Advertisement

Common Core State Standards and Response to Intervention: The Importance of Assessment, Intervention, and Progress Monitoring

  • Shane R. JimersonEmail author
  • Rachel Stein
  • Aaron Haddock
  • Reza Shahroozi
Chapter

Abstract

With the recent debut of the common core state standards (CCSS) , it is important to consider the potential opportunities and implications of response to intervention (RTI)/multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) and CCSS in facilitating the academic success of all students. This chapter delineates the central tenets of the CCSS and explores intersects with RTI practices. As education professionals shift to the new curriculum standards, there is a tremendous opportunity for schools to explore refining or developing an RTI infrastructure. Thus, this chapter also highlights the importance of using appropriate assessments, evidence-based intervention strategies, and progress monitoring to facilitate student achievement. To the extent that CCSS articulates a new destination for students, RTI may provide a means of getting there.

Keywords

Common Core State Standard Procedural Fluency Common Core Standard Common Core State Standard Initiative Promote Student Achievement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aimsweb. (2012). http://www.aimsweb.com/. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  2. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2013). Common core state standards 101. http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/common-core-state-standards-101/. Accessed 7 July 2013.
  3. Applebee, A. (2013). Common core state standards: The promise and the peril in a national palimpsest. English Journal, 103(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
  4. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.Google Scholar
  6. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D. J., Schrag, J., & Tilly III, W. D. (2005). Response to intervention. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163–197.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education, 5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar
  9. Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2011). Relating policy to research and practice: The common core standards. Language Arts, 89(1), 38–43.Google Scholar
  10. Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth: Heinemann..Google Scholar
  11. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Assessing the quality of the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, D. (2011). Using the common core state standards to drive student achievement and school improvement. Teach for America’s 20th Anniversary Summit. http://www.teachforamerica.org/corps-member-and-alumni-resources/alumni-summits/20th-anniversary-summit. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  13. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Development Process. Downloaded 7.7.2014. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/.
  14. Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., & Nguyen, K. (2010). Learning trajectories display of the common core standards for mathematics. New York: Wireless Generation.Google Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (2010, July 25). Common core standards: Hardly an evidence-based policy. http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/common-core-standards-hardly-an-evidence-based-policy/. Accessed 7 July 2013.
  16. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deno, S. L., Burns, M. K., & Jimerson, S. R. (in press). Data-based decision-making. Handbook on RTI: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Early, D. M, Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., Crawford, G., Weaver, W., Howes, C., Ritchie, S., Kraft-Sayre, M., Pianta, R., & Barnett, W. S. (2005). Pre-kindergarten in 11 states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of pre-kindergarten and study of statewide early education programs (SWEEP): Preliminary descriptive report. NCEDL Working Paper. http://www.fpg.unc.edu/node/4654. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  19. Ediger, M. (2011). Assisting pupils in mathematics achievement (The common core standards). Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 154–156.Google Scholar
  20. Foorman, B. (2012). Finding the science of reading in the common core state standards [PowerPoint Slides]. http://fcrr.org/finding_sci_reading_ccss_ibida_20121011.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2013.
  21. Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., & Baker, W. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ginsburg, H. P., Kaplan, R. G., Cannon, J., Cordero, M. I., Eisenband, J. G., Galanter, M., & Morgenlander, M. (2006). Helping early childhood educators to teach mathematics. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 171–202). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  24. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child Development, 22(1).Google Scholar
  25. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Common core state standards, writing, and students with LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, New York: Guilford Press, 28(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2013). Best practices in writing instruction. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Common core state standards and students with learning disabilities: introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(3), 607–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hausken, E. G., & Rathbun, A. (2004). Mathematics instruction in kindergarten: Classroom practices and outcomes. In American Educational Research Association meeting. San Diego.Google Scholar
  31. Jago, C. (2009). A history of NAEP assessment frameworks. http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/who-we-are/20-anniversary/jago-frameworks-formatted.pdf. Accessed 6 Oct 2013.
  32. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDer Heyden, A. M. (2007). Response to intervention at school: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. In Handbook of Response to Intervention (pp. 3–9). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. King, J. E., & Jones, A. (2012). The common core state standards: Closing the school-college gap. Trusteeship, 20(2), 16–21.Google Scholar
  34. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence, K. S. (2004). Executive summary of the NRCLD symposium on responsiveness to intervention [Brochure]. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  36. Layzer, J. I. (1993). Observational study of early childhood programs. Final Report. Volume I: Life in Preschool.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, J. O. (2011). Reach teachers now to ensure common core success. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 42–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lembke, E. S., Garman, C., Deno, S. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). One elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention (RTI). Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 361–373. doi:10.1080/10573569.2010. 500266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Manley, R., & Hawkins, R. J. (2013). Making the common core standards work. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adults’ beliefs about children and mathematics: How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development and Parenting, 7(4), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  45. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards (Application of Common Core State Standards to students with disabilities). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-disabilities.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2013.
  46. National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve, Inc.Google Scholar
  47. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics learning study committee, center for education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. Newkirk, T. (2009). Holding on to good ideas in a time of bad ones: Six literacy principles worth fighting for. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. Newkirk, T. (2013). Speaking back to the common core. In (postscript to) Holding on to good ideas in a time of bad ones: Six literacy practices worth fighting for (2009) (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  51. O’Connor. (2003). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Paper presented at the Response-to-Intervention Symposium, December 4–5, 2003, Kansas City. www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003.
  52. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013). Parconline.org.Google Scholar
  53. Picklo, D. M., & Christenson, S. L. (2005). Alternatives to retention and social promotion: The availability of instructional options. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards the new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Renaissance Learning. (2013). Make a seamless transition to common core state standards. http://www.renlearn.com/ccss/default.aspx. Accessed 7 July 2013.
  57. Russell, S. J. (2012). CCSSM: Keeping teaching and learning strong. Teaching Children’s Mathematics, 19(1), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum. American Educator, 26(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  59. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  62. Tienken, C. H. (2011). Common core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Alsopp, D. (in press). Innovation configuration for mathematics.Google Scholar
  64. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need–and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  66. Wang, M. T., & Homcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Researcher, 47, 633–662. doi:10.3102/0002831209361209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(4), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu, H. (1999). Basic skills versus conceptual understanding. American Educator, 23(3), 14–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane R. Jimerson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rachel Stein
    • 1
  • Aaron Haddock
    • 1
  • Reza Shahroozi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations