WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL THEY MAKE? July 13-15, 2010

1. WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL THEY MAKE? July 13-15, 2010

2. Objectives • Participants will develop a deeper understanding of the Common Core Standards by relating their implementation to the past, current and future work of Networks. • Participants will examine the developmental progression of the Common Core Standards for literacy and mathematics and understand their respective demands for teachers and students. • Participants will identify the implications of the CCS to instruction, assessment, leadership and professional development. • Participants will develop a plan for rolling out the CCS to their schools.

3. 3 – 2 - 1 • things you know 2 things you are interested in knowing more about 1 question

4. Overview • State-led and developed common core standards for K-12 in English/language arts and mathematics • Focus on learning expectations for students, not how students get there.

5. Why now? • Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. • Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. • Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code. • Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. • Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

6. Process and Timeline • K-12 Common Standards: • Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics • External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process • Draft K-12 standards were released for public comment on March 10, 2010; 9,600 comments received • Validation Committee of leading experts reviews standards • Final standards were released June 2, 2010

7. Feedback and Review • External and State Feedback teams included: • K-12 teachers • Postsecondary faculty • State curriculum and assessments experts • Researchers • National organizations (including, but not limited, to):

8. Common Core State Standards Design • Building on the strength of current state standards, the CCSS are designed to be: • Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous • Internationally benchmarked • Anchored in college and career readiness • Evidence and research based

9. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base • Evidence was used to guide critical decisions in the following areas: • Inclusion of particular content • Timing of when content should be introduced and the progression of that content • Ensuring focus and coherence • Organizing and formatting the standards • Determining emphasis on particular topics in standards • Evidence includes: • Standards from high-performing countries, leading states, and nationally-regarded frameworks • Research on adolescent literacy, text complexity, mathematics instruction, quantitative literacy • Lists of works consulted and research base included in standards’ appendices

10. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base • English language arts • Australia • New South Wales • Victoria • Canada • Alberta • British Columbia • Ontario • England • Finland • Hong Kong • Ireland • Singapore Mathematics Belgium (Flemish) Canada (Alberta) China Chinese Taipei England Finland Hong Kong India Ireland Japan Korea Singapore • For example: Standards from individual high-performing countries and provinces were used to inform content, structure, and language.

11. What Momentum is There for the Initiative? • 48 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have signed on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative

12. Criteria for the Standards • Fewer, clearer, and higher • Aligned with college and work expectations • 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

13. Common Core State Standards and New York

14. DESPITE GAINS, ONLY 39% OF NYC 4TH GRADERS AND 26% OF 8TH GRADERS ARE PROFICIENT ON NATIONAL MATH TESTS NAEP & NY STATE TEST RESULTS NYC MATH PERFORMANCE PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT 4th Grade 8th Grade 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 NAEP NY State Test NAEP NY State Test

15. MANY NYC PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATES STRUGGLE IN COLLEGE • 40,549 students graduated from NYC public high schools in 2007 • 39% enrolled at CUNY in Fall 2007 • 45% of these students required remediation in reading, writing, or math

16. Key differences between nys and Common Core state Standards: literacy • Standards increase in complexity from K-12, helping to articulate what students need to know and be able to do along this trajectory and assist with differentiation • Literacy-building as a shared responsibility for all content area teachers • Emphasis on teaching reading of informational text • Emphasis on steadily increasing students’ ability to understand more and more complex text over time • Integration of research skills across standards and grades • Emphasis on writing to argue, inform, and explain in the upper grades to prepare students for college-level writing

17. Key differences between Nys and Common Core state Standards: math • Fewer topics; more generalizing and linking of concepts • Well-aligned with the way high-achieving countries teach math • Emphasis on both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency starting in the early grades • More time to teach and reinforce core concepts from K-12 • Some concepts will now be taught later • Focus on mastery of complex concepts in higher math (e.g., algebra and geometry) via hands-on learning • Emphasis on mathematical modeling in the upper grades

18. When will New York State adopt the Common Core State Standards? • July 2010 (expected) • Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will not be modified for NYS • States allowed to add additional state-specific standards up to 15% • NYS proposal for public feedback expected in early fall 2010 • Regents approval of additional 15% expected in late fall • A crosswalk between current NYS Standards and CCSS will be developed once additional standards are finalized

19. When will NYS assessments align to CCSS? • 2010-11: NYS assessments will align to current NYS Standards   • Proposal to design new Common Core-aligned assessments: • June 2010: NYS applied as part of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) with 25 other states for a federal grant to design literacy and math assessments in grades 3-11aligned to the Common Core • Fall 2010: Funding decisions will be made and design work will begin • 2014-15: PARCC Assessments will be operationalized •  NYS has not yet decided whether its assessments will begin to incorporate CCSS prior to 2014-15 when the PARCC assessments are ready. The earliest date where we might see this shift in the NYS state tests would be the 2011-12 school year. (We expect more clarity this fall.) • DOE’s Periodic Assessment options will support the transition to the Common Core State Standards over the next 3-4 years (many DYO schools are well-positioned to begin aligning their assessments to CCSS)

20. WHAT WILL THE PROPOSED PARCC ASSESSMENTS LOOK LIKE? • Goal is to assess: • The full range of the Common Core State Standards • Higher-order knowledge and skills • Students’ ability to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, reason, problem-solve • Includes mix of items with strong emphasis on performance tasks and writing • Grounded in the following principles: • Allow accountability decisions for students, teachers, and schools • Improve teaching and learning • Prepare students for college and careers • Visit www.achieve.org/PARCCsummary or www.fldoe.org/parcc

21. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR SCHOOLS TO ENGAGE WITH THE CCSS NOW? • Important for schools to think of integrating the Common Core State Standards as a multi-year process: • Improving organizational structures • Building teacher capacity • Some students enrolled in our schools now will need to pass CCSS-aligned state assessments to be promoted or graduate • Schools that develop thoughtful multi-year transition plans will be ready to be held accountable for student achievement on CCSS

22. HOW WILL THE CCSS IMPACT THE QUALITY REVIEW RUBRIC? • CCSS will be integrated into the 2010-11 Quality Review rubric in Quality Statement 5, “Monitor and Revise” • Beginning in 2010-11 schools will be expected to begin integrating CCSS expectations into planning around adjusting: • Curriculum • Instruction • Assessment • Staff capacity-building • Organizational resources

23. 2010-11 NETWORK-BASED COMMON CORE GOALS • Each school should provide its teachers with at least two introductory experiences with CCSS. • Networks should continue to work toward the goal of 90% of teachers engaged in teams using inquiry. As part of that effort: • All teacher teams should begin to integrate review of student work products (e.g., student writing) as part of examining student data in the inquiry cycle. • At least 20% of teacher teams in each school should focus their efforts on preparing for the new standards. • Each school should choose at least one milestone that will be their entry point into CCSS. This should support a plan to prepare for the new standards. By 2011-12 transition plans should address these questions: • How does the school need to modify curriculum maps and learning targets? • What new skills do teachers need, and how will teachers be supported? • What differentiated instructional supports will be needed so all students, including ELLs and students with disabilities, meet the expectations of the CCSS? • How will classroom and periodic assessment tasks need to shift? • Is the school’s use of time and other resources aligned to support this work?

24. How does the common core work fit into the broader Instructional Agenda? • Expansion of collaborative inquiry and introduction of the Common Core • Leadership development • Special education reform: Phases I and II • Post-secondary readiness • Teacher effectiveness: empowerment and accountability for teachers • Development of new schools and turnaround through the network structure • Innovation Zone • Reduction in central impact on principal time

25. WHAT RESOURCES IS THE DOE PROVIDING TO SUPPORT THIS WORK? • One additional instructional staff per network dedicated to support CCSS • Monthly training sessions run by each cluster, in partnership with DSSI and DPA, for network leaders and all instructional staff • Per session funding for networks to tap strong principals and teachers to support network capacity-building efforts • Title I per session funding to support launch of this work during summer 2010 and into the fall • Common Core pilots • 100 schools, literacy & math, K-12 • Focus on performance tasks, curriculum alignment, and text complexity • Will inform citywide, network, and school work by generating resources such as sample performance tasks and curriculum maps, lab sites, case studies, pedagogical tools for teachers, other promising practices

26. ORGANIZING TO SUPPORT COMMON CORE WORK DSSI, DPA and DSDELL (steering & curriculum Committees) Cluster instructional team w/ DSSI/DPA co-facilitators Network instructional team w/ principals & school instructional staff Principal w/ faculty and school community 25

27. INSERT CLUSTER DATA

28. K-12 Mathematics Common Core State Standards

29. Why do we study mathematics in school? • Because it’s hard and we have to learn hard things at school. We can learn easy stuff at home like manners. Carrine, K • Because it always comes after reading. Roger, 1 • Because all the calculators might run out of batteries or something. Thomas, 1 • Because it’s important. It’s the law from President Bush and it says so in the Bible on the first page. Jolene, 2 • Because you can drown if you don’t. Amy, K

30. Why do we study mathematics in school? • Because what would you do with your check from work when you grow up? Brad, 1 • Because you have to count if you want to be an astronaut. Like 10…9…8…blast off. Michael, 1 • Because you could never find the right page. Mary, 1 • Because when you grow up you couldn’t tell if you are rich or not. Raji, 2 • Because my teacher could get sued if we don’t. That’s what she said. Any subject we don’t know – Wham! She gets sued and she’s already poor. Corky, 3

31. What are standards? • Standards define what students should understand and be able to do. • Standards must be a promise to students of the mathematics they can take with them. • We haven’t kept our old promise and now we make a new one. • What difference will it make?

32. Lessons Learned After two decades of standards based accountability: • Too many standards • Lack of student motivation • “Cover” at “pace” is a failure • Tells teachers to ignore students • Turn the page regardless • Shrug your shoulders and do what “they” say • Mathematics is not a list of topics to cover • Singapore: “Teach less, learn more”

33. Lessons Learned • TIMSS: math performance in the US is being compromised by a lack of focus and coherence in the “mile wide, inch deep” curriculum • Hong Kong students outscore U.S. students on the grade 4 TIMSS, even though Hong Kong only teaches about half of the tested topics. U.S. covers over 80% of the tested topics. • High-performing countries spend more time on mathematically central concepts: greater depth and coherence.

34. Lessons Learned What Does “Higher Standards” Mean? • more topics? but the U.S. curriculum is already cluttered with too many topics. • earlier grades? but this does not follow from the evidence. In Singapore, division of fractions: grade 6, whereas in the U.S. : grade 5 (or 4)

35. Answer Getting vs. Learning Mathematics United States How can I teach my kids to get the answer to this problem? Use mathematics they already know. Easy, reliable, works with bottom half, good for classroom management. Japan How can I use this problem to teach mathematics they don’t already know?

36. Leinwand, S., and Ginsburg, A. … US textbooks do a much worse job than the Singapore textbooks in clarifying the mathematical concepts that students must learn. … the presentation becomes more mechanical than is ideal. …we found this conceptual weakness …in both traditional and non-traditional textbooks used in the US. Leinwand, S., and Ginsburg, A., "Measuring Up: How the Highest Performing state (Massachusetts) Compares to the Highest Performing Country (Hong Kong) in Grade 3 Mathematics," American Institutes for Research, 2009, p. 2; Ginsburg et al. (2005, op cit), p. xii.

37. Teaching Against the Test • 3 + 5 = [ ] • 3 + [ ] = 8 • [ ] + 5 = 8 • 8 - 3 = 5 • 8 - 5 = 3

39. Math Standards • Mathematical Performance • Mathematical Understanding • Mathematical Practices

40. Performance • Performance: what kids should be able to do • 3rd grade sample • multiply and divide within 100

41. Understanding • Understanding: what kids should understand about mathematics • 3rd grade sample • Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division.

42. 215 + 31 2.15 + 3.1

43. 24 x 5 = 120 4 x 1/2 = 2

44. Impact of Misconceptions We use ideas we already have (BLUE DOTS) to construct a new idea (RED DOT) John Van de Walle, Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally, 2004, page 23.

45. Correcting Misconceptions versus Typical Remedial Learning

46. "Understand” "Understand" is used in these standards to mean that students can explain the concept with mathematical reasoning, including concrete illustrations, mathematical representations, and example applications. Students who understand a concept can • use it to make sense of and explain quantitative situations (see "Model with Mathematics" in Practices) • incorporate it into their own arguments and use it to evaluate the arguments of others (see " Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others" in Practices) • bring it to bear on the solutions to problems (see " Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them") • make connections between it and related concepts

47. “Understand” Expectation • At a given grade level, students demonstrate all of a. through d. over the collection of "understand" standards. • For any given "understand" standard, students demonstrate at least two of a. through d.

48. Take the number apart? • Tina, Emma, and Jen discuss this expression: 6×5 1/3 Tina: I know a way to multiply with a mixed number that is different from the one we learned in class. I call my way “take the number apart.” I’ll show you. First, I multiply the 5 by the 6 and get 30. Then I multiply the 1/3 by the 6 and get 2. Finally, I add the 30 and the 2 to get my answer, which is 32.

49. Take the number apart? Tina: It works whenever I have to multiply a mixed number by a whole number. Emma: Sorry Tina, but that answer is wrong! Jen: No, Tina’s answer is right for this one problem, but “take the number apart” doesn’t work for other fraction problems. Which of the three girls do you think is right? Justify your answer mathematically?

50. Distributive Property 5 1/3 = 5 + 1/3 6 x 5 1/3 = 6(5 + 1/3) 6(5 + 1/3) = 6x5 + 6x 1/3 since a(b + c) = ab + ac Could illustrate with area of a rectangle 6 by 5 1/3 1/3 5 1/3 + = 5 6 6