1 / 14

Common Core and ELL

Common Core and ELL. BIRE Meeting May 17, 2012. Background. Council long supporter of the Common Core State Standards Council member feedback during and since development to writers, assessment consortia, and others engaged in the work Lead district support

nani
Download Presentation

Common Core and ELL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Common Core and ELL BIRE Meeting May 17, 2012

  2. Background • Council long supporter of the Common Core State Standards • Council member feedback during and since development to writers, assessment consortia, and others engaged in the work • Lead district support • Partnerships with the writers and lead groups • Opportunity for collaboration within and across districts

  3. collaboration • Within a district– being at the table together from the start • Across districts and states

  4. Areas of council support • Strategic Communications • Building Awareness and Capacity of Urban Schools • Development of Tools to Implement the Standards

  5. Strategic Communications • Parent Roadmaps in mathematics and English language arts and literacy shaped by member feedback • Parent-friendly language • Rationale • List of most emphasized standards illustrating shifts • Progression across three grade levels • Questions to ask of teachers • Activities to support students at home • Translations in most common languages • Three broadcast quality public service announcements • Translation expertise, please • Implementation survey

  6. Building Awareness and Capacity • Hear directly from writers of the Common Core • Advisory Committees in math and ELA include representatives who lead ELL and special education in their districts • Overview videos • Voice of CCSS writers from Council meetings • Build shared understanding • Common Core strand at all conferences, including upcoming • Special Conferences • Basal Alignment Project • Math Progressions

  7. Implementation tools • High-leverage tools • Response to Intervention White Paper with examples of Tier I differentiation • Update current materials to align with the standards • Partner with other organizations developing tools • Professional development tools • Work with EL experts to extend the standards to help teachers differentiate instruction and enhance ELD • Videos with facilitator guides • Guidelines for professional development to share across districts • Providing feedback to districts on their work

  8. Publishers’ CriteriaThird Revision, April 2012 • Revised based on feedback, including feedback from the ELL community • achievethecore.org • 1) Removed sections where the criteria went beyond the standards and intruded too much into instructional details. • 2) More explicitly emphasized the important role teacher judgment plays in choosing materials. • 3) Clarified that the standards require wide-ranging reading/research and reading of full novels, drama, and poems, as well as close reading of shorter texts.

  9. So you will know • 4) Worked closely with the ELL community to ensure that the work on scaffolding responded to the needs of all students to gain access to high quality complex text. • 5) Noted that high quality questions are usually text specific as well as text dependent; that is, that good questions are not typically generic for any text but address the specific text or texts being examined.

  10. 6) Drawing on the speaking and listening standards, noted the vibrant role of conversation between students in developing literacy. • 7) Left room for a wide range of instructional approaches, while setting some basic parameters based on the standards; for example, the standards require that scaffolds do not pre-empt or replace the need to read the text, but there are many ways open for teachers to engage and students in reading.

  11. 8) More clearly articulated the central importance of the foundational skills in K-2 and the need for systematic attention to the foundations of reading. • 9) Following the standards, emphasized the central role of academic vocabulary —higher level words that appear commonly in many different types of text—in reading, writing, listening and speaking. • 10) Clarified several sections that were found confusing or idiosyncratic, to ensure that the criteria reflect the standards as faithfully as possible.

  12. Urgency • Tension: We have very little time (2014), but need to do this right. • Tight Budgets • Touch: How do we shift practices of our 434,000 teachers and our administrators for real rather than surface implementation? • Test our work: Did it have an impact? How do we know?

  13. Lessons learned • Be at the table • Set high-leverage goals– impossible to implement everything at once • Make it seamless for teachers– not separate initiative • Passion counts– so does strong planning and change management

More Related