Despite very different district implementation strategies for ELA and math, 2016 survey responses showed few differences between teachers responsible for each set of standards¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2021: local conditions change quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The Department of Literacy used early-adopter schools while the Department of Mathematics partnered with universities, yet teacher responses differed little between the ELA and math groups. → Julia A. Gwynne and Jennifer R. Cowhy with R. Steven Quispe 2018
Evidence¶
Julia A. Gwynne and Jennifer R. Cowhy with R. Steven Quispe 2018¶
Julia A. Gwynne and Jennifer R. Cowhy with R. Steven Quispe. (2018). Getting Ready for the Common Core State Standards: A 2016 Update. UChicago Consortium on School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/getting-ready-common-core-state-standards-experiences-cps-teachers-and-administrators
q2 · i? · associational · r2
The inset box describes CPS's two implementation strategies: the Literacy department used "early-adopter schools" to design professional learning and materials, while the Mathematics department partnered with two local universities and built an online repository of standards-aligned materials. Despite these differences, the brief reports few ELA-versus-math response differences.
"The Department of Literacy relied on early-adopter schools—CPS schools that had already shown evidence of using instructional practices aligned with the goals of the new ELA standards—to help design professional learning and develop curriculum and materials"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Elementary teachers were much more likely than high school teachers to report the CCSS would have a great deal of impact on teaching and learning in 2016 — related
- Teachers reported feeling more familiar with and more prepared to teach the CCSS in 2016 than in 2015, with elementary and ELA-group teachers higher than high school and math-group teachers — related
- Elementary teachers were more likely than high school teachers to report that standards-related professional development had extensive impact on their teaching practices — related
- Teachers in 2016 were far less likely than administrators in 2015 to report that unaligned assessments, insufficient collaboration time, or inadequate PD were major barriers to CCSS implementation — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ccss-few-ela-math-response-group-differences |
title |
Despite very different district implementation strategies for ELA and math, 2016 survey responses showed few differences between teachers responsible for each set of standards |
description |
Despite very different district implementation strategies for ELA and math, 2016 survey responses showed few differences between teachers responsible for each set of standards |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
recheck_by |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — julia-a-gwynne-and-jennifer-r-cowhy-with-r-steven-quispe-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.