Transcript The Common Core State Standards

Halfway there:
Implementing
the Common
Core Standards
Patte Barth
Center for Public Education
Agenda
• a quick overview of the CCSS
• truths, untruths & ambiguities
• what to expect in 2014
• be prepared
• q&a
The Common Core
State Standards
An overview
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
SOURCE: Common Core State Standards, www.corestandards.org
4
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 accountability
SOURCE: NGA, CCSSO
46 states & DC have adopted
the CCSS
adopted
not
adopted
6
Second thoughts
adopted
not
adopted
2nd
thoughts
7
Second thoughts
adopted
not
adopted
2nd
thoughts
8
CCSS development was
state-led.
True
The Common Core Standards process:
• CCSSO and NGA’s Center for Best Practices
• Advisory group: Achieve, Inc.; ACT, Inc.; College
Board, NASBE, and SHEEO
• 49 states signed MOU
• Two rounds of public review
• Final documents released June 2010
• No federal dollars for development; foundation support
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
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
26 lead states – Next
Generation Science Standards
participant
non
participant
13
The federal government is
behind the CCSS
assessments
Mostly true
• federal dollars support assessment development
• state consortia are doing the work
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
24 states & DC are in the
PARCC consortium
participant
non
participant
16
28 states are in the SMARTER
consortium
participant
non
participant
17
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
SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.org
18
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 items
SOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, March 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/performance.html
States had to adopt the
CCSS to qualify for RTTT
grants or NCLB waivers.
Not true, but it didn’t hurt
Federal Policy and CCSS
College- 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.
Federal Policy and CCSS
Race 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.
RTTT scoring rubric for
standards & assessments
(total 500 points)
Selection criteria
Points
Percent
Standards and assessments
70 (of 500 total) 14%
(1)Developing &adopting common
standards
40
(i)Participating in consortium developing
high-quality standards
20
(ii)Adopting standards
20
(2)Developing & implementing
common, high-quality assessments
10
(3)Supporting transition to enhanced
standards & high-quality assessments
20
Federal Policy and CCSS
NCLB 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.
CCSS will cost the country
$16 billion to implement
Hard to say
SOURCE: Pioneer Institute, 2012
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
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?
The Common Core
State Standards
How they
differ from
current
practice
The CCSS are mediocre.
Not true
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 same
SOURCE: Fordham Institute, The State of state standards – and the common core, 2010
The CCSS-ELA will crowd
out classical literature.
Not true
Balance of texts
grade level
percent of time on
literary reading
percent of time on
reading for information
elementary
50%
50%
middle school
45%
55%
high school
30%
70%
NAEP 2009 reading framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012
Balance of
writing modes
grade level
writing to
persuade
writing to
explain
writing to
convey
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
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 complexity
SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010
Why emphasize reading for
information?
literary experience/
reflect & evaluate
acquire & use information
US 4th grade ranking
PIRLS, 2010
2nd
5th
US 15-year-olds ranking
PISA, 2009
6th
14th
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.
Sample texts, grade 6-8
SOURCE: Common core state standards, ELA, Appendix B, www.corestandards.org
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
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
The CCSS do not require
cursive writing. True
Schools cannot teach
cursive writing. Not true
The CCSS-math are
internationally benchmarked.
True
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 less
SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012
Comparison of CCSS-math to
top-achieving countries
Top-achieving countries
SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012
CCSS
What’s in the standards –
Mathematics
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number & quantity
Algebra - algebraic thinking K-5
Functions
Modeling - high school
Geometry
Statistics & probability
• Emphasis on Mathematical practice
SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010
pre-calculus, calculus, advanced
statistics, discrete math, advanced
quantitative reasoning, specific
technical POS
Pathways
through
high school
mathematics
•
•
•
•
Algebra II
Math III
Geometry
Math II
Algebra I
Math I
Traditional sequence
Integrated sequence
2 algebra courses
1 geometry course
DPS included
1 higher course
SOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010
• 3 integrated courses
• all include number,
algebra, geometry, DPS
• 1 higher course
The emphasis on mathematical
practices is fuzzy math.
Let’s take a look
Before CCSS
Which of the following numbers will round to 26?
a)
b)
c)
d)
25.3
25.5
26.7
27.1
46
SOURCE: Virginia SOL released items, grade 4 math, 2010
After CCSS
Capacity of different baseball stadiums
San Francisco Giants’ stadium:
Washington Nationals’ stadium:
San Diego Padres’ stadium:
41,915 seats
41,888 seats
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.
47
SOURCE: The Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, grade 4
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
SMARTER Grade 4
SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013
SMARTER Grade 4
SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013
The CCSS will make every
student college and
career-ready.
Remains to be seen
The Common Core
State Standards
The
challenges
Timeline!
PARCC/SMARTER assessments will be
ready in 2014-15
Kentucky has already started
53
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
SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011
54
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
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
writing
language
38
reading
SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010
NAEP performance v. common core
standards – Mathematics
Percent of 2009 8th graders answering NAEP/common core items correctly
58
number
54
algebra
SOURCE: Brown Center on Education Policy, How well are American students learning? January, 2011
Lessons from Kentucky:
1st year CCSS scores show decline
in proficiency rates
KCCT 2010-11
73
76
48
elementary-reading
40
elementary-math
K-PREP 2011-12
70
65
47
middle schoolreading
41
middle school-math
SOURCE: Education Week, Scores drop on KY’s common core-aligned tests, November 19, 2012
Create the public will to
succeed
•
Short term consequences
•
Long term (mutual) benefits
•
Engage local media in your efforts
SOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013
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 stakeholders
SOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013
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
Watch this space
Stay up to date about progress in
common core implementation
and policy
www.centerforpubliceducation.org/commoncore
Download videos, presentations
and other data resources
www.data-first.org/learning-center