Downloaded 21 times
Uploaded byAdam Blum
Common Core State Standards: Myths, Readiness, Challenges and Solutions
The document discusses various myths and challenges related to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in California, clarifying misconceptions such as it being a federal initiative, claims of difficulty, and the idea that it forces teachers outside their expertise. It presents data on CCSS implementation across districts, noting how educators are adapting professionally and the technology solutions being considered to address challenges. Additionally, it highlights the need for effective content and instructional materials, as well as ongoing professional development to meet the pedagogical demands of CCSS.
More Related Content
Similar to Common Core State Standards: Myths, Readiness, Challenges and Solutions
Common Core State Standards: Myths, Readiness, Challenges and Solutions
- 1.
- 2. Agenda What aresome myths about the Common Core? How ready is California for the Common Core? What are the big remaining challenges? What are some technology solutions?
- 3. Myths About theCommon Core It’s a federal government plot and a “national curriculum” The standards are too easy The standards are too hard It creates “cookie-cutter courses” It forces teachers to teach outside their expertise
- 4. It’s a FederalGovernment Plot The Common Core State standards were developed by the National Governor’s Association But its tied to No Child Left Behind act right? But CCSS predates NCLB Oh well its Race to the Top then? Race to the Top provides incentives for adopting internationally recognized standards of which CCSS is one But the federal government will take them over There are no such plans This is our federal tax dollars being misused. Initial work was funded by both the states and the Gates Foundation and others. With no federal funding
- 5. “It’s Too HardCore” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/20 13/08/16/is-common-core-too-hard-core/ “31% of New York students in grades three though eight met or exceeded math and English competency standards on tests given over six days this past April. In 2012, under the older, far easier, standards, 65% of New York students were proficient in Math and 55% proficient in English.”
- 7.
- 8. Is It ReallyToo Hard? Yes there is a deeper conceptual base Word problems demonstrating full understanding are important The CC standards build on each other Fractions -> Algebra Algebra -> Statistics And there are far fewer individual items than previous efforts e.g. California State Standards
- 9. CC Forces Teachersto Teach Outside Their Expertise No doubt due to the “Common Core Literacy Standards” I have seen “English teachers will be forced to teach Science and Social Studies” Not true Science and Social Studies teachers will be called upon to teach reading and writing skills Presumably they were already but it is no longer enough to be a “subject matter expert” there
- 10. CCSS Implementation Survey https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/810000commcore-careadinesssurvey-countysupts102413.html Will be presented November 6th to State Board of Ed Prepared by CCSESA and Sacramento County Performed from mid-September to mid-October 809 districts, 80% completion Nearly all have implementation plan Half approved by school boards
- 11. CCSS Sequencing Implementation Plan 15% by grade 26% by content area 11% by school 48% all at once Many districts commented that they combined “by grade” and “by content area”
- 12. CCSS Sequencing Implementation Plan 15% by grade 26% by content area 11% by school 48% all at once Many districts commented that they combined “by grade” and “by content area”
- 13. CCSS Sequencing Math ImplementationPlan Math Sequence for grades 8-12 24% Traditional (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II) 30% Integrated 38% Have Not Selected Yet Acceleration for Middle School 24% accelerated 6th and 7th grade 4% summer school 5% block schedules 30% not offering accelerated pathways 28% other (7th/8th, taking courses at high school)
- 14. CCSS Communication Plan 82% reported to the board 30% have formal communication plan Communication with groups Teachers – 92% Parents – 60%
- 15. CCSS Curriculum Review Major changes discussed with teachers ELA – 82.5% Math – 79.4% Teachers understand the content, structure and organization ELA – 57.3% Math – 54.9%
- 16. Practices in PlaceNow Teachers have examined the skills/progression within CCSS grade levels ELA – 58.2% Math – 53.4% Teachers have created a scope and sequence for CCSS ELA – 15.8% Math – 19.8% Teachers have created/aligned units lessons ELA – 19.5% Math – 19.8% 75% plan to have all of this available by 2014-2015
- 17. Instructional Materials andResources 62% plan to have resources ELA – 58.2% Math – 53.4% Teachers have created a scope and sequence for CCSS ELA – 15.8% Math – 19.8% Teachers have created/aligned units lessons ELA – 19.5% Math – 19.8% 75% plan to have all of this available by 2014-2015
- 18. Professional Development 75%of districts have PD plan Sequencing By grade – 25% By content area – 49% By school – 11% All at once – 43% PD focused on CCSS at 69% of districts Teaching strategies for students Disabilities – 55% English Learner – 50%
- 19. Technology Just overone third of districts have updated their technology plan to deal with CCSS and SBAC 75% of districts expect all their schools to assess students during 2014-2015 with computers
- 20. Biggest Challenges inCCSS Implementation Time (too much at once) Funding (materials, PD) Technology (bandwidth, internet, infrastructure) Instructional shifts (increased rigor and across subjects) Lack of curriculum (materials and assessments)
- 21. Challenges of theCommon Core Most teachers self-assess as not knowing all the mandated material for their subjects All students are expected to be exposed to their grade level standards Especially in math, emphasizes conceptual understanding which can be more challenging to teach It is by definition more interdisciplinary It can be difficult to engage students in the nonfiction language content Contrary to some perceptions, CC is LESS prescriptive, putting the burden on the teacher of “what to teach”
- 22. Technology Solutions Flippingyour classroom with video lectures and games can resolve an expertise problem Videos can make nonfiction language content more engaging We still need more video content: needs tools to enable easy content creation Automated quizzing and games can get all students to basic standard mastery
- 23. The Ed ContentEcosystem content sites MasteryConnect analytics and metrics KhanAcademy HoodaMath MathChimp BrightStorm HippoCampus Analyze Create LMS student interfaces Agilix Consume google Schmoop BrainGenie creation assistance tools EdCanvas Themeefy UClass Knowmia Compile Edmodo Moodle Instructure Knewton adaptive learning tools XPMath LearnZillion Search search engines youtube Catalog OpenEd LMSes catalogs WatchKnowLear n LRMI OERCommons Gooru Curriki
- 24. OpenEd – www.opened.io Over 250,000 educational resources (videos, games, assessments) Largest catalog of standard-aligned resources on the Internet second most is watchknowlearn.org with <5,000 aligned resources Flipped classroom LMS but OpenEd usable from any LMS All accessible via open APIs And all except recommendation engine is open source 99% “recommendation engine”, 1% professional curation assisted by software
- 25. Some of theInteresting Remaining Problems Content from the ground up focused on standard Best ways to use class time when flipping (projects, problems, teams, questions) How to find the best content for your topic and standard Mapping between standards, to leverage content internationally How to assess effectiveness of content in addressing standard How to deal with SBAC/PARCC without “teaching to the test”
- 26. Questions for Teachers What is the content needed for your students? How do you find it? How will you organize it? How will your students get to it? How will you assess its effectiveness for your students?
Editor's Notes
- #26 OpenEd working on italicized bullets