This article responds to comments on the authors’ Educational Researcher article “Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum” (April 2011). The authors note points of agreement and difference with the commentators. They observe that Cobb and Jackson, in their response, and Beach, in his, appear to accept the authors’ methods and findings, although these commentators suggest additional perspectives that should be brought to bear when addressing quality and change. The authors agree with Beach, Cobb, and Jackson that quality is difficult to define and assess, and they state that additional conceptualizations of mathematics and English language arts content and additional conceptualizations of how to define and measure alignment among content standards, materials, assessments, and instruction should be explored. They look forward to renewed efforts in this research area.
BeachR. W. (2011). Issues in Analyzing Alignment of Language Arts Common Core Standards With State Standards. Educational Researcher, 40, 179–182.
2.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2011). Assessing the Quality of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40, 183–185.
3.
GamoranA.PorterA. C.SmithsonJ.WhiteP. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338. doi:10.3102/01623737019004325
National Research Council. (2006). Systems for state science assessment (WilsonM.BertenthalM., Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. (DuschlR. A.SchweingruberH. A.ShouseA. W., Eds.). Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
7.
PorterA. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007003
8.
PorterA. C.ChesterM. D.SchlesingerM. D. (2004, June). Framework for an effective assessment and accountability program: The Philadelphia example. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1358–1400.
9.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116.
10.
PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.SmithsonJ. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238–268. doi:10.3102/0162373709336465
WilsonM. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
WilsonM.ScaliseK.GalpernA.LinY.-H. (2009). A guide to the Formative Assessment Delivery System (FADS). Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research (BEAR) Report, University of California, Berkeley.
