**ERIC Number:**ED545238

**Record Type:**Non-Journal

**Publication Date:**2013-Aug

**Pages:**78

**Abstractor:**As Provided

**Reference Count:**20

**ISBN:**N/A

**ISSN:**N/A

A Study of the Alignment between the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M)

Hughes, Gerunda B.; Daro, Phil; Holtzman, Deborah; Middleton, Kyndra

American Institutes for Research

Introduction: For decades, prior to the inception of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was the only vehicle through which states could assess the progress of their students using a common metric. Now, 45 states, 4 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have adopted the CCSS to provide a clear and consistent curriculum framework to prepare students for college and the workplace. But because NAEP is a critical monitor for comparing results of student achievement across states, it is imperative that the newer CCSS standards and the NAEP frameworks be examined to determine the degree of alignment. The results will allow policymakers to make decisions about what changes, if any, should be made to the NAEP frameworks. Methodology: This alignment study focuses primarily on the conceptual match between the subtopics and objectives in the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the content standards in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) in Grades K-8. While an item-to-framework study is also critical when inquiring about alignment, items from the CCSS assessment consortia were not available at the time of this study. Two criteria were used to describe the degree of alignment between the CCSS-M and the NAEP Mathematics Framework: the extent of content coverage and the grade at which the content was covered. To obtain the necessary data, two mappings were conducted: (a) CCSS-M to NAEP Mathematics Framework; and (b) NAEP Mathematics Framework to CCSS-M. Findings: The study's findings relied on the judgment of four panels of experts who identified the specific CCSS-M content that was not covered well in the NAEP mathematics subtopics and objectives for Grade 4 and Grade 8 and the specific NAEP mathematics content that was not covered well in the CCSS-M at or before the grade level of the NAEP assessment. The study did not find wide areas of content in the NAEP Mathematics Framework that were not covered in the CCSS-M. Similarly, the study did not find wide areas of content in the CCSS-M that were not covered by the NAEP Mathematics Framework. Nevertheless, there were differences in specificity and conceptual understandings between the CCSS-M and the NAEP Mathematics Framework that are important to note: (1) the CCSS-M have more rigorous content in eighth-grade algebra and geometry; (2) the CCSS-M infuse and distribute the development of mathematical expertise, such as the ability to estimate accurately, throughout the standards for mathematical content, whereas the NAEP Mathematics Framework assesses estimation as a skill in isolation from the vast majority of the content; (3) the CCSS-M attend to developing conceptual understandings of a greater number of mathematical topics (such as unit fractions, patterns, and functions) than does the NAEP Mathematics Framework; and (4) the CCSS-M introduce some mathematics content, such as probability, at higher grades than does the NAEP Mathematics Framework. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Next Steps: Certainly, there are differences between the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the CCSS-M. For example, the NAEP Mathematics Framework is an assessment framework that prescribes what should be tested on NAEP. The CCSS-M, on the other hand, provide a curriculum framework that prescribes what should be taught in classrooms. In those few areas where content is covered by the NAEP Mathematics Framework, but not included in the CCSS-M, and vice versa, studies should be conducted to determine how estimates of students' achievement status and growth are affected by the degree of alignment between what is taught and what is tested. Historically, the NAEP frameworks have aspired to represent the union of all the various state curricula while reaching beyond these curricula to lead as well as reflect. As a result, NAEP often has pushed on the leading edge of what the nation's children know and should able to do. The introduction of the CCSS-M provides both new opportunities and challenges for NAEP. As the nation moves toward widespread implementation of instruction and assessment based on the CCSS-M, NAEP must balance the goals of comparability over time (i.e., maintaining trend) with current relevance. The following are appended: (1) Features of the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the CCSS-M; (2) Coverage of Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Objectives in the CCSS-M; (3) Coverage of Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Objectives in the CCSS-M; and (4) NAEP and CCSS-M Alignment Study Panel Assignments--July 2012. [For the main report, "Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress," see ED545237.]

Descriptors: National Competency Tests, Mathematics Tests, Mathematics Achievement, State Standards, Academic Standards, Comparative Analysis, Alignment (Education), Algebra, Geometry, Computation, Mathematical Concepts, Academic Achievement, Educational Objectives, Educational Assessment, Test Validity, Correlation, Achievement Gains

American Institutes for Research. 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007. Tel: 202-403-5000; Fax: 202-403-5001; e-mail: inquiry@air.org; Web site: http://www.air.org

**Publication Type:**Reports - Research

**Education Level:**Grade 4; Grade 8; Elementary Education; Middle Schools

**Audience:**N/A

**Language:**English

**Sponsor:**N/A

**Authoring Institution:**American Institutes for Research; National Center for Education Statistics (ED)

**Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys:**National Assessment of Educational Progress

**IES Funded:**Yes

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**ED-04-CO-0025/0012