Implementing the Common Core State Standards

1. Implementing the Common Core State Standards 1 Emilie Amundson DPI, ELA Consultant Kathy GALvin WSRA Vice President (2014-15) Jacque Karbon DPI, Reading Consultant Joyce Uglow WSRA Vice President (2013-14) Deb Zarling WSRA Committee Coordinator and WSRa Past President Madison Area ReadinG Council November 11, 2010

2. Background Information 2

3. History of Standards-Led Education 3 • 1994: Reauthorization of ESEA “Improving America’s Schools Act” (required states to adopt, adapt, or create standards and assessments) • 1998: Wisconsin adopted Model Academic Standards (18 subject areas) • 2001: NCLB brought accountability for standards-based education to the forefront • 2007:Wisconsin begins a deep look at standards revision with partners ADP and P21 • 2009: Wisconsin joins the Common Core Initiative • 2010: Wisconsin adopts Common Core State Standards

4. Impetus for the Common Core State Standards 4 • Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards, meaning public educated students are learning different content at different rates • All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students around the world This initiative will potentially affect 43.5 million students which is about 87% of the student population

5. Development of Common Core State Standards 5 • Joint initiative of: • Supported by: -Achieve -ACT -College Board -48 States and 3 Territories

6. What are the Common Core State Standards? 6 “Common Core Standards 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.” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010) http://www.corestandards.org/

7. What’s the Big Deal? 7 • The CCSS initiative is a “sea change” in education for teaching and learning! • The CCSS mandates the student learning outcomes for every grade level. • The CCSS force a common language. Your staff will begin using this language. • Students will be tested and instructional effectiveness will be measured based on CCSS. • Federal funding is tied to CCSS adoption, implementation, and accountability. • English Language Arts and Mathematics CCSS are just the beginning. . .more subject area standards are being developed.

8. Impact on Stakeholders 8 Students Parents Educators Districts states

9. Positive Aspects of Common Core State Standards 9 • Equity. Provides equal access to a high quality education • Clarity. Explains exactly what students need to know and be able to do • Mobility. Helps with transitions between states

10. Positive Aspects of Common Core State Standards 10 • Global. Allows states to align curricula to internationally benchmarked standards • Deep. Informs the development of a curriculum that promotes deep understanding for all students • Consistent. Consistent expectations and not dependent on zip code

11. Positive Aspects of Common Core State Standards 11 • Valid Assessments. Assures that what is taught is aligned with assessments including formative, summative, and benchmarking • Policies. Provides the opportunity to compare and evaluate policies that artifact students achievement across states and districts

12. Implementing the Common Core 12 A state-wide effort!

13. A Vision for Implementation

15. Partnerships for Implementation

16. Wisconsin’s Vision for RtI

17. Opportunities for Collaboration • Communication • Professional learning • Resource development • Curriculum development • Formative and benchmark assessments • Additional resources

18. Assessing the Common Core 17 Smarter balanced assessment consortium

19. Assessing the Common Core • As a portion of the Race to the Top grant program, USED is funding consortia of states that have committed to developing innovative assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

20. The purpose of the assessment grant is to develop a system that uses technological innovation to provide student achievement data on the Common Core throughout the school year, including the ability to report student achievement above/below grade level. • Capable of providing data to measure progress and proficiency throughout the year (i.e. growth and status) • May include multiple components (i.e. formative and benchmark)

21. Assessing the Common Core • Wisconsin is a governing state of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). • DPI staff actively worked on the application for the competitive funding, and will continue to work on all aspects of system planning. • WI is one of seven states elected to SBAC Executive Committee. • Washington State is the fiscal agent and hosts a SMARTER webpage: http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/default.aspx

22. Assessing the Common Core The SMARTER Assessment System will include • Summative test (grades 3-8 and once in high school) • May be taken multiple times during the last three months of the school year • Student’s best score is used for accountability • Adaptive test platform • More precise indication of performance, stronger indicators of growth • Address needs of ALL students except for 1%

23. Assessing the Common Core 23 • Balance of item types aligned to the Common Core State Standards • Adaptive multiple choice items • Technology-enhanced constructed -response • Extended constructed- response items • Performance tasks

24. 24 • Formative and Benchmark Assessments • An online clearinghouse of formative strategies, resources, and model units of instruction to inform instruction • An online adaptive benchmark assessment to track progress throughout the year, before the summative assessment

25. Content of the Common Core 25 Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

26. Overview to English Language Arts Standards • College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor Standards for four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language • Overarching targets (parallel for each grade/ grade band)

27. Four Strands of English Language Arts Standards and Key Features of Each Strand • Reading: Text complexity and growth of comprehension • Grades K-5: Literature and Informational Text • Grades K-5: Reading Foundational Skills • Grades 6-12: Literature and Informational Text

28. Four Strands of English Language Arts Standards and Key Features of Each Strand 28 • Writing: Text types, responding to reading, and research • Speaking and Listening: Flexible communication and collaboration • Language: Conventions and vocabulary

29. Reading Strand 29 • Key ideas and details • Craft and structure • Integration of knowledge and ideas • Range of Reading and level of text complexity

30. Example: Key Ideas and Details, Grade 2 30 3. Describe the connection between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text.

31. Reading Standards: Foundational Skills (K-5) 31 • Print concepts (Grades K – 1) • Phonological awareness (Grades K – 1) • Phonics and word recognition (Grades K – 5) • Fluency (Grades K – 5)

32. Example: Phonics and Word Recognition, Kindergarten 3. Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. a. Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by producing the primary or many of the most frequent sound for each consonant. (additional elaboration 3. b - d.)

33. Writing Strand 33 • Text types and purposes • Production and distribution of writing • Research to build and present knowledge • Range of writing

34. Example: Production and Distribution of Writing, Grade 8 34 6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas efficiently as well as to interact and collaborate with others.

35. Speaking and Listening Strand 35 • Comprehension and collaboration • Presentation of knowledge and ideas

36. Example: Comprehension and Collaboration, Grade 3 36 • Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-0n-one, in groups, and teacher- led) with diverse partners on grade 3 topics and texts, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly. (additional elaboration 1. a. – d.)

37. Language Strand 37 • Conventions of Standard English • Knowledge of language • Vocabulary acquisition and use

38. Example: Knowledge of Language, Grades 11-12 3. Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts, to make effective choices for meaning or style, and to comprehend more fully when reading or listening. (additional elaboration 3. a.)

39. Literacy Standards Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • Grades 6-12: Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects • Based on CCR Anchor Standards for Reading • Based on CCR Anchor Standards for Writing

40. 40 • Presented as grade bands: 6-8, 9-10, 11-12 • Technical subjects: defined as engineering, technology, business, design, and other workforce-related subjects; technical aspects of wider fields of study such as art and music

41. Example: Literacy in History/Social Studies, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, Grades 9 - 10 7. Integrate quantitative or technical analysis (e.g., charts, research data) with qualitative analysis in print or digital text.

42. Old to New – English Language Arts“Reading Informational Text” 37 More Specific Has many interpretations

43. Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative dimensions Quantitative dimensions Reader and task considerations

44. Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity Qualitative dimensions of text complexity Levels of meaning or purpose Structure Language conventionality and clarity Knowledge demands Only measureable by an attentive human reader

45. Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity Quantitative dimensions of text complexity Word length or frequency Sentence length Text cohesion Typically measured by computer software

46. Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity Reader and task considerations Variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) Variables specific to particular tasks (such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed) Measured by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject

47. Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity Measured by: Attentive human reader Computer software Teacher judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject

48. 48 • Reading standards include exemplar texts (stories and literature, poetry, and informational texts) that illustrate level of complexity by grade and includes sample performance tasks based on specific standards

49. Common Core State Standards Reading – Fourth Grade Example Students compare and contrast a firsthand account of African American ballplayers in the Negro Leagues to a secondhand account of their treatment found in books such as Kadir Nelson’s We Are the Ship: The Story of Negro League Baseball, attending to the focus of each account and the information provided by each. [RI.4.6]

50. Common Core State Standards Reading – Eighth Grade Example Students analyze Walt Whitman’s “O Captain! My Captain!” to uncover the poem’s analogies and allusions. They analyze the impact of specific word choices by Whitman, such as rack and grim, and determine how they contribute to the overall meaning and tone of the poem. [RL.8.4]