Evaluating Missouri's Proposed Standards

Like many Missouri educators, I've been slogging my way through the nearly 500 pages of proposed standards produced by work groups last year. Overall, I would say the proposed standards match closely with current standards. However, there are enough subtle differences to disrupt the curriculum work of educators. Elementary teachers will face major challenges in trying to realign their curriculum in all four core subjects in one year. Ideally if new standards were to be adopted, teachers would only be asked to implement new curriculum for one subject a year.

While there are areas where the new standards represent improvements, I personally do not find the improvements to be worth the level of disruption that will be caused by adopting so many new standards so quickly. Small schools, lacking subject area curriculum directors, will be at a disadvantage compared to larger districts who have specialized personnel to analyze and align curriculum. Some leaders will inevitably choose to risk having their students learn a curriculum that is not fully aligned to new standards (and the accompanying tests), rather than make unreasonable demands on teachers who may be experiencing their third set of standards in five years.

Below are a few notes I made while comparing the proposed standards to the current standards.

English Language Arts:
-The proposed ELA standards do not use the same strands in grades K-5 as they do in grades 6-12. The K-5 strands are language, reading, writing, and speaking and listening. In 6-12 the strands are reading literature, reading informational texts, writing, and speaking and listening. Unnecessary complexity, particularly in grammar and punctuation instruction, could result.
-Because grammar and punctuation are lumped into writing in the 6-12 standards, the standards lack the specificity found in the K-5 language standards. "Conventions of standard English" for "commas, verb tense, and unclear pronouns," seems to be used too often as a catch all. At which grade should using a colon to introduce a list be taught? At which grade should the use of semi-colons in a list be taught? At which grade would these concepts begin appearing on a state test?
-Many similarities between current standards and proposed standards can be found. For example the current standard, MSL LA 4.RI.9, "integrate information from two texts," is very similar to the proposed standard, Reading 1CB, "explain relevant connections between text to text." Current standard MSL LA 6RI 1" cite textual evidence to support analysis" is identical to  proposed standard, RL.1, "cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says."
-In spite of the similarities, many changes exists. The k-5 crosswalk includes the phrase "not in current standards" over 100 times. "Not in proposed standards" appears over 70 times. For example, "writes legibly" is a proposed second grade standard and "produces simple, compound, and complex sentences" has been removed from third grade standards.
-Much of the criticism of the common core standards seemed to stem from a baseless belief that the standards included a political agenda, so it surprised me to see that the proposed standards included language in the 6-12 grade standards requiring the analysis of "historical and cultural context of texts."

Mathematics
-Overall the crosswalk between proposed and existing standards matches up more closely than in ELA.
-The crosswalk does show 19 "new standards," and changes exist. For example, the current elementary standard of "measure to determine how much longer one object is than another" is out, but " describe time shown on a digital clock to the same time on an analog clock" is in, as well as "find a combination of coins that equal a given amount." While current standards had language similar to these new standards, the proposed standards relating to money and time are much more specific.
-Algebra I standards are identified separately, which will help instructors preparing for the Algebra 1 EOC.

Science
-Unlike the mathematics standards, the science writers did not write specific standards for Biology I, which has its own EOC. Biology standards will have to be pulled from the Life Sciences strand, which contains 26 standards, ten fewer than the current Biology I course level expectations. Biology teachers will have to sort this out.
-Secondary science standards have "assessment thresholds" which should help clarify limits of what students should be expected to learn. This is especially helpful because most textbooks contain much more information than is appropriate for students to learn in a year.
-Seemingly influenced by Next Generation, most standards are built on verbs such as model, construct, and predict. If this leads to science classes that are more hands on, then an improvement has been made; however one wonders if test writers can construct items that match the standards.
-Unlike ELA standards, the science standards use the same strands though out the grade levels: LS (life sciences), PS (physical sciences), and ES (earth science). However, the work is not formatted in the same way, which will add some complexity for curriculum leaders.

Social Studies
-The proposed elementary standards are much more robust than current standards. Over 49 pages of standards were written for kindergarten through fifth grade.
-Over 60 new standards for elementary students have been written.
-Unlike science work groups, the social studies writers chose to write specific standards for American Government, which will be helpful for students preparing for the American Government EOC. 34 standards for American Government were written. The writers made a special effort to write the standards in a way that promotes higher levels thinking skills over simple recall. Most standards are built around verbs such as compare, predict, evaluate, and analyze.