1775 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone (202) 419-1540
Achieve has analyzed the CCSS and
to determine how they compare in terms o
rigor, coherence, and focus
reers to the degree that sets o standards address key content that prepares students orsuccess beyond high school.
reers to whether the standards refect a meaningul structure, revealing signicantrelationships among topics and suggest a logical progression o content and skills over the years.
reers to whetherthe standards suggest an appropriate balance in conceptual understanding, procedural skill, and problem solving with anemphasis on application and modeling; the standards should be teachable within a school year (or across our years o highschool), and key ideas in a given grade or topic area should be clear. Standards that are rigorous, coherent, and ocusedprovide better guidance to educators, students, and parents about desired learning outcomes than those that are not.Expert mathematics content analysts conducted a side-by-side comparison o the CCSS and
, looking particularlyat the inclusion and treatment o mathematics topics at each grade level. This brie describes their ndings.
The CCSS are similarly rigorous to NCTM’s
. While some content occurs earlier in the CCSS, the twodocuments generally describe the same content.While the CCSS and the
are comparable in their coherence and ocus, dierent purposes or each docu-ment lead to dierences in their levels o specicity.
Because the infuential
was an important resource or the developers o the CCSS, the two documents havemuch in common and generally describe the same content. However, there are some dierences in the later elementary andmiddle grades regarding when topics are included.
Through the end o grade 4, the CCSS and the
address much o the samecontent, although the CCSS introduce some content earlier than the
. By the end o grade 4, bothdocuments expect students to understand the our basic operations with whole numbers, place value, and themeaning and uses o ractions. Both documents introduce statistical topics primarily as reinorcements or work withnumbers and measurement in the early grades. The strong oundation in number sense allows students to progressquickly in middle and high school through data, probability and statistics, culminating in content that is generallymore rigorous than that ound in many state standards. However, specic dierences in grade placement arepresent in a number o instances. For example, the CCSS expect student to establish equivalence o simple ractionswith unlike denominators (e.g., 1/2 = 2/4 or 4/6 = 2/3), and express whole numbers as ractions earlier than
. The CCSS require fuency in the addition, subtraction, and multiplication o ractions by the end o grade5; the
requires students to do this by the end o grade 6. Despite these dierences, they do not leadone document to be more rigorous than the other since by the end o Grade 6, the two documents cumulativelydescribe substantially similar bodies o knowledge.
With only a ew minor exceptions in geometry and probability, the CCSS and the
describe similar content in the middle grades. Areas o overlap include the major hallmarks o algebra—proportion-ality, linear expressions and inequalities, and using equations and inequalities to solve real-lie and mathematicalproblems—which prepare students well or the more advanced mathematics they will ace in high school. There aresome dierences between the two documents. For example, the CCSS require students to understand the role otransormations o geometric shapes on a coordinate plane, and in the area o probability, the CCSS expect stu-dents to extend their knowledge o probability to compound events in grade 7, where the