In this era of dissatisfaction with public education, there are many "big ideas" for reform. Some are intriguing but impractical; others are promising but fail to gain a constituency. And even worthy proposals that education leaders support may not survive the rigors of implementation.

It will be unfortunate if this is the fate of "common core state standards." Led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, a total of 49 states and territories are participating in the standards initiative. The goal is to have a common set of standards that states can voluntarily adopt. A state may choose to include additional standards beyond the common core, as long as the common core represents at least 85 percent of the state's standards in English/language arts and mathematics.

The sponsoring organizations have recently published the standards, which "define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs."

This is the next logical step in the standards movement. It refines states' previous efforts by reducing the number of standards and increasing their depth and sophistication. Equally important, the new standards can replace the patchwork of current standards, whose quality varies widely among the states. The developers of the standards hope they will "help ensure students are receiving a high quality education consistently, from school to school and state to state."

The common core state standards are not self-implementing. States will have to adopt them. School systems will need to develop or adopt curricula that align instruction and student learning with the new standards. Teachers and administrators must understand the new standards and curricula, and how to use them to shape instruction.

For the common core standards to have significant impact, implementation cannot be left to chance. It will require careful planning and educators' intentional and sustained learning. The role of professional development will be critical. Given the budgetary pressures under which many state education agencies and school systems are operating, they will be tempted to short-change the professional learning educators need to implement the standards. One can envision, for example, states convening large statewide or regional gatherings of educators, or conducting webinars, for what will basically be information sessions about the new standards. "Train-the-trainers" may be the strategy of choice, even though experience indicates that as training cascades down from one level to another, there are diminishing results.

It is important for front-line practitioners to know about the standards, but sessions consisting mostly of "describing" and "explaining" are not enough to ensure that educators will use the standards effectively. Teachers and administrators need to think about the standards and critically consider how to change their instruction so students learn what is necessary to perform at standard. Sparking these cognitive processes requires deep learning experiences.

The new standards will only achieve what their creators intend if states and school systems thoughtfully structure professional development so educators have the time and facilitation to probe the standards' implications for teaching and learning. The most effective strategy will include teachers working in small teams, plotting how to move effectively from studying specific standards to learning and using standards-based curriculum and instruction. This seems logical and tidy, but implementation will be difficult, requiring team members to revisit, reflect on, and refine their practice throughout a school year.

As laudable as the common core state standards are, their development, dissemination, and adoption are only the first steps to raise levels of student performance. Everything depends on the effectiveness of implementation at the classroom level and that, in turn, depends on the quality,?intensity, and frequency of appropriate professional learning.

?

Hayes Mizell is NSDC's distinguished senior fellow.

?