New Forms of Instructional Materials Support Common Core State Standards

1. New Forms of Instructional Materials Support Common Core State Standards Today: Context - Common Core State Standards Draft – Common Criteria Past → Present → Future → Facilitator: Drew Hinds, ODE drew.hinds@state.or.us (503) 947-5799

2. Objectives for this Webinar • Context of instructional materials in support of the implementation of CCSS • Bridge year introduction and definition • Bridge • English Language Arts (ELA) • Math • Contextual framework for future vetting of instructional materials

3. (Context) The Oregon Diploma Standards-Based Credit Requirements 4- English/LA 3- Arts/CTE/Second Language 3- Math 1- Health 3- Science 1- PE 3- Social Sciences 6- Electives Total = 24 credits Essential Skills Proficiency • Reading (2012)  Writing(2013) • Apply math (2014) Personalized Learning • Education Plan & Profile • Career-Related Learning Standards • Career-Related Learning Experiences • Extended Application

4. Common Core State Standards Goals of State-led Joint Effort: • -Fewer, clearer, and higher-level standards • -Standards aligned with college and work expectations • -Internationally benchmarked standards • -Consistent learning expectations across states

5. Recommendations Generated by the Oregon Common Core State Standards Stewardship Team, Instructional Materials Workgroup “Bridge Year” (Interim Adoption)

6. What is an Interim Adoption (Bridge) Year? • The Bridge Year leverages Oregon’s existing investment in Standards and Materials to support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards • Provides new correlations, pacing guides and supplements to older materials in support of CCSS implementation from contracted publishers for ELA and Math • Allows publishers the opportunity to submit additional supplements and intervention materials developed for CCSS • Allows publishers to submit professional development and teacher materials that support CCSS implementation • Offers an opportunity for publishers to submit updated versions of materials in print, digital and accessible formats

7. DRAFT For ConsiderationStaff Recommendations for Materials Cycle • Social Sciences Materials 2011-12 (In classrooms September 2012) • The Arts (Delayed) • Review CCSS “Bridge” Materials (Interim Adoption Year) 2012-13 • Review ELA/ELP Materials 2013-14 (In classrooms September 2014) • Review Math Materials 2014-15 (In classrooms by September 2015) – 1 yr early

8. Instructional Core Engaging students in the learning process Improved StudentPerformance Improving teachers’ instructional practice Providing academically challenging content Model developed by Richard Elmore, Harvard Graduate School of Education

9. Targets for the Processes of Teaching and Learning Quality Content

10. National Common Criteria for Quality Instructional Materials • Content • Equity and Accessibility • Assessment • Organization and Presentation • Instructional Design & Support Based upon Criteria developed by National Association of State Textbook Administrators

11. Past→ Textbooks and Basal Readers • State Role = Textbook Adoption • District Role = Textbook Selection • Schools Role = Curriculum Installation

12. Present → Accountability • State Role = Maintain standards and vetting process for materials that address alignment, accessibility and quality based on criteria • District = Monitor student achievement, select core materials and support curriculum • Schools = Maintain climate that supports teachers and students within their community

13. Instructional Materials Process Triple Loop State Role District Role School Role

14. Activity: Think-Pair-Share • What are some advantages of the past/present process? • What are some disadvantages of the past/present process?

15. PossibleFutureOutcome-basedProficiency-based Personalized LearningLearning OrganizationsEducational Service Associations • State Role = ? • District Role = ? • Schools Role = ?

16. Instructional Materials Functions - Continuum Most Current State Review/Adoption Processes

17. Instructional Materials Forms and Examples

18. Conceptual Framework for Instructional Materials – Old Forms Print/Digital Materials & Services Free Resources Open Educational Resources (OERs) Based upon a model developed by Doug Levin, State Technology Directors Association (SETDA)

19. Conceptual Framework for Instructional Materials – New Forms Print/Digital Materials & Services Free Resources Open Educational Resources (OERs) Based upon a model developed by Doug Levin, State Technology Directors Association (SETDA)

20. Conceptual Framework for Instructional Materials - Attends to… Print/Digital Materials & Services Core/Basal Instructional Materials Evaluation/Adoption Current Process . Free Educational Resources Open Educational Resources GAP New Process Core/Basal Instructional Materials Vetting Supplemental/ Intervention Instructional Resources

21. What is “Vetting” • Vetting means to examine something carefully • “To vet” originated from the requirement that a horse be checked for health and soundness by a veterinarian before being allowed to race. It has taken to the general meaning “to check” • By the early 1900s, vet had begun to be used as a synonym for evaluate, especially in the context of searching for flaws • Vet means to verify (check to make sure the information is true) • To vet like vetting a source (check to see if there is something not accurate) • Vetting can also be used in context to vetting a candidate for a job or may refer to checking someone's credentials • Vetted means something has had formal and thorough examination prior to granting approval or clearance

22. What is “Instructional Materials Vetting” • Vetting means to examine materials and curriculum carefully before use • State review/adoption processes vet core/basal content in an agreed upon subject matter with a process that involves and is open to the public • Both teachers and students are involved in vetting content, materials and curriculum each time they seek to learn about a particular subject/concept • Vetting differs from review/adoption in a few critical ways: • Alignment – Vetting implies alignment of objects with the CCSS • Accessibility – Vetting implies materials are accessible to all students • Quality – Vetting implies that the materials are proven effective

23. Conceptual Framework for Instructional Materials – Search, Discovery and Use Print/Digital Materials & Services Standards-Based Curriculum Core/Basal Instructional Materials Evaluation/Adoption Teacher Teaching Materials . Free Educational Resources Open Educational Resources GAP Core/Basal Instructional Materials Vetting Student Learning Materials Supplemental/ Intervention Instructional Resources 23

24. Conceptual Framework for Instructional Materials–Process Supports and Crossover Print/Digital Materials & Services Continued District Selection Process Core/Basal Instructional Materials Evaluation/Adoption . Expanded State Process Free Educational Resources Open Educational Resources GAP Core/Basal Instructional Materials Vetting Supplemental/ Intervention Instructional Resources Expanding National Process

25. Other State Innovations to Watch(Just a sample) Virginia Beyond Textbooks Project • Year one of the project includes research report Washington State Digital Learning Department • Online Criteria-based • Review of online course multi-district providers, programs and schools Florida State Two-tiered Online Review Process • Online Criteria-based Review Process • Expert Reviewers • Accuracy of Content • Curriculum Pedagogy • Instructional Usability • Recommendations State Pilot Projects

26. National Policy Projects to Watch • National Educational Technology and Broadband Plans • ED Center for Research • Advanced Information and Digital Technologies • E-rate Interpretations • Title IID Funding • FCC “Learning on the Go” E-Rate Mobile Pilot • 14 States • National Research Council Science frameworks • CCSSO Open Platform Pilot States • New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Colorado and in 2013 Delaware, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana • Common Core Courses • Development of “Open Courses” and courses aligned with CCSS • Achieve OER Review Tools and Process • Criteria-based rubric review • PARCC ELA and Math Content Frameworks

27. National Common Criteria for Quality Instructional Materials(repeat) • Content • Equity and Accessibility • Assessment • Organization and Presentation • Instructional Design & Support Based upon Criteria developed by National Association of State Textbook Administrators

28. Open Educational Resources (OERs) Rubrics • Degree of Alignment to Standards • Quality of Explanation of Content • Utility of Materials as Tools to Teach Others • Quality of Assessment • Degree of Interactivity • Quality of Practice Exercises • Opportunities for Deeper Learning • Assurance of Accessibility OER Rubrics developed by Achieve

29. CCSS Criteria for ELA Materials • Text Complexity • Range and Quality of Texts • High Quality, Text-Dependent Questions and Tasks • Writing and Research that Analyzes Sources and Deploys Evidence • Additional Key Criteria for Student Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking Criteria for Publisher’s Development of Instructional Materials developed by David Coleman, CCSS ELA Lead Writer

30. CCSS Tools for Evaluating Math Materials • Tool #1 – Mathematics Content Areas • Tool #2 – Mathematical Practices • Tool #3 – Overarching Issues Criteria for Curricular Analysis Tools developed by Bill Bush, University of Louisville – Math CCSS

31. Where to I find more information? • www.ode.state.or.us/go/CommonCore • www.ode.state.or.us/go/InsructionalMaterials • School district CCSS contact person