Ccss 2013 annualconference


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In the last year, more information about the CCSS is being reported … not all of it accurately. School boards need to explain CCSS to their communities so this presentation will go through some of the statements being circulated about CCSS and attempt to identify what is true, what is not and what is still unknown.
  • This is where a lot of your work as school board members comes in.
  • Common core standards developed in 2009-2010 with NGA/CCSSO money and major support from foundationsIn 2009 49 states committed to be part of the process, but did not to adoption. States formally adopted CCSS after the final draft was released summer 2010.
  • MN – adopted ELA only as of Jan 2012
  • KS, MO, SD, IN, AL GA – legislative efforts to rescindGrassroots opposition emerging in other states
  • AL, GA – failed to passSD, IN – passed legislatures, but not yet signed into law, as of April 3KS, MO – introduced, no vote yet
  • Effort launched in 2009. An advisory group has provided advice and guidance to shape the initiative. Members of this group include experts from Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the State Higher Education Executive Officers. Foundations included Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • NSBA’s official position.
  • Related to although not part of the CCSS, a collaboration of the above organizations and states are developing common standards for science. According to the collaboration website, the difference is that the development is driven more by the scientific and ed research communities. The standards are based on NRC’s framework for K-12 science education released July 2011. No plans for assessments at this point.
  • As of Nov 2011.
  • State consortia to develop common ‘next generation’ assessments. Will address needs for: rapid feedback diagnostic Will be administered by computer
  • As of Jan 2012
  • As of January 2012
  • Federal grants
  • Panel convened by the US Department of Education for the purpose of making sure the processes being used by the consortia are valid.
  • Adopting CCSS was an easy way to score some points on state applications, but not the only way. Neither were CCSS a deciding factor.
  • For both RTTT grants and NCLB waivers
  • 10 broad areas of flexibility include: waive 2014 deadline of 100% proficiency; waive identification of schools for improvement; free up 20% set-aside for choice and tutoring, 10% for professional development, etc.
  • There’s a good chance there will be economies of scale. Some costs are replacement dollars for things states and districts are already doing.
  • Brookings estimates that participation in consortia can reduce costs by 25-37%Economies of scale may produce richer, better assessments at less cost But ….
  • CA standards were well-reviewed but written in late 1990s and is now a CCSS state. VA is not a CCSS state, but went through a college-career alignment of its SOLs in 2009-10. VA has been granted NCLB waivers.
  • There are political arguments for and against having national standards. I am just going to address the quality of the standards themselves, which have also come under some criticism. A lot of the critics cite a review commissioned by the Pioneer Institute and authored by Sandra Stotsky and Ze’evWurman. Both have strong credentials. But most of their criticisms are a misreading of the CCSS , as I will explain.
  • 3 states with better ELA were California, DC and Indiana.
  • This criticism has been widely reported.Conservative grassroots concerns, also English teachers
  • Pushback from English teachers who argue that students won’t engage in informational reading. 2 considerations: The proportion refers to total reading, meaning English teachers should not be the only ones responsible for the reading standards. Also true with writing.
  • Reflects importance of persuasive and expository writing in college, workplace and day-to-day life
  • English teachers would be right to be concerned IF they were responsible for all of reading/writing at secondary level.ACT, Inc. has found that ability to read complex texts predictive of college success and increasingly, in the workplace, too.
  • This does not mean we can do less with reading literature or want to. It does argue for expanding ELA instruction across the curriculum.
  • Suggested reading from CCSS authors. Poetry includes classic American poems and a diverse range of American voices. Informational reading in history stresses biography, autobiography and primary historical documents, eg. Preamble of the Constitution and 1st amendment (not shown here but listed for grade 6-8). Science writing addresses engineering and math by some really good writers. This list is anything but boring.
  • A forecast of the new assessments.
  • This has also been widely reported. States and districts are still free to require cursive if they want to.
  • William Schmidt is the foremost US authority on international math & science education, especially TIMSS. He was the first to observe that math curriculum in the US is a mile wide and an inch deep – something the CCSS are intended to correct by defining expectations that are focused and coherent.
  • Schmidt and his team created these visual maps of various math topics. They show considerable coherence between topics addressed by top-achieving countries in their curricula and the CCSS. A map of state standards was, quite literally, all over the map.
  • “Focused” – attempt to address the ‘mile wide, inch deep’ curriculumUnderstanding the math common core:“Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills of the K-7 standardswill be well prepared for algebra in grade 8 or after.”Functions – describing situations where one quantity determines another, eg., return on investments
  • The CCSS authors show two possible ways to organize high school math curriculum aligned to the CCSS. U.S. sequence: two algebra courses and a geometry course,With data, probability and statistics added;Typical international sequence: three courses, each ofwhich includes number, algebra, geometry, probability and statistics.States and districts are not precluded from offering 8th grade algebra or offering higher-level courses for students.
  • Virginia grade 4 math item on rounding
  • Common core example, same grade and concept
  • CCSS item assess both math content and practices. SOL item only assesses content.
  • Content, adding and/or multiplying fractions. Computer administered item. Check these out on the SMARTER Balanced website.
  • The targets expressed by the CCSS are probably the right ones for college-career readiness. The test is in the implementation and assessments.
  • This is where a lot of your work as school board members comes in.
  • What has to happen in the interim
  • 2012 CEP survey – availability of computers cited as number one challenge followed closely by adequate internet access and bandwidthEarly findings to Technology Readiness Survey indicate that hardware may not be a problem, but bandwidth remains a concern
  • Districts will need to provide resources to their staffs and students in order to implement CCSS. As school boards, you need to have a process in place to assure that professional development and instructional resources are aligned to CCSS. You also need to establish policies governing use and access, for example, high-stakes v. low-stakes assessment, identifying students for interventions, etc.
  • ACT’s college-career ready benchmark is based on a 75% probability of earning a ‘C’ in the relevant credit-bearing freshman course. Please note that there are NO performance levels established for the CCSS, and so this is a very preliminary look. Nonetheless, it offers a glimpse at the potential alignment between CCSS and current practices.
  • Brown Center at Brookings Institute, crosswalked NAEP released items with common core standards and reported 2009 8th grade performance on test items addressing concepts and topics that appear in the CCSS. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) is administered by US Department of Education and tests a representative sample of students in each state.
  • Kentucky got the word out to expect scores to go down the first year. As a result, no one panicked when it happened.
  • KSBA helped their school board members communicate expectations and goals to the public and media so no one was surprised when the first scores came out. They also communicated the need for CCSS and the long-term strategy for getting there, keeping their eyes on the prize.
  • Ccss 2013 annualconference

    1. 1. Halfway there: Implementing the CommonCore Standards Patte Barth Center for Public Education
    2. 2. Agenda • a quick overview of the CCSS • truths, untruths & ambiguities • what to expect in 2014 • be prepared • q&a
    3. 3. The Common CoreState Standards A policy overview
    4. 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 4SOURCE: Common Core State Standards,
    5. 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 accountabilitySOURCE: NGA, CCSSO
    6. 6. 46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS adopted not adopted 6
    7. 7. Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts 7
    8. 8. Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts 8
    9. 9. CCSS development wasstate-led. True
    10. 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. 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. 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 12
    13. 13. 26 lead states – NextGeneration Science Standards participant non participant 13
    14. 14. The federal government isbehind the CCSSassessments Mostly true• federal dollars support assessment development• state consortia are doing the work
    15. 15. State CCSS assessment 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 15
    16. 16. 24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium participant non participant 16
    17. 17. 28 states are in the SMARTER consortium participant non participant 17
    18. 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 18SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS,
    19. 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 itemsSOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, March 2013,
    20. 20. States had to adopt theCCSS to qualify for RTTTgrants or NCLB waivers. Not true, but it didn’t hurt
    21. 21. Federal Policy and CCSSCollege- 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. 22. Federal Policy and CCSSRace 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. 23. RTTT scoring rubric forstandards & assessments (total 500 points)Selection criteria Points PercentStandards and assessments 70 (of 500 total) 14%(1)Developing &adopting common 40standards(i)Participating in consortium developing 20high-quality standards(ii)Adopting standards 20(2)Developing & implementing 10common, high-quality assessments(3)Supporting transition to enhanced 20standards & high-quality assessments
    24. 24. Federal Policy and CCSSNCLB 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. 25. CCSS will cost the country $16 billion to implement Hard to saySOURCE: Pioneer Institute, 2012
    26. 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. 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. 28. The Common CoreState Standards How they differ from current practice
    29. 29. The CCSS are mediocre. Not true
    30. 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 sameSOURCE: Fordham Institute, The State of state standards – and the common core, 2010
    31. 31. The CCSS-ELA will crowdout classical literature. Not true
    32. 32. Balance of texts percent of time on percent of time on grade level literary reading reading for information elementary 50% 50% middle school 45% 55% high school 30% 70%NAEP 2009 reading framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012
    33. 33. Balance of writing modes writing to writing to writing to grade level convey persuade explain experience elementary 30% 35% 35% middle school 35% 35% 30% high school 40% 40% 20%NAEP 2009 writing framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012
    34. 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 complexitySOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010
    35. 35. Why emphasize reading for information? literary experience/ acquire & use information reflect & evaluate US 4th grade ranking 2nd 5th PIRLS, 2010 US 15-year-olds ranking 6th 14th PISA, 2009 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. 36. Sample texts, grade 6-8SOURCE: Common core state standards, ELA, Appendix B,
    37. 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. 38. PARRC/grade 10 constructed 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. 39. The CCSS do not requirecursive writing. TrueSchools cannot teachcursive writing. Not true
    40. 40. The CCSS-math areinternationally benchmarked. True
    41. 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 lessSOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012
    42. 42. Comparison of CCSS-math to top-achieving countries Top-achieving countries CCSSSOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012
    43. 43. What’s in the standards – Mathematics • Number & quantity • Algebra - algebraic thinking K-5 • Functions • Modeling - high school • Geometry • Statistics & probability • Emphasis on Mathematical practiceSOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010
    44. 44. pre-calculus, calculus, advanced statistics, discrete math, advanced quantitative reasoning, specific technical POS Pathways through Algebra II Math III high school Geometry Math II mathematics Algebra I Math I Traditional sequence Integrated sequence • 2 algebra courses • 3 integrated courses • 1 geometry course • all include number, • DPS included algebra, geometry, DPS • 1 higher course • 1 higher courseSOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010
    45. 45. The emphasis on mathematicalpractices is fuzzy math. Let’s take a look
    46. 46. Before CCSS Which of the following numbers will round to 26? a) 25.3 b) 25.5 c) 26.7 d) 27.1 46SOURCE: Virginia SOL released items, grade 4 math, 2010
    47. 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. 47SOURCE: The Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, grade 4
    48. 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 48
    49. 49. SMARTER Grade 4SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013
    50. 50. SMARTER Grade 4SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013
    51. 51. The CCSS will make everystudent college andcareer-ready. Remains to be seen
    52. 52. The Common CoreState Standards The challenges
    53. 53. Timeline!PARCC/SMARTER assessments will beready in 2014-15Kentucky has already started 53
    54. 54. Technology needs • 33 states offer some level of online testing • Most don‘t assess all students • Most are voluntary • Most are summative only • Most schools will need more computers & more bandwidth 54SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011
    55. 55. Conditions for Success• Professional development for staff – Do teachers have sufficient time and support to learn new standards?• Aligned assessments & curriculum• Aligned instructional materials• Supports for students 55
    56. 56. Managing initial expectations ACT’s ‘first look’ at the common core standards English language arts Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark 51 53 38 reading writing languageSOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010
    57. 57. NAEP performance v. common core standards – Mathematics Percent of 2009 8th graders answering NAEP/common core items correctly 58 54 number algebraSOURCE: Brown Center on Education Policy, How well are American students learning? January, 2011
    58. 58. Lessons from Kentucky: 1st year CCSS scores show decline in proficiency rates KCCT 2010-11 K-PREP 2011-12 76 73 70 65 48 47 40 41 elementary-reading elementary-math middle school- middle school-math readingSOURCE: Education Week, Scores drop on KY‘s common core-aligned tests, November 19, 2012
    59. 59. Create the public will to succeed • Short term consequences • Long term (mutual) benefits • Engage local media in your effortsSOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013
    60. 60. Hold the system accountable Monitor district‘s progress toward successful implementation of the new standards • What kind of reports is the board receiving? • How does the superintendent‘s evaluation reflect implementation of the standards? • Establish relationships with key stakeholdersSOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013
    61. 61. Learn as a Board team• State Level Collaboration• Include relevant topics on board agendas & work sessions• Use multiple sources of information ⁻ State Department of Education ⁻ Center for Public Education
    62. 62. Watch this space Stay up to date about progress in common core implementation and policy videos, presentationsand other data