Transitioning to New Standards

1. 09/16/2011 Curriculum Council Transitioning to New Standards Understanding the Current Backdrop

2. 44 States, DC, & the Virgin Islands adopted the CCSS

3. CA a Governing State

4. and the augmented California Common Core Standards (CCCS) For which set of standards will we be held accountable? Both? Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Which standards will be the basis of our accountability system?? Which will be tested?

5. Current Legislation Proposed & Chaptered (passed and signed into law)

6. Reauthorization of … • STAR Reauthorization (AB 250 Brownley) • STAR sunsets in 2012-13 • pending legislation may amend this to 2013-14 • What about • CAHSEE? • A to G? • What about Accountability • ESEA Reauthorization • API → EQI

7. Textbook Frameworks and Adoption Timelines • Currently Signed into law Senate Bill 70 • suspends the development of math frameworks until 2015 – resulting in delaying math textbook adoption until 11/18 (ELA to follow in 2020) • Proposed legislation Assembly Bill 250 • Requires SBE to adopt revised frameworks and evaluation criteria aligned with the CCCS no later than 5/30/13 (math) and 5/30/14 (ELA) • Would partially lift suspension so textbook adoption could happen in 11/16 (for ELA 11/18) Suspension of Textbook Adoption

8. Textbook Adoption Timelines SBAC assessments to go live in 2014

9. Proposed Legislation • Bridge Instructional Materials (SB 140) • SSPI Torlakson has invited publishers of SBE adopted materials in math and ELA to submit supplemental instructional materials that bridge the gap between their SBE adopted materials and the CCCS • Publishers voluntarily make submissions • SBE will recruit teachers and content specialists to review submissions • By September 2012 SBE will examine the results and make their approvals of the advisory (not SBE-adopted) materials

10. Textbook Programs Eligible for Review • In Mathematics - SBE approved programs adopted programs in 2007 • K-7 basic grade level programs • No grade 8 programs • No intervention/algebra readiness • In English Language arts – SBE approved programs adopted in 2008 • K-8, program types 1-3 • No intervention programs

11. Proposed Legislation ELD Standards • Alignment of ELD standards to CCCS – ELA (AB 124) • SSPI would recommend new ELD standards on or before 8/31/12 for SBE adoption at the end of September.

12. Needed Legislation – 8th Grade Algebra • The following two issues were created by the 8/2/10 Adoptions of CCCS and require legislative action for resolution • Grade 8 Mathematics and Algebra – the adoption of a dual set of standards at Grade 8 raises a number of issues • CA’s current Grade 8 Algebra has 51 standards (previously there were 25) • In the past CA’s Algebra I course was the same regardless of the grade level at which it was taught – ESEA requires a single set at each grade level • This 51 standard Algebra I course will not be covered by either assessment consortia: SBAC or PARCC

13. Needed Legislation – CCR Anchors • College & Career Readiness Anchor Standards for ELA were not adopted in the CCCS • These anchor standards provide focus for ELA and it’s staircase design of skills that build up college and career readiness • Noteworthy is the fact that the anchor standards in grades K-5 and 6-12 provide the focus and structure within the grade spans to build to the desired level at high school completion • The absence of these standards make CA differ from other adopters of the CCSS and could cause some confusion when national moves filter down

14. Current Standards Documents - ELA • English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • THE ELA & Literacy Standards • Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements • Appendix B: Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks • Appendix C: Samples of Student Writing

15. Includes CA’s added 15% Large additions to Algebra I in grade 8 A total of 51 standards Two high school courses are added Calculus Advanced Statistics and Probability Appendix A Designing High School Courses based on the Common Core State Standards Current Standards Documents - Math CCCS CCSS

16. NCLB Waivers • Awaiting Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Provisions available for waiver: • All students proficient in ELA and math by 2013-14 • The requirement that states identify schools for improvement, corrective action, and restructuring • Schools identified for improvement provide public school choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES)

17. According to One Analysis • The authorization to use the 20% of Title I funds in PI schools which are now reserved for tutoring and transportation could free up about $1 billion nationwide for use in other purposes.

18. US Department of Education States • States can request this flexibility ONLY IF they “develop a rigorous and comprehensive plan addressing the three critical areas that are designed to improve educational outcomes for all students”

19. Three Critical Areas that Need to be Addressed to Apply for the NCLB Waiver • Transitioning to College- and Career-Ready Standards and Assessments • Developing Systems of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support • States must recognize and reward the highest achieving schools that serve low income students and those that show the greatest student progress. • States Must also identify two categories of low performing schools • Priority Schools – the bottom 5% that must implement “turn around” strategies • Focus Schools – in the next 10% that must implement strategies for instructional improvement

20. Three Critical Areas that Need to be Addressed to Apply for the NCLB Waiver • Evaluating and Supporting Teacher and Principal Effectiveness • including assessment on multiple valid measures “including student progress over time and multiple measures of professional practice.

21. Timelines • There will be two windows for states to apply for the 2012-13 waiver • Submit by November 14 for December peer review • Submit by mid-February for spring peer review

22. What Will California Do?

23. Debate in DC • Likely to enflame the partisan divide over Educational policy and other issues • Joe Kline (Republican Congressman) • “While I appreciate some of the policies outlined in the secretary’s waivers plan, I simply cannot support a process that grants the Secretary of Education sweeping authority to handpick winners and losers.” • “It sets a dangerous precedent, and every single American should be extremely wary. Make no mistake –this is a political move that could have a damaging impact on congressional efforts to enact lasting reforms to current elementary and secondary education law.”

24. Resources Available • US Department of Education • www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

25. Roadmap to Winning an NCLB Waiver • fdjgniodfng

26. 1. Transitioning to College and Career-Ready Standards and Assessments • Is there a plan to provide professional development to teachers and principals? • Will the state disseminate high-quality instructional materials to accompany the new standards? • Is the state planning to increase access to college-level courses, dual-enrollment courses, and other accelerated learning opportunities? • Is the state going to work with colleges of education to better prepare teachers for the new standards?

27. 2. Developing Systems of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, & Support • Are the state’s new proficiency targets ambitious but achievable given the state’s existing proficiency rates? • In identifying rewards for successful schools, has the state made the case that the rewards will actually be meaningful and worthwhile to schools? • For the “focus schools” (not bottom 5% of schools but the 10% of schools just above that) has the state justified that the interventions selected will actually increase student achievement? • Has the state outlined a rigorous review process for outside providers for those who will help with school turnaround work?

28. 3. Evaluating and Supporting Teacher and Principal Effectiveness • Is student growth a significant enough of the new evaluation system to differentiate among teachers who have made “significantly different contributions” to student growth or closing the achievement gap? • Will evaluations be frequent enough? • Is there a plan for differentiated professional development based on evaluations? • Will the state’s plan ensure that local school districts will actually be able to put these new evaluations systems into place by 2013-14 (as a pilot) and 2014-15 (full implementation)?