Common Core State Standards Leadership Team Training

1. Common Core State Standards Leadership Team Training April 25, 2011 TBAISD Curriculum Team

2. Session Purpose • Understand the history/development of the CCSS • Describe the design/organization of the CCSS • Explain the proposed timeline for CCSS implementation • Access TBAISD’s electronic resources • Understand how CCSS will impact standardized assessments

3. Essential Questions What are the Common Core State Standards? Why are Common Core State Standards good for stakeholders? How will the Common Core State Standards impact you? How will the Common Core State Standards be rolled out in Michigan?

4. Introducing the Common Core • Developed under the joint direction of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers • Final version released on June 2, 2010 • Organizers expect 48 states to adopt the Common Core.

5. Introducing the Common Core • Adopted by the Michigan Board of Education on June 15th. States are required to adopt 100% of the common core K-12 standards in ELA and mathematics (word for word), with the option of adding up to an additional 15% of standards on top of the core. • Official Website: http://www.corestandards.org/

6. Criteria Used to Develop CCSS Fewer, clearer, higher Aligned with college and work expectations Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher order skills Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Informed by top performing countries Evidenced and/or researched-based Realistic and practical for the classroom Consistent across all states

7. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base 7 Mathematics Belgium (Flemish) Canada (Alberta) China Chinese Taipei England Finland Hong Kong India Ireland Japan Korea Singapore • English language arts • Australia • New South Wales • Victoria • Canada • Alberta • British Columbia • Ontario • England • Finland • Hong Kong • Ireland • Singapore Standards from individual high-performing countries and provinces were used to inform content, structure, and language. Writing teams looked for examples of rigor, coherence, and progression.

8. Impetus for the Common Core State Standards • All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers, but with students from around the world. • Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards, meaning public educated students are learning different content at disparate rates. • With every state having different sets of standards; there has been wide variance in how states have defined “proficiency.” Let’s take a closer look …..

9. MEAP vs. NAEP(National Assessment for Educational Progress)

11. Not just at the state & national level, there is evidence it is happening regionally too…..

12. What does proficient mean on the MEAP?

14. Why are common core state standards good for stakeholders: students? College & Career Focus. It will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers Consistent. Expectations will be consistent for all kids and not dependent on a students zip code Mobility. It will help students with transitions between states Student Ownership. Clearer standards will help students understand what is expected of them and allow for more self-directed learning by students

15. Why are common core state standards good for stakeholders: parents? Clarity. Helps parents understand exactly what students need to know and be able to do Support. Helps parents support their children and educators by making expectations clear and goals high Equity. Provides equal access to a high quality education Involvement. Provides opportunities to meaningfully engage parents

16. Why are common core state standards good for stakeholders: educators? Training. Allows for more focused pre-service and professional development Valid Assessments. Assures that what is taught is aligned with assessments including formative, summative, and benchmarking Own the “How”. Provides the opportunity for instructors to tailor curriculum and teaching methods Depth. Informs the development of a curriculum that promotes deep understanding for all children

17. Why are common core state standards good for stakeholders: states and districts? Global. Allows states to align curricula to internationally benchmarked standards Best Practices. Allows states and districts to ensure professional development for educators is based on best practices Competition. Creates the opportunity for America to compete for high-wage, high skill jobs in a knowledge-based economy State Assessment. Allows for the development of a “Next Generation” state assessment Policies. Provides the opportunity to compare and evaluate policies that artifact students achievement across states and districts

18. What about our GLCEs and HSCEs? 18 This initiative will potentially affect 43.5 million students which is about 87% of the student population.

19. ELA Structure

20. Literacy in Science & Social StudiesGrades 6-12 Opportunity to engage MS/HS teachers in dialogue about instructing students in informational text

21. 2009 NAEP Reading Framework Source: National Assessment Governing Board (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office

22. 2011 NAEP Writing Framework Source: National Assessment Governing Board (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, pre-publication edition. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

23. Math Structure Practice Standards Describe an expertise that college & career ready math students at all levels should develop in order to effectively engage mathematical concepts. K-8 HighSchool Grade Level Conceptual Category Domain Domain Grade-Specific Standard Content-Specific Standard G-C.1 4.G.1

24. A Vision for Implementation

25. COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDSAlignment of MDE and TBAISD Timelines for Transitioning

26. Timeline Turn and share with your elbow partner the impact this timeline will have on your district.

27. Assessment Consortia • Development of an infrastructure and content for a common assessment in measuring CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics. • Two Consortia: • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) • Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)

28. Assessment Consortia U.S. Education Department Requirements • Measure the full breadth of the Common Core State Standards • Extend the range of high quality measurement in both directions • Assessments operational by 2014-15 • Consortia must offer an online version • Must take advantage of technology for reporting speed and be instructionally relevant

29. Assessment Consortia • SBAC • 31 states • 17 governing states • Implemented in 2014-2015 • PARCC • 26 states • 11 governing states • Implemented in 2014-15

30. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

31. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Goal: To ensure that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching.

32. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Shaped by the following principles: 1. Integrated system 2. Evidence of student performance 3. Teachers integrally involved 4. State-led, transparent and inclusive governance structure

33. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Shaped by the following principles: 5. Continuously improve teaching and learning 6. Useful information on multiple measures 7. Design and implementation adhere to established professional standards

34. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Specific Priorities: • Ensure all students have access to the technology needed to participate in each component (summative, interim/benchmark, formative) • Support research on how to use technology to increase access for all students, in particular those needing accommodations

35. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Specific Priorities: • Use technology to efficiently deliver training, resources, reports and data; social networks for teachers to develop and disseminate effective CCSS curriculum and instructional tools • Create innovative item types that utilize technology and represent real-world contexts

36. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Specific Priorities: • Use Computer Adaptive Testing engine to maximize accuracy for individual students across the CCSS • Standardized accommodations policy and administration practices across states to ensure comparability

37. Assessing the Common Core

38. Assessing the Common Core Summative Assessment: • Measure full range of CCSS • Computer Adaptive Testing for precision • Timely results • Engage Institutions of Higher Education to ensure achievement standards reflect college and career readiness • Scale scores help inform growth model

39. Assessing the Common Core Interim Benchmark Assessment: • Allow for finer grain of measurement (e.g., end of unit) • Inform teachers if students on track to be proficient on summative assessments • Multiple opportunities for students to participate • Scale scores help inform growth model

40. Assessing the Common Core Formative Assessment: • Repository of tools available to teachers to support quick adjustment and differentiated instruction • Help define student performance along the CCSS learning progressions • Concrete strategies for immediate feedback loops

41. Assessing the Common Core Teacher Engagement: • Integral role in developing test maps for each grade and content area • Item writing, specifications, reviewing, and range-finding for all test types • Teacher-moderated scoring of performance events to inform professional development

42. Assessing the Common Core • Prototype items courtesy of the Minnesota and Utah Departments of Education

43. Assessing the Common Core

44. Assessing the Common Core

45. Assessing the Common Core Assessment Design Proposal: • Assessment window vs. single day administration • Multiple opportunities to assess • Quick results available to support instruction • Emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking

46. Assessment Challenges • LEA capacity for online assessment • Bandwidth issues, especially in rural areas • Item development for computer-adaptive testing • Field-testing • Item types • Demographic coverage

47. Assessment Challenges • Psychometrics • Comparability across years and student populations • Equating from year to year • Accommodated versions for SWD and ELL • Contrast, read aloud, enlarged print • Braille All challenges will be resolved by 2014-15

48. Assessment Challenges What we don’t know: • How the Michigan Merit Exam will change. • How or if new assessment items will be phased in. • How much grade level content will be tested each year. • When or if alternative assessments will be developed for sub-group populations.

49. Assessment Contact Information Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability • www.michigan.gov/oeaa SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium • http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/

50. How well do you know The Common Core State Standards?