The Common Core State Standards: The Foundation for Teaching and Learning

1. The Common Core State Standards: The Foundation for Teaching and Learning Kimberly Teboho Bertocci Riley, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education March 30, 2012

2. Outline The Standards The Current Context State Implementation Challenges for States Challenges for Educator Preparation Higher Education and Educator Preparation Implementation Learn More

3. The Standards Are aligned with college and work expectations; Are clear, understandable and consistent; Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and Are evidence-based.

4. The Current Context Priority at the National Level 35 states surveyed by the Center on Education Policy expect to implement the standards no sooner than the 2014-2015 school year, which is also when the CCSS aligned assessments are expected to be available. Few states are aligning college admission requirements or curriculum standards. Resources are a Challenge Technology is a Challenge 45 states plus the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana islands have adopted. While Alaska has yet to adopt, just this week the Anchorage school board voted to adopt the standards. Board members cited the Common Core as being more rigorous than their state standards. Last week, I was listening to the NPR news hour and former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and Joel Klein spoke on the results of a new report put out by the Council on Foreign Relations that frames education as a national security issue. The report presents the risk in a global context, discussing how education impacts both our economic and military might -- among its recommendations, expanding a core curriculum in school districts across the country beyond an emphasis on reading and math to include more science, technology, history, and foreign languages, offer students more choice and competition to public schools, and launch a national security readiness audit to raise awareness and hold schools accountable. There is a real issue with not enough people being able to quality for military service. Secretary Rice said that they “simply can't qualify, when it comes to the foreign service or to intelligence agencies or to the ability to have people who can think about the problems of cyber-warfare and cyber-security and critical infrastructure protection.” So there is a lot riding on the Common Core and we can see this most by looking at what states are doing. Among the CEP report findings, States generally agree that the Common Core are more rigorous than their previous standards and will improve student’s English language arts and math skills. States that have adopted the Common Core are taking steps to familiarize key stakeholders with the standards. States are planning for their implementation and aligning curriculum, assessment, and teacher policies with the standards. Although most of the survey states are forging partnerships with higher education to implement the standards, fewer are aligning college admission requirements or curriculum with the standards. * only 16 Common Core states said they plan to align admission requirements or 1st year undergrad curriculum with the Common Core. As I said, most states are expecting to implement no sooner than 2014, but 6 states are fully implementing by the upcoming school year. 9 anticipate full implementation in the 2013-2014 school year. Finding adequate resources to implement the standards is a major challenge for states. Many states say they face challenges specific to preparing teachers for the new standards. Many states foresee major technology challenges, such as providing an adequate number of computers in schools to implement the new assessments – adequate internet access and bandwidth – and having access to expertise to address assessment related technology problems, in implementing the online assessments aligned with the common core. 45 states plus the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana islands have adopted. While Alaska has yet to adopt, just this week the Anchorage school board voted to adopt the standards. Board members cited the Common Core as being more rigorous than their state standards. Last week, I was listening to the NPR news hour and former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and Joel Klein spoke on the results of a new report put out by the Council on Foreign Relations that frames education as a national security issue. The report presents the risk in a global context, discussing how education impacts both our economic and military might -- among its recommendations, expanding a core curriculum in school districts across the country beyond an emphasis on reading and math to include more science, technology, history, and foreign languages, offer students more choice and competition to public schools, and launch a national security readiness audit to raise awareness and hold schools accountable. There is a real issue with not enough people being able to quality for military service. Secretary Rice said that they “simply can't qualify, when it comes to the foreign service or to intelligence agencies or to the ability to have people who can think about the problems of cyber-warfare and cyber-security and critical infrastructure protection.” So there is a lot riding on the Common Core and we can see this most by looking at what states are doing. Among the CEP report findings, States generally agree that the Common Core are more rigorous than their previous standards and will improve student’s English language arts and math skills. States that have adopted the Common Core are taking steps to familiarize key stakeholders with the standards. States are planning for their implementation and aligning curriculum, assessment, and teacher policies with the standards. Although most of the survey states are forging partnerships with higher education to implement the standards, fewer are aligning college admission requirements or curriculum with the standards. * only 16 Common Core states said they plan to align admission requirements or 1st year undergrad curriculum with the Common Core. As I said, most states are expecting to implement no sooner than 2014, but 6 states are fully implementing by the upcoming school year. 9 anticipate full implementation in the 2013-2014 school year. Finding adequate resources to implement the standards is a major challenge for states. Many states say they face challenges specific to preparing teachers for the new standards. Many states foresee major technology challenges, such as providing an adequate number of computers in schools to implement the new assessments – adequate internet access and bandwidth – and having access to expertise to address assessment related technology problems, in implementing the online assessments aligned with the common core.

5. State Implementation What’s on the mind of our nation’s governors? Communication with Key Stakeholders Curriculum and Instruction Professional Development Assessments: PARC and Smarter Balanced What’s on the mind of educators? Professional Development Materials Aligning Content Modifying Evaluation Systems Developing New Teacher Induction Programs Aligning Content of Teacher Preparation Programs with the CCSS. What’s on the mind of the nation’s Governors? In a report released last fall, the National Governor’s Association provided guidance to governors on how to effectively implement the Common Core. Governors are focused on the parts of the system which will be held accountable first and where immediate changes are necessary such as alignment of current state standards with the CCSS, altering curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, and the creation of state-wide communication plans which will address public expectations, concerns, and questions. In my conversations with Rick Melmer, who is dean of the school of education at the university of South Dakota, served as the superintendent of public instruction in South Dakota, was president of the Council for Chief State School Officers, and most recently has been asked to lead a group of 5 or 6 states as a coach for their implementation of the Common Core. The issues that have been the center of his groups conversations are: Communication with key stakeholders. This continues to be a challenge area for states because the stakeholders continue to grow in number to include more and more groups. There has been an initial tendency to focus on PK-12 instruction, first because they see the implementation in isolation, as being done in schools and classrooms by teachers and principals. Now, many states are beginning to bring in those people who work on assessment, educator preparation, professional development, curriculum and materials, parents, and accountability. States are all over the map and many are ahead of the curve and have included all stakeholders from the beginning of their discussions. Curriculum and Instruction, how can the lessons be taught effectively in the common core , what pedagogy and strategies should be used? Professional Development: training of key leaders, teachers, and administrators in the standards. Assessments: PARC and Smarter Balanced. States are nervous that the assessment consortiums will not deliver on their timeline. States are counting on switching to these new assessments that are aligned with college and work expectations; that are clear, understandable and consistent; are evidence-based, include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; and are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society. What’s on the mind of Educators? Among the findings from the 2012 report from the Center on Education Policy related to educators: All the of the states are creating professional development materials to help teachers master the CCSS and are conducting statewide professional development initiatives. Twenty-seven states are aligning the content of teacher preparation programs with the CCSS and five do not intend to do so. Twenty-five states are modifying or creating evaluation systems that hold educators accountable for student mastery of the CCSS, and six do not plan to do so. Twenty-three states are developing new teacher induction programs to help novices master the CCSS, while nine do not plan to do so. Eighteen states identified aligning the content of teacher preparation programs with the CCSS as a major challenge. What’s on the mind of the nation’s Governors? In a report released last fall, the National Governor’s Association provided guidance to governors on how to effectively implement the Common Core. Governors are focused on the parts of the system which will be held accountable first and where immediate changes are necessary such as alignment of current state standards with the CCSS, altering curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, and the creation of state-wide communication plans which will address public expectations, concerns, and questions. In my conversations with Rick Melmer, who is dean of the school of education at the university of South Dakota, served as the superintendent of public instruction in South Dakota, was president of the Council for Chief State School Officers, and most recently has been asked to lead a group of 5 or 6 states as a coach for their implementation of the Common Core. The issues that have been the center of his groups conversations are: Communication with key stakeholders. This continues to be a challenge area for states because the stakeholders continue to grow in number to include more and more groups. There has been an initial tendency to focus on PK-12 instruction, first because they see the implementation in isolation, as being done in schools and classrooms by teachers and principals. Now, many states are beginning to bring in those people who work on assessment, educator preparation, professional development, curriculum and materials, parents, and accountability. States are all over the map and many are ahead of the curve and have included all stakeholders from the beginning of their discussions. Curriculum and Instruction, how can the lessons be taught effectively in the common core , what pedagogy and strategies should be used? Professional Development: training of key leaders, teachers, and administrators in the standards. Assessments: PARC and Smarter Balanced. States are nervous that the assessment consortiums will not deliver on their timeline. States are counting on switching to these new assessments that are aligned with college and work expectations; that are clear, understandable and consistent; are evidence-based, include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; and are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society. What’s on the mind of Educators? Among the findings from the 2012 report from the Center on Education Policy related to educators: All the of the states are creating professional development materials to help teachers master the CCSS and are conducting statewide professional development initiatives. Twenty-seven states are aligning the content of teacher preparation programs with the CCSS and five do not intend to do so. Twenty-five states are modifying or creating evaluation systems that hold educators accountable for student mastery of the CCSS, and six do not plan to do so. Twenty-three states are developing new teacher induction programs to help novices master the CCSS, while nine do not plan to do so. Eighteen states identified aligning the content of teacher preparation programs with the CCSS as a major challenge.

6. Challenges for States Finding Adequate Resources Interaction with Higher Education Assessments Politics What does college and career ready mean? States are saying that there is generally good support from the field, that they are not running into a lot of resistance, as long as educators are trained properly, know what the curriculum standards are, how they can be prepared for them, and how they will be assessed. Challenges we hear from the states are: 1. Finding adequate resources to support all the activities of implementation. 2. Interaction with higher education, how do we do it? What does it look like? How do we engage? SEAs don’t know what to do even though they are partners with higher ed and want the same things. They say that while we are all partners, we haven’t worked well with higher education in the past so we are seeing this play out in the implementation of the common core. 3. Around assessments the issues seem to be training for people, time, money, engagement of stakeholders and most importantly, technology. Many states are reporting concerns about having adequate technology whether in numbers of computers, internet access, or bandwidth availability to implement the common core assessments. To address these concerns, Smarter Balanced and PARCC announced January 31 that they will launch a technology readiness tool this spring. Being developed by Pearson and using customizable open-source technology, the tool will help schools capture and report key information such as the number and type of computers available, network and bandwidth infrastructure, and local staff resources. Last week, Smarter Balanced released a report on the assessment system architecture for software designers and developers to help them as they work on individual state systems and applications. New Jersey is a strong leader and model within the PARCC group, as a governing state, through engagement in the American Diploma Project Network - aligning NJ standards to the expectations for postsecondary education and employers, and by the leadership of higher education to help develop the college-ready assessments, and commitment to use those assessments as one indicator of student’s readiness for college entry. In that report from the NGA last year, Delaware was highlighted for it’s plan to assess the effectiveness of educator preparation programs, which involves “providing programs and the public with information about graduates’ evaluation ratings and awarding annual expansion grants of $150,000 to successful preparation programs. Louisiana was also mentioned by the NGA for its use of data to prepare effective educators and its requirement that all educator preparation providers meet the new expectations in order to maintain their state approval. * So here is where we see the educator effectiveness policies having a direct impact on implementation of the common core. What I find interesting about Delaware is that the plan to assess programs based on graduate evaluation seems okay until you note that 75% of their prep program graduates go on to teach in other states and there isn’t a longitudinal system that works across states. 3. Politics, in the states. Many are dealing with eliminating tenure and continuing contracts, market compensation, and linking student performance to teacher evaluation, the SEAs are dealing with the political climate and have to address the common core at the same time. This has implications for relationships between the state departments of education, and the licensing entities. 4. States are really focusing in on what it means for students to be college and career ready. The work of David Conley at the University of Oregon captures this well. That to be college and career ready students have contextual skills and awareness, academic behaviors and content, and cognitive strategies. States are saying that there is generally good support from the field, that they are not running into a lot of resistance, as long as educators are trained properly, know what the curriculum standards are, how they can be prepared for them, and how they will be assessed. Challenges we hear from the states are: 1. Finding adequate resources to support all the activities of implementation. 2. Interaction with higher education, how do we do it? What does it look like? How do we engage? SEAs don’t know what to do even though they are partners with higher ed and want the same things. They say that while we are all partners, we haven’t worked well with higher education in the past so we are seeing this play out in the implementation of the common core. 3. Around assessments the issues seem to be training for people, time, money, engagement of stakeholders and most importantly, technology. Many states are reporting concerns about having adequate technology whether in numbers of computers, internet access, or bandwidth availability to implement the common core assessments. To address these concerns, Smarter Balanced and PARCC announced January 31 that they will launch a technology readiness tool this spring. Being developed by Pearson and using customizable open-source technology, the tool will help schools capture and report key information such as the number and type of computers available, network and bandwidth infrastructure, and local staff resources. Last week, Smarter Balanced released a report on the assessment system architecture for software designers and developers to help them as they work on individual state systems and applications. New Jersey is a strong leader and model within the PARCC group, as a governing state, through engagement in the American Diploma Project Network - aligning NJ standards to the expectations for postsecondary education and employers, and by the leadership of higher education to help develop the college-ready assessments, and commitment to use those assessments as one indicator of student’s readiness for college entry. In that report from the NGA last year, Delaware was highlighted for it’s plan to assess the effectiveness of educator preparation programs, which involves “providing programs and the public with information about graduates’ evaluation ratings and awarding annual expansion grants of $150,000 to successful preparation programs. Louisiana was also mentioned by the NGA for its use of data to prepare effective educators and its requirement that all educator preparation providers meet the new expectations in order to maintain their state approval. * So here is where we see the educator effectiveness policies having a direct impact on implementation of the common core. What I find interesting about Delaware is that the plan to assess programs based on graduate evaluation seems okay until you note that 75% of their prep program graduates go on to teach in other states and there isn’t a longitudinal system that works across states. 3. Politics, in the states. Many are dealing with eliminating tenure and continuing contracts, market compensation, and linking student performance to teacher evaluation, the SEAs are dealing with the political climate and have to address the common core at the same time. This has implications for relationships between the state departments of education, and the licensing entities. 4. States are really focusing in on what it means for students to be college and career ready. The work of David Conley at the University of Oregon captures this well. That to be college and career ready students have contextual skills and awareness, academic behaviors and content, and cognitive strategies.

7. Challenges for Educator Preparation Budgets Faculty Preparedness Clinical Experience Preparing Teacher Candidates for Clinical Experiences Working with K-12 partners to discuss the implications of CCSS implementation for cooperating teachers and teacher candidates. Budgets: Program budgets, as we all know, have been cut heavily over the past few years and this has a direct implication with the Common Core implementation, in many cases it isn’t just a matter of allocating staff because there isn’t a person to allocate. We are hearing that many schools are being asked by other departments to pay for the courses that need to be developed to address the common core even when the courses and credit hours belong to the Arts and Sciences’ departments. Some solutions have been for programs that have a lot of distance education to support the professional development training to teach in the distance environments and pay for the development of modules to be implemented in the educator preparation program, but developed by the Math department. Programs are looking at faculty that have the ability to teach the skills of the common core, not only the methods courses for mathematics and english language arts teachers, but to help student think critically about mathematics, and integrate technology into what they are teaching. This is having a strong impact on how programs are hiring and who they are hiring. For example at the University of Vermont, for early childhood elementary they are now looking closely at literacy experts and how they are preparing teachers to encourage cognitive growth without showing every step of the way. They are looking to see if they are teaching literacy the way they need to be. During the AACTE annual meeting, dean Miller shared that she is redistributing faculty to strengthen academic programs and better prepare their candidates. Now instead of having departments within her department of education, she now has one department where there is overlap between early childhood faculty and elementary faculty, there is more crossover between faculty and the content areas. She described this in a way I like, that their teacher ed program has its own common core. The candidates are taking a common curriculum in which the elementary candidates know where the students are headed in terms of their contextual skills, academic behaviors and content, and cognitive strategies and the secondary candidates know where the students are coming from. We are seeing more programs hiring across elementary and secondary departments and this speaks directly to the kind of environment that dean miller describes occurring at UVM. With regard to Clinical Experience, we are starting to see some programs have candidates create lesson plans incorporating the common core. In the NGA report guidance was given to governors on how to address the critical issue of building educator capacity through licensure, professional development, and evaluation, the report presents ideas for how states might enforce new requirements for preparation programs. Options presented emphasize the pre-service educator’s mastery of the CCSS content during clinical or internship experiences, demonstrated through a professional portfolio, and directing state boards of education or program approval agencies to revise program standards to require relevant courses or practical experience requirements. Programs have shared that one of their challenges is keeping up with their K-12 partners. They are concerned about how to help candidates in the current context where we are between 2 systems and how to work with districts that seem in some cases to be open and in others seem to be more closed off. I haven’t heard of any problems related to clinical experience that are a direct result of the common core implementation, mostly what I have heard in terms of difficulties in placing candidates is a result of the evaluation environment that has impacted programs that have research clinical sites.Budgets: Program budgets, as we all know, have been cut heavily over the past few years and this has a direct implication with the Common Core implementation, in many cases it isn’t just a matter of allocating staff because there isn’t a person to allocate. We are hearing that many schools are being asked by other departments to pay for the courses that need to be developed to address the common core even when the courses and credit hours belong to the Arts and Sciences’ departments. Some solutions have been for programs that have a lot of distance education to support the professional development training to teach in the distance environments and pay for the development of modules to be implemented in the educator preparation program, but developed by the Math department. Programs are looking at faculty that have the ability to teach the skills of the common core, not only the methods courses for mathematics and english language arts teachers, but to help student think critically about mathematics, and integrate technology into what they are teaching. This is having a strong impact on how programs are hiring and who they are hiring. For example at the University of Vermont, for early childhood elementary they are now looking closely at literacy experts and how they are preparing teachers to encourage cognitive growth without showing every step of the way. They are looking to see if they are teaching literacy the way they need to be. During the AACTE annual meeting, dean Miller shared that she is redistributing faculty to strengthen academic programs and better prepare their candidates. Now instead of having departments within her department of education, she now has one department where there is overlap between early childhood faculty and elementary faculty, there is more crossover between faculty and the content areas. She described this in a way I like, that their teacher ed program has its own common core. The candidates are taking a common curriculum in which the elementary candidates know where the students are headed in terms of their contextual skills, academic behaviors and content, and cognitive strategies and the secondary candidates know where the students are coming from. We are seeing more programs hiring across elementary and secondary departments and this speaks directly to the kind of environment that dean miller describes occurring at UVM. With regard to Clinical Experience, we are starting to see some programs have candidates create lesson plans incorporating the common core. In the NGA report guidance was given to governors on how to address the critical issue of building educator capacity through licensure, professional development, and evaluation, the report presents ideas for how states might enforce new requirements for preparation programs. Options presented emphasize the pre-service educator’s mastery of the CCSS content during clinical or internship experiences, demonstrated through a professional portfolio, and directing state boards of education or program approval agencies to revise program standards to require relevant courses or practical experience requirements. Programs have shared that one of their challenges is keeping up with their K-12 partners. They are concerned about how to help candidates in the current context where we are between 2 systems and how to work with districts that seem in some cases to be open and in others seem to be more closed off. I haven’t heard of any problems related to clinical experience that are a direct result of the common core implementation, mostly what I have heard in terms of difficulties in placing candidates is a result of the evaluation environment that has impacted programs that have research clinical sites.

8. Higher Education and Educator Preparation Implementation Aligning Program Standards Working with the Arts and Sciences Designing Professional Development for Faculty Engagement on Work Groups Engagement in Statewide Initiatives Alignment of the state standards with the Common Core to see what differences will be taking place that higher education needs to be aware of, how programs will be accredited, and what kinds of measures will be needed to show that programs are preparing teachers effectively. This looks different across the country because the common core is set up in a way that states can take their own approach to working within the common core framework. The common core says look at the standards you have and see what is missing. Its more of an additive than replacement process. Programs across the country have begun the alignment of their program standards and curriculum with the Common Core, reaching out to departments in the arts and sciences to inform changes to course work and faculty development. Some have begun to introduce the standards and expectations early in the program to teacher candidates. In Utah, institutions worked through the State Office of Education to design professional development for faculty and engage in CC implementation in PK-12 schools, that was coordinated through a system of workshops, and teacher common core academies. Higher ed representatives in Smarter Balanced states have been invited to serve in work groups tasked with designing professional development initiatives, formative tools and process, practice guidelines, and assessment frameworks. *engagement in work groups is critical for higher ed because programs need to be leading the discussions on what it means to be college and career ready, and how the aligned assessments meet their expectations for student preparedness. Last fall, Learning Forward formerly the National Staff development council launched a 2 year initiative in partnership with AACTE, CCSSO, the NGA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education called “Transforming Professional Learning to Prepare College and Career-Ready Students: Implementing the Common Core.” The state of Kentucky was chosen to serve as the projects learning laboratory. Learning Forward is leading a partnership with state and district leaders, creating a multiyear comprehensive plan with staged professional development for both the standards and the assessments. The state also pledged to support new school schedules that provide substantive time for professional learning for educators, and six “critical friend” states (GA, IL, NH, NJ, UT, and WA) are committed to providing feedback throughout the project. In January, The project received a 1 million dollar grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.Alignment of the state standards with the Common Core to see what differences will be taking place that higher education needs to be aware of, how programs will be accredited, and what kinds of measures will be needed to show that programs are preparing teachers effectively. This looks different across the country because the common core is set up in a way that states can take their own approach to working within the common core framework. The common core says look at the standards you have and see what is missing. Its more of an additive than replacement process. Programs across the country have begun the alignment of their program standards and curriculum with the Common Core, reaching out to departments in the arts and sciences to inform changes to course work and faculty development. Some have begun to introduce the standards and expectations early in the program to teacher candidates. In Utah, institutions worked through the State Office of Education to design professional development for faculty and engage in CC implementation in PK-12 schools, that was coordinated through a system of workshops, and teacher common core academies. Higher ed representatives in Smarter Balanced states have been invited to serve in work groups tasked with designing professional development initiatives, formative tools and process, practice guidelines, and assessment frameworks. *engagement in work groups is critical for higher ed because programs need to be leading the discussions on what it means to be college and career ready, and how the aligned assessments meet their expectations for student preparedness. Last fall, Learning Forward formerly the National Staff development council launched a 2 year initiative in partnership with AACTE, CCSSO, the NGA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education called “Transforming Professional Learning to Prepare College and Career-Ready Students: Implementing the Common Core.” The state of Kentucky was chosen to serve as the projects learning laboratory. Learning Forward is leading a partnership with state and district leaders, creating a multiyear comprehensive plan with staged professional development for both the standards and the assessments. The state also pledged to support new school schedules that provide substantive time for professional learning for educators, and six “critical friend” states (GA, IL, NH, NJ, UT, and WA) are committed to providing feedback throughout the project. In January, The project received a 1 million dollar grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. Learn More http://www.cep-dc.org/ www.nga.org www.aacte.org (Live Learning Center) While educator preparation has not been at the center of these discussions which have focused on the parts of the system which will be held accountable first and where immediate changes are necessary such as alignment of current state standards with the CCSS, altering curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development, and the creation of state-wide communication plans which will address public expectations, concerns, and questions. As 2012 begins, it is clear that as states speed up their work to build educator capacity to teach these standards, develop transitional assessments, and new accountability policies, the CCSS will impact preparation programs financially and structurally; through the revision or alignment of program standards, coursework, and faculty development; and through the program approval and accountability process.While educator preparation has not been at the center of these discussions which have focused on the parts of the system which will be held accountable first and where immediate changes are necessary such as alignment of current state standards with the CCSS, altering curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development, and the creation of state-wide communication plans which will address public expectations, concerns, and questions. As 2012 begins, it is clear that as states speed up their work to build educator capacity to teach these standards, develop transitional assessments, and new accountability policies, the CCSS will impact preparation programs financially and structurally; through the revision or alignment of program standards, coursework, and faculty development; and through the program approval and accountability process.