Educational standards describe what students should know and be able to do.

They come in two flavors: content standards and performance standards.

When someone refers to “fourth grade math” they are probably speaking of a content standard: a shared expectations about what is taught in fourth grade. When they talk about reading “at an 8th grade level” they are referring to a performance standard: how well a student in 8th grade is expected to read.

It is easy to confuse a standard with the curricular materials and approaches that schools, teachers, or publishers use to teach the standard. This confusion blossomed into the political realm in 2014 as school communities struggled to choose and use new books, materials, lessons, and tests that matched Common Core content standards.

This lesson demystifies standards including the Common Core — but first it helps to take a step back. What are education standards and why are they so important?

History of education performance standards

The story of performance standards likely began in China. In the Sui Dynasty, written exams were made part of the selection process for civil service positions, introducing the idea of merit to the process. It was an important reform that reduced the power of local authorities to appoint their relatives.

The Sui Dynasty proved short-lived by standards of Chinese history, but the big idea stuck: set specific expectations and use tests to measure against them. From college admissions tests in Korea to the bar exam in America, tests of academic performance under time pressure have become central to how the world thinks about meritocracy. Nicolas Lehman describes this history in his bestselling book The Big Test. For better or worse, tests provide an efficient basis for weeding out candidates by rating and ranking them.

Creating tests based on standards

Which came first, the standard or the test?

In the early decades of the history of the United States, education was not yet viewed as a function of government, or even as an expectation for all students. Over time, each state developed systems separately, creating a mishmash of approaches and expectations, as discussed in Lesson 1.7. Schools differed massively from one place to the next. Standards weren’t a thing.

The modern standards movement in the U.S. emerged partly as a response to the 1983 publication of "A Nation at Risk," an influential report that criticized American competitiveness and strongly advocated for higher universal expectations in U.S. education. Within a few years of its publication, content standards in many subjects were being hammered out by expert panels. National tests known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were expanded to enable state-level comparisons.

In 2000, George W. Bush advocated as part of his campaign for president that every state should have clear and measurable expectations for all students and that those performance expectations should be raised in a gradual and predictable way. Every child should be tested every year against those rising expectations, with predictable consequences for schools that fail to meet them for all students. With strong support from both parties, Congress passed this vision into law in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

What is the Common Core?

The states began the No Child Left Behind era with widely varying expectations for their students. Some states, like California, had comparatively high expectations. Other states had low standards. Schools in each state were teaching similar things, but with different definitions of success and in an inconsistent sequence. Educators broadly agreed that it was weird for different states to have different expectations, but what could be done about it? Education is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Anyway, the NCLB law required states to gradually increase their expectations, and one school district after another was failing to meet them. Teachers felt blamed for failing to accomplish the impossible.

The Great Recession of 2008 dramatically undercut education funding, which forced teacher layoffs and put the rising expectations of NCLB even further out of reach. Congress passed a federal stimulus package (ARRA) to shore up public education budgets.

Times of crisis can be opportunities for change. The measure included a competition, Race to the Top, that offered states a way to compete for additional funds. To be in the running, they had to pledge to adopt educational standards aligned with a national consortium. It worked. Suddenly, state education leaders had an uncomplicated explanation for why they needed to update their old standards: for the money. The Common Core was born.

California's standards for math and reading are aligned with the Common Core standards

California joined a group of states to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and in mathematics as part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). These standards are well-documented and in familiar use, supported by several educational content publishers. In 2013, California extended this set of essential standards by adopting the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as well. (See Ed100 Lesson 6.4)

SBAC was not the only consortium of states associated with the Common Core effort, but it proved the most durable. When the largest competing consortium (PARCC) disbanded after a few years, its member states opted to cut their own contracts with educational publishers. As of 2025, 11 states remain SBAC signatories. It's not quite as chaotic as it might seem — many states have rhetorically ditched the Common Core, but actually continue to use its essential content through contracts with publishers. Politicians might find it convenient to use common core as a punching bag, but they still want their scores to go up.

Standards influence curriculum

Standards have the power to change what happens in classrooms because they influence curriculum, including textbooks, learning materials, and tests. The state of California expects school districts to make sure that the materials they use are aligned with the state's standards.

The Common Core explicitly aims to prepare students for college and career by the time they leave high school. The design concept for these standards was to begin with the end in mind — college and career readiness — and then map back to kindergarten.

Are some textbooks better than others at accomplishing this? Of course, and it's hard work to know the difference. School districts agonize over their choices of instructional materials. Switching from one publisher to another is a big investment in terms of money, and an even greater investment of teacher time in training and adjustment. Over the last decade, EdReports has emerged as an influential source of evidence about the quality of textbooks and other learning materials. Of course, it has detractors. Many teachers pick and choose their instructional materials from the internet, especially if they dislike the district's textbook choice or they want to try something different. The web is awash in learning materials, including free resources such as OER Commons and paid resources such as Teachers Pay Teachers. As you might expect: you get what you pay for.

School districts can find it a struggle to persuade teachers to align their curriculum choices, but it's really important. So important, in fact, that some districts clamp down, providing teachers, quite literally, with scripts. Briefly popular in the early 2000s, scripted curricula specify exactly what to teach each day, and provide wording for teachers to use in explaining concepts. This approach to curriculum has some admirers and many critics. Generally, a scripted curriculum appears to reduce the disadvantages of being assigned to an inexperienced teacher. It also helps ensure that students receive consistent explanations from one class to the next. But these curricula often proved dull for teachers and students. Where they are used, experienced teachers often go off-script.

The politics of Common Core

The shift to Common Core raised educational expectations throughout the United States, even in states that didn't adopt the standards or that subsequently exited a consortium. The adoption of tests aligned with these higher standards raised the expectation that the standards are for all students, not just for those that have advantages. It is politically difficult to spur changes in the American education system, but it has been done. It is not impossible.

It's also worth remembering that the movement to adopt shared educational standards originated as a project of the states, through the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Federal encouragement played a role, as described above, but the apetite for shared standards was widely shared.

How to read the Common Core standards

Ahem. The best way to understand the standards is to, well, sit down and read them.

Basic background information is available at the website of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. For California's specific version of the standards, visit the Common Core page on the California Department of Education website. Curious about a specific standard? You can search for it.

The National PTA has created short guides in English and Spanish that explain the standards for each grade level. Similarly, GreatSchools has prepared a useful set of videos about milestones for grades K-5.

Standards define expectations. In the next lesson we will explore the debate about whether these expectations are sufficiently rigorous.

This lesson was updated in October 2025