Halfway there: Implementing the Common Core Standards

1. Halfway there:Implementing the Common Core Standards Patte Barth Center for Public Education

2. Agenda • a quick overview of the CCSS • truths, untruths & ambiguities • what to expect in 2014 • be prepared • q&a

3. The Common Core State Standards A policy overview

4. The Common Core Standards are intended to be: Aligned with college and work expectations for ELA and math 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

5. What ‘adoption’ means for states • must adopt 100%of CCSS K-12 standards • CCSS should not represent more than 85% of curriculum • must begin assessments on CCSS within three years • no requirements for public accountability SOURCE: NGA, CCSSO

6. 46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS adopted not adopted

7. Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts

8. Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts

9. CCSS development was state-led. True

10. 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

11. NSBA & CCSS • supports NGA/CCSSO state-led process • supports federal funding for research and/or help to states for developing assessments • supports nationally available tests that states may adopt voluntarily • opposes federal mandates or coercion, eg. a condition for receiving Title 1 funds

12. Next Generation Science Standards • Collaboration of Achieve, NRC, AAAS, NSTA and 26 lead states • “Internationally benchmarked” • Final version released April 9, 2013 • Intended to be adopted ‘in whole’ • Carnegie Corp, Noyce Foundation & Dupont sponsors

13. 26 lead states – Next Generation Science Standards participant non participant

14. The federal government is behind the CCSS assessments Mostly true • federal dollars support assessment development • state consortia are doing the work

15. 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

16. 24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium participant non participant

17. 28 states are in the SMARTER consortium participant non participant

18. 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 ELLs Through Technology Systems SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.org

19. Federal technical review of state consortia Expert panel to review consortia processes: • how they establish test validity • how they developed test items The panel will not review individual items SOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, March 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/performance.html

20. States had to adopt the CCSS to qualify for RTTT grants or NCLB waivers. Not true, but it didn’t hurt

21. Federal Policy and CCSS College- and career- ready standards must be: • common to a significant number of states; or • 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.

22. Federal Policy and CCSS Race to the Top • 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.

23. RTTT scoring rubric for standards & assessments(total 500 points)

24. Federal Policy and CCSS NCLB waivers • develop and implement rigorous college- & career-ready standards & assessments in reading & math. • adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to new standards and assessments to support ELL students.

25. CCSS will cost the country $16 billion to implement Hard to say SOURCE: Pioneer Institute, 2012

26. CCSS assessments might save dollars $27 current per pupil cost for state assessments (Brookings Institute) $11-20 estimated per pupil for CCSS assessment (PARCC - SMARTER) SOURCES: Brookings Institute, 2012; PARCC, 2012; Education Week, December 7, 2012

27. Other implementation costs • new curriculum and materials • technology • professional development other cost considerations • were your standards due for an overhaul anyway? • are these things your state needs?

28. The Common Core State Standards How they differ from current practice

29. The CCSS are mediocre. Not true

30. Fordham Institute: CCSS to state standards • CCSS “clearly superior” to 39 states’ standards in math and 37 states in ELA • CCSS “clearly inferior” to 3 states in ELA • All others were about the same SOURCE: Fordham Institute, The State of state standards – and the common core, 2010

31. The CCSS-ELA will crowd out classical literature. Not true

32. Balance of texts NAEP 2009 reading framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012

33. Balance of writing modes NAEP 2009 writing framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012

34. 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 Emphasis on research and using evidence Attention to text complexity SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

35. Why emphasize reading for information? US students do well internationally in reading literature but fall behind in reading for information. Rankings based on statistically significant differences in scores between US and other countries.

36. Sample texts, grade 6-8 SOURCE: Common core state standards, ELA, Appendix B, www.corestandards.org

37. PARRC/ELA assessment guidelines Two CCSS standards are always in play—whether they be reading or writing items: • Reading Standard One (Use of Evidence) • Reading Standard Ten (Complex Texts) SOURCE: PARRC, August 2012

38. PARRC/grade 10constructed response Use what you have learned from reading “Daedalus and Icarus” by Ovid and “To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Triumph” by Anne Sexton to write an essay that provides an analysis of how Sexton transforms Daedalus and Icarus. * * * Develop your essay by providing textual evidence from both texts. Be sure to follow the conventions of standard English. SOURCE: PARRC sample item, 2012

39. The CCSS do not require cursive writing. True Schools cannot teach cursive writing. Not true

40. The CCSS-math are internationally benchmarked. True

41. Comparison of CCSS-math to top-achieving countries • Are world-class • Can potentially elevate the academic performance of America’s students • Most states have a long way to go: some less SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012

42. Comparison of CCSS-math to top-achieving countries Top-achieving countries CCSS SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012

43. 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

44. 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

45. The emphasis on mathematical practices is fuzzy math. Let’s take a look

46. Before CCSS Which of the following numbers will round to 26? • 25.3 • 25.5 • 26.7 • 27.1 SOURCE: Virginia SOL released items, grade 4 math, 2010

47. After CCSS Capacity of different baseball stadiums   San Francisco Giants’ stadium: 41,915 seats Washington Nationals’ stadium: 41,888 seats San Diego Padres’ stadium: 42,445 seats Jeff said, “I get the same number when I round all three numbers of seats in these stadiums.” Sara said, “When I round them, I get the same number for two of the stadiums but a different number for the other stadium.” Can Jeff and Sara both be correct? Explain how you know. SOURCE: The Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, grade 4

48. What’s different? • Both assess rounding • The second further requires the ability to reason mathematically, critique the reasoning of others, and communicate their own reasoning

49. SMARTER Grade 4 SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013

50. SMARTER Grade 4 SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013