The Common Core State Standards

1. The Common Core State Standards Focus for School Board Members NSBA webinar ♦ March 6, 2012 Center for Public Education Kentucky School Boards Association

2. Today’s presenters • Patte Barth, NSBA’s Center for Public Education • Roberta Stanley, NSBA’s federal relations • Bill Scott, Kentucky School Boards Association • Kerri Schelling, KSBA

3. The Common Core Standards are intended to be: Aligned with college and work expectations Focused and coherent Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Internationally benchmarked so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Based on evidence and research State led – coordinated by NGA Center and CCSSO SOURCE: Common Core State Standards, www.corestandards.org

4. The Common Core Standards process: • CCSSO and NGA’s Center for Best Practices • Advisory group: Achieve, Inc.; ACT, Inc.; College Board, NASBE, and SHEEO • Two rounds of public review • Final documents released June 2010 • No federal dollars for development; foundation support

5. 46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS adopted not adopted

6. CCSS vs NCLB

7. NSBA & CCSS • supports NGA/CCSSO state-led process • supports federal funding for research and/or help to states for developing assessments • opposes federal mandates or coercion, eg. a condition for receiving Title 1 funds • opposes a national test

8. What’s in the standards – English language arts Reading • Balance of literature and informational texts • Text complexity Writing • Emphasis on argument/informative • Writing about sources Speaking and Listening • Inclusion of formal and informal talk Language • Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

9. What’s different? English language arts Standards for reading and writing in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects • Complement rather than replace content standards in those subjects • Responsibility of teachers in those subjects Alignment with college and career readiness expectations SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

10. What’s in the standards –Mathematics • Number & quantity • Algebra - algebraic thinking K-5 • Functions • Modeling - high school • Geometry • Statistics & probability • Emphasis on Mathematical practice SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

11. What’s different? –Mathematics Modeling -- choosing and using mathematics and statistics to represent and analyze everyday situations to understand them better Eg., planning a table tennis tournament for 7 players with 4 tables and everyone plays each player SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

12. pre-calculus, calculus, advanced statistics, discrete math, advanced quantitative reasoning, specific technical POS Pathways through high school mathematics Algebra II Math III Geometry Math II Algebra I Math I SOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010

13. State CCSSassessment consortia • formed to develop common “next generation” assessments aligned to the CCSS • supported by $346 million federal grants • PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers headed by Achieve, Inc. • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium headed by Washington state department of education

14. What’s in common? • intended to assess higher order thinking at grades 3-8 and high school • measure growth and proficiency • computer-administered online to provide rapid feedback • both summative assessments for accountability, and formative assessments to monitor students’ progress • aligned resources, ie., model lessons, diagnostic tools, professional development

15. How do PARCC/SMARTER differ? • PARCC is computer-delivered; SMARTER will be “computer adaptive” • SMARTER is developing comprehensive high school assessment; PARCC is developing EOC high school assessments, including for two math pathways • SMARTER is budgeted to translate assessments into 5 languages, one of which will be Spanish

16. Points of collaborationSMARTER & PARCC • working to ensure comparability of scores • developing protocols for Artificial Intelligent scoring • examining interoperable technology infrastructure • working toward same deadlines SOURCE: Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, webinar April 4, 2011

17. 24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium participant non participant

18. 28 states are in the SMARTER consortium participant non participant

19. 46 states & DC are involved involved not involved

20. Next Generation Science Standards • Collaboration of Achieve, NRC, AAAS, NSTA and 26 lead states • “Internationally benchmarked” • First draft to be released in 2012; 2 public reviews • Intended to be adopted ‘in whole’ • Carnegie Corp, Noyce Foundation & Dupont sponsors

21. What will be in the standards Science • Practices: behaviors necessary to the work of scientists & engineers • Cross-cutting concepts: the ‘big ideas’, eg., patterns, scale, cause & effect, etc. • Disciplinary core ideas: physical sciences; life sciences, earth & space sciences; and engineering, technology & applications. SOURCE: Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.org

22. 26 lead states – Next Generation Science Standards participant non participant

23. Other assessment consortia • Alternative assessments: $67 million to Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) and National Center and State Collaboration (NCSC) • Assessments for students with “most significant cognitive impairments” • Assessments for ELL: $10.5 million to ASSETS, Assessment Services Supporting Els Through Technology Systems SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.org

24. The Common Core State Standards The challenges

25. ACT’s ‘first look’ at the common core standardsEnglish language arts Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010

26. ACT’s ‘first look’Achievement gap - ELA Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010

27. Technology needs • 33 states offer some level of online testing • Most don’t assess all students • Most are voluntary • Most are summative only • Most schools will need more computers & more bandwidth SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011

28. District needs • Professional development for staff • Aligned assessments & curriculum • Aligned instructional materials • Supports for students

29. The Common Core State Standards How states are preparing

30. State survey • Most states say CCSS are more rigorous than their current standards • Most states say full implementation will take at least until 2013 or beyond • All are developing professional development materials & guides for districts SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

31. State survey (con’t) • Most states have established partnerships between state education agency and higher ed • Half are aligning undergraduate admissions policies with CCSS SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

32. School district challenges • Almost 3/5 of districts in CCSS states view CCSS as more rigorous • 2/3 are developing plans and timelines • 3/4 view adequate funding as a major challenge • 2/3 say they are getting inadequate guidance from state • Few see teacher/principal resistance as a major challenge although 3/5 see it as a minor one SOURCE: Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation, Center on Education Policy, September 2011

33. The Common Core State Standards The federal view

34. Federal Policy and CCSS Race to the Top • One of four reform areas: standards & assessments. • States do not have to adopt common standards to be eligible; but get points for doing so, more points for joining larger consortium (e.g. CCSSO/NGA). • Points for supporting transition to new standards/assessments. • Same criteria applied to assessments. • Make up 70 points of 500 points total. • 11 states and DC received RTTT funds (I and II), 9 more states eligible for phase III.

35. Federal Policy and CCSS NCLB waivers • ED announced waivers 9-23-2011. • 10 broad areas of flexibility include: waive 2014 deadline of 100% proficiency; waive identification of schools for improvement; free up 20% set-aside for choice and tutoring, 10% for professional development, etc. • In exchange for four reform principles, include: develop and implement rigorous college- & career-ready standards & assessments in reading & math. • Adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to new standards and assessments. • Flexibility through 2013-2014 school year, can apply for extension.

36. Federal Policy and CCSS College- and career- ready standards must be: • Standards that are common to a significant number of states (states can supplement up to 15% with additional standards for a content area); or • Standards that are approved by a “state network of institutions of higher education”, certify students will not need remedial courses (a network of 4-year IHEs that enroll at least 50% of students who attend state’s 4-year public IHEs). High quality assessments must be: • Valid, reliable and fair; measure college & career readiness. • Measure student growth.

37. Changes in Kentucky’s System • Passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009 propelled Kentucky into a new era in public education • Mutual accountability for K-12 and post secondary systems • Preparing all students for life after high school… • college and career readiness for all.

38. 38 Senate Bill 1 (2009) • New academic standards • New assessments • Program reviews • Improved professionaldevelopment • New accountability system • Unified plan for improvingcollege/career readiness

39. Where Are the Jobs? • 90% of fastest growing jobs require at least two (2) years of education beyond high school. • 80% of all jobs require some training beyond high school. • Nation’s colleges need to increase number of degrees by 10% per year to meet demand. Kentucky = 5,200 more graduates per year

40. Kentucky’s Challenge • High School Graduation Rate = 76% • 38 % of Kentucky’s 2011 high school graduates were College or Career Ready • High remediation rate = fewer college degrees

41. Remedial Courses = Major Obstacle to College Degrees • Added cost with no credits • Adds time/expense to college education • Result: more likely to leave w/o diploma • College freshmen requiring remedial reading have 17% chance of attaining degree in 8 years

42. College Ready Criteria Must meet one of the following requirements to be considered College Ready: • ACT (11th Grade) • English – 18 • Mathematics – 19 • Reading – 20 • COMPASS (12th Grade) • KYOTE (12th Grade)

43. College Readiness System ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks* are early indicators of likely college success based on student EXPLORE, PLAN, or ACT scores. * Reflects the minimum score needed on an ACT subject area test to indicate a 50% chance of obtaining a “B” or better or a 75% chance of obtaining a “C” or better in the corresponding credit-bearing college course.

44. Career Ready Criteria Must meet one benchmark for academic area and one for technical area. • Academic: • Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) • ACT Work Keys (applied math, locating information and reading for information) • Technical: • Kentucky Occupational Skills Standards Assessment (KOSSA) • Industry certificates

45. College/Career Readiness Strategies 1. Course/Assessment Alignment with Standards 2. Transitional Interventions 3. Acceleration • Advance KY • Project Lead the Way 4. Persistence to Graduation –- Collection and Use of Data 5. Academic and Career Advising 6. Career Readiness Definition/Pathways 7. Innovative Routes To Graduation 8. District 180/Turnaround Low Performing Schools 9. New Accountability Model

46. The Lighthouse Project • 10 years of research by Iowa Association of School Boards and NSBA • Do school boards make a difference in student achievement? • What are the specific board roles that impact student achievement?

47. Leadership Roles ofEffective Boards • Set clear and high expectations • Create the conditions for success • Hold the system accountable • Create the public will to succeed • Learn as a board team

48. Set Clear and High Expectations • Embrace the new standards! • Clearer and more rigorous • Focused on specific knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary success • How much does your board know about new standards?

49. Create Conditionsfor Success • Support high quality professional development • Do teachers have sufficient time and support to learn new standards? • What can the board do to support this effort?

50. Hold the System Accountable Monitor district’s progress toward successful implementation of the new standards • What is the district doing to prepare? • What kind of reports does the board receive?