Transcript Slide 1

STANDARDS FOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
&
LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES,
SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS
Design and Organization
Major design goals
• Align with best evidence on college and career
readiness expectations
• Build on the best standards work of the states
• Maintain focus on what matters most for readiness
Design and Organization
Three main sections
• K−5 (cross-disciplinary)
• 6−12 English Language Arts
• 6−12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
• Shared responsibility for students’ literacy development
Three appendices
• A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms
• B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks
• C: Annotated student writing samples
Design and Organization
Four strands

•
•
•
Reading (including Reading Foundational Skills)
Writing
Speaking and Listening
Language
An integrated model of literacy across subjects
Media requirements blended throughout
Design and Organization
College and Career
Readiness (CCR)
anchor standards
• Broad expectations
consistent across
grades and content
areas
• Based on evidence
about college and
workforce training
expectations
• Range and content
Design and Organization
K−12 standards
• Grade-specific endof-year expectations
• Developmentally
appropriate,
cumulative
progression of skills
and understandings
• One-to-one
correspondence with
CCR standards
Reading
Comprehension (standards 1−9)
 Standards for reading literature and informational texts
 Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on
students’ ability to read and comprehend informational texts
 Aligned with NAEP Reading framework
Range of reading and level of text complexity
(standard 10, Appendices A and B)
 “Staircase” of growing text complexity across grades
 High-quality literature and informational texts in a range
of genres and subgenres
Writing K-5
Forms of Writing – Text Types and Purposes
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive
topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and
sufficient evidence.
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey
complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through
the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or
events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and wellstructured event sequences.
Writing 6-12
Forms of Writing – Text Types and Purposes
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive
topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and
sufficient evidence.
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey
complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through
the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or
events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and wellstructured event sequences.
Key Advances
Reading
• Balance of literature and informational texts
• Text complexity
Writing
• Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing
• Writing about sources
Speaking and Listening
• Inclusion of formal and informal talk
Language
• Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary
Key Advances
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
Alignment with college and career readiness
expectations
Intentional Design Limitations
What the Standards do NOT define:
• How teachers should teach
• All that can or should be taught
• The nature of advanced work beyond the core
• The interventions needed for students well below grade
level
• The full range of support for English language learners and
students with special needs
• Everything needed to be college and career ready
Conclusion
Standards: Important but insufficient
• To be effective in improving education and getting all
students ready for college, workforce training, and
life, the Standards must be partnered with a contentrich curriculum and robust assessments, both aligned
to the Standards.
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know
What we don’t know
yet
1. The MEAP tests will stay in place for at least four
more years (Fall 2010-13). The new assessments
will be ready for use by the 2014-15 school year.
Given during the last 12 weeks of school.
1. We don’t know what
will happen with
MME
•
•
•
•
•
2011-12 MEAP & MME remain the same
2012-13 MEAP minimally modified (begin to
remove items that are not present in the CCSS)
2012-13 CCSS assessment item pilots & some
initial release of items
2013-14- MEAAP minimally modified again
2014-15 Full implementation – Instruction &
Assessment based on CCSS
2. We don’t know how
or if new
assessment items
will be phased in.
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
2. The new assessment will be designed to be done
online, but pencil & paper versions will be available for
three years. The state is currently considering a 20%
year roll in to get to 100% online delivery. This timeline
may be extended to ensure that all districts have the
necessary technology to participate.
3. There will be a 10% teacher read behind of all AI (TE
constructed response and Performance Events) Items to
ensure validity.
What we don’t
know yet…
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
4. Consortia of U.S. states are drafting assessment
frameworks and assessments for the new Common
Core. A single set of Standards for Proficiency will be
set and used across the nation.
•The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (26 states) series of assessments
throughout the year that will be averaged into one score
for accountability purposes
•The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (31
states) http://smarter.k12partners.org
What we don’t
know yet
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
What we don’t know
yet…
• The SBAC will test students using computer
adaptive technology that will ask students tailored
questions based on their previous answers. SBAC
will continue to use one test at the end of the year for
accountability purposes, but will create a series of
interim tests used to inform students, parents and
teachers about whether students are on track
“Tailored questions”
somewhat new
assessment and
technology – will be
interested to see how
this works.
• SBAC will include a substantial % of performance & We don’t know how
constructed response items (78%) intended to assess much grade level
understanding, skills & processes.
content will be tested
each year – but
emphasis on: problemsolving, analysis,
synthesis, critical
thinking.
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
•Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment
Consortia – this group is creating alternate
assessments based on the CCSS. (11 states). Other
participants include: University of Kansas, AbleLink
Technologies, The ARC, The Center for Literacy and
Disability Studies at the University of N.C. Chapel Hill,
Edvantia
•The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment will
include features such as: learning maps, dynamic
assessment, inclusion of instructionally relevant tasks,
growth modeling feedback, technology platform,
Universal Design, cognitive labs, scaffolding, over
14,000 tasks/items, professional development
What we don’t
know yet…
SBAC Assessment Design Proposal
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
5. The SBAC proposal suggests there will be a
constellation of assessments & assessment resources:
a)Grade 3-8 Adaptive Comprehensive Summative – items
types: 22% selected response, 41% technology enhanced
constructed response, 14% traditional constructed
response, and 23% performance (1-2 class periods)
b)Grade 3-8 Adaptive interim/benchmark based on
learning progressions and or CCSS content clusters that
call for performance event bank and non-secure pool of
items.
c)Grade 3-8 formative tools, processes and practices that
call for a variety of lesson embedded tools for different
purposes
What we don’t
know yet…
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
d) High School (grades 9-12) adaptive comprehensive
summative to include: 22% selected response, 41%
technology enhanced constructed-response, 14%
traditional constructed response and 23% performance
(up to 6 items each subject area, with half of the items
written to test the math content in the context of science
or social studies, 1-2 class periods per task) Students
may take the test up to two times.
e) Grades 9-12 adaptive interim /benchmarks
f) Grades 9-12 formative assessment tools, processes
and practices.
What we don’t
know yet…
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
6. The proposal works to define what we mean by
“understand” this means efforts will be made to assess
understanding.
For example…
Students who understand a concept can:
a.Use it to make sense of and explain quantitative
situations.
b.Incorporate it into their own arguments and use it to
evaluate the arguments of others.
c.Bring it to bear on the solutions to problems.
d.Make connections between it and related concepts.
Source: Phil Darco, CC writing team NCSM
What we don’t
know yet…
Assessing the Common Core
What we think we know…
What we don’t
know yet…
There will be an alternative assessment based on
alternative achievement standards. There is a
competitive grant to develop that assessment.
Other than a promise
these will be
developed, we have
little information at
this time.
There will be a competitive grant to develop an
assessment for English Language Learners (next fiscal
year).
Timeline for Transition
2010-2011
 Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work
 2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same
 State focus will be on technical assistance
2011-2012
 Implementation of CCSS in classrooms
 2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same
 State focus will be on instruction/professional
development
Timeline for Transition
2012-2013
 2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the
CCSS
 2013 MME remains the same
 State focus will be on student learning
2013-2014
 2013 MEAP based on 2012 model
 2014 MME remains the same
 State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from
SMARTER Consortium
2014-2015
 Full implementation - Instruction and assessment based on
CCSS