we should be willing to agree that feedback is a very powerful instructional technique—some would say the most powerful—when it comes to influencing student achievement.
Evaluating the Evidence
Let’s look at the evidence. John Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of more than eight hundred meta-analyses evaluates the relative impact of many factors, including family structure, curriculum, teaching practices, and feedback on student achievement. The measurement that Hattie uses is effect size, or, simply put, the effectiveness of particular interventions. The impact of an effect size of 0.4 is, according to Hattie, about one year of learning. Therefore, any instructional or leadership initiative must at least pass this threshold. Many factors are statistically significant, as the following list will show. But statistical significance and practical significance are two different elements. Because of the overwhelming burdens on the time and resources of every school (Reeves, 2011a), it makes little sense to invest in initiatives that fail to cross the 0.4 level in effect size. An effect size of 1.0, Hattie suggests, would be blatantly obvious, such as the difference between two people who are 5 feet 3 inches (160 cm) and 6 feet (183 cm) in height—a difference clearly observable.
Even small effect sizes can be meaningful, particularly if they are devoted to initiatives that save lives. For example, Robert Rosenthal and M. Robin DiMatteo (2001) demonstrate that the effect size of taking a low dose of aspirin in preventing a heart attack is 0.07—a small fraction of a standard deviation—yet this translates into the result that thirty-four out of every one thousand people would be saved from a heart attack by using a low dose of aspirin on a regular basis.
The use of the common statistic for effect size helps busy teachers and school administrators evaluate alternative strategies and their impact on achievement compared to variables outside teachers’ and students’ control. For example, some of Hattie’s findings include the influence of the following on student achievement (Hattie, 2009).
• Preterm birth weight (0.54)
• Illness (0.23)
• Diet (0.12)
• Drug use (0.33)
• Exercise (0.28)
• Socioeconomic status
