common core state standards

Common Core State Standards

Technical Assistance: Session 1

Ingham Intermediate School District

2/15/11 or 3/1/11 or 3/23/11

Session Purpose

• Increase awareness about the common core state standards and their potential to prepare students for the 21st Century.

• Provide tools to help districts implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

• Initiate a relationship between district teams responsible for implementing CCSS and IISD team responsible for supporting districts

Session Outcomes

• Become your district’s experts in CCSS

• Develop an implementation timeline and plan

• Assign responsibilities for plan

• Become familiar with implementation tools

Session Outcomes

Understand that …• CCSS requires more engaging and relevant instruction • CCSS raises expectations for reading and writing in

content areas and interdisciplinary connections• CCSS relies on the use of sophisticated assessment

approaches• CCSS depends on successful implementation of an RtI

framework that will help 95% of students meet college-career ready standards.

• School improvement and the RtI initiative are two processes that will permit districts to implement CCSS

Local District CCSS Teams

IISD CCSS Team

Short Term Support (now – June 2011)

Longer Term Support for Implementation

CCSS Implementation

CCSS Implementation: the Journey

Understand & Communicate

Implement Measure

Background InformationRationale College Career Ready

Sequencing topics – connecting materials/assessments

Assessment Implications

Immersion in Documents Instructional Implications SI Process and RtI Framework

Gap Analysis Alignment of Materials Adaptations SWD, ELL

Understand/Identify Implications

Unit Planning & DISWD and ELL

Technology

Communication Plan Schedules/Structures

Session Agenda• Background About the Common Core State Standards• Education Reform Through Common Standards and

Assessments (Video/Article)• College and Career Ready – What’s this mean?• Plans for Assessing the Common Core & Timeline for

Implementation• Digging into the CCSS to Uncover Implications• Becoming Familiar with Differences/Features• Gap Analysis• Planning Next Steps• Resources to Take Back• Your Feedback

Introducing the Common Core

Quick Facts:• 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• Official Website: http://www.corestandards.org/• 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.

• Organizers expect 48 states to adopt the Common Core

http://www.corestandards.org/

Why is this important?

• Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards; there are different achievement standards and performance expectations across the nation.

• All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students from around the world.

http://www.edutopia.org/international-teaching-learning-assessment-video

http://www.edutopia.org/international-teaching-learning-assessment-video

College and Career Ready

The Common Core State Standards:

A. Provide a common definition of college and career readiness in ELA and Mathematics.

B. Are National Standards.

C. Contain Content that is quite different from Michigan’s GLCE’s and HSCE’s.


A. Are internationally benchmarked.

B. Provide alternate standards for ELL and SWD.

C. Detail all content that should be taught at each grade level.

D. All of the above.


A. Recommend certain content, such as classic myths, Shakespeare, and foundational US documents.

B. Use the CCR standards as anchor standards across all grade levels.

C. Insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language be a shared responsibility within a school.


For English Language Arts & Literacy in History / Social

Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects:


A. Emphasize procedural skill over conceptual understanding.

B. Incorporate the CCR standards into the standards for high school.

C. Contain content that is typically found in advanced courses such as Calculus.


For Mathematics

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 three 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.

• 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

1. We don’t know what will happen with MME

2. We don’t know how or if new assessment items will be phased in.


What we think we know… What we don’t know yet…

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 think we know… What we don’t know yet

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

http://smarter.k12partners.org/



• 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

• SBAC will include a substantial % of performance & constructed response items (78%) intended to assess understanding, skills & processes.

“Tailored questions” somewhat new assessment and technology – will be interested to see how this works.

We don’t know how much grade level content will be tested each year – but emphasis on: problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, critical thinking.



• 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



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



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.



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



There will be an alternative assessment based on alternative achievement standards. There is a competitive grant to develop that assessment.

There will be a competitive grant to develop an assessment for English Language Learners (next fiscal year).

Other than a promise these will be developed, we have little information at this time.

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 Transition2012-2013 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

STANDARDS FORENGLISH 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 OrganizationThree 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


Four strands Reading (including Reading Foundational Skills)• Writing• Speaking and Listening• Language

An integrated model of literacy across subjectsMedia requirements blended throughout


College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards• Broad expectations

consistent across grades and content areas• Based on evidence

about college andworkforce trainingexpectations

• Range and content


K−12 standards• Grade-specific end-

of-year expectations• Developmentally

appropriate, cumulative progression of skills and understandings

• One-to-one correspondence with CCR standards

ReadingComprehension (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

Key AdvancesReading• Balance of literature and informational texts• Text complexityWriting• Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing• Writing about sourcesSpeaking and Listening• Inclusion of formal and informal talkLanguage• Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary

Key AdvancesStandards 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 readinessexpectations

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 content-rich curriculum and robust assessments, both aligned to the Standards.

STANDARDS FOR

MATHEMATICS


Standards for Mathematical Practice• Carry across all grade levels• Describe habits of mind of a mathematically expert student

Standards for Mathematical Content• K-8 standards presented by grade level• Organized into domains that progress over several grades• Grade introductions give 2–4 focal points at each grade level• High school standards presented by conceptual theme

(Number & Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, Statistics & Probability)

Design and OrganizationCritical areas at each grade level


Grade Level Overviews

Ratios and Proportional Relationships, Grade 6

Understand ratio concepts and use ratio reasoning to solve problems.1. Understand the concept of a ratio and use ratio language to describe a ratio relationship between two quantities. For example, “The ratio of wings to beaks in the bird house at the zoo was 2:1, because for every 2 wings there was 1 beak.” “For every vote candidate A received, candidate C received nearly three votes.”2. Understand the concept of a unit rate a/b associated with a ratio a:b with b ≠ 0, and use rate language in the context of a ratio relationship. For example, “This recipe has a ratio of 3 cups of flour to 4 cups of sugar, so there is 3/4 cup of flour for each cup of sugar.” “We paid $75 for 15 hamburgers, which is a rate of $5 per hamburger.”

Reading the Standards

Standards define what students should understand and be able to do.•Specific advice is often given about instructional approaches.•The actual language can be dense, and probably requires “unpacking.”

Reading the Standards

Learning ProgressionsFractions, Grades 3-6

3. Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.4. Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.4. Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending

previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.4. Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal

fractions.5. Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract

fractions.5. Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and

division to multiply and divide fractions.6. Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and

division to divide fractions by fractions.

High School

Major strands in high school•Number and Quantity•Algebra•Functions•Modeling•Geometry•Statistics and Probability

College and career readiness threshold(+) standards indicate material beyond the threshold; can be in courses required for all students.

Key Advances

Focus and coherence• Focus on key topics at each grade level.• Coherent progressions across grade levels.

Balance of concepts and skills• Content standards require both conceptual understanding and

procedural fluency.

Mathematical practices• Foster reasoning and sense-making in mathematics.

College and career readiness• Level is ambitious but achievable.

Reasoning and Sense-making

Mathematical Practices• Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.• Reason abstractly and quantitatively.• Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of

others.• Model with mathematics.• Use appropriate tools strategically.• Attend to precision.• Look for and make use of structure.• Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Mathematical Practices• Make sense of problems and

persevere in solving them.• Reason abstractly and

quantitatively.• Construct viable arguments and

critique the reasoning of others.• Model with mathematics.• Use appropriate tools

strategically.• Attend to precision.• Look for and make use of

structure.• Look for and express regularity

in repeated reasoning.

Marty made two types of cookies. He used 2/3 cup of sugar for one recipe and 1/4 cup of sugar for the other. He only has 1 cup of sugar. Is that enough? Explain your reasoning.Some people would say that

a) Why would they say this?b) Do you agree?c) How would you solve this problem? Work with fraction circles to figure this out.

7

3

3

2

4

1

What About Science?

• Draft Conceptual Framework for Science Education published by the National Academy of Science, based on “big ideas” in science

• Next Generation Science Standards based on the Conceptual Framework will be released late 2011

• New assessments in 2016-2017• Now: Focus on the Standards for Literacy in

Science and Technical Subjects

Overview of the Afternoon

IISD website resources

Scavenger Hunt Activity – Immersion

Gap Analysis Activity

Planning Time with Implementation Team – Implementation Guide and Planning Form

Feedback for IISD Support

Share Initial Implementation Team Plans

To Access IISD Electronic Resources

www.inghamisd.org

Click on Common Core State Standards on our home page

Choose a Hunt (ELA or Math)

Pair Up

Scavenge

Quick Process Debrief

Scavenger Hunt ELA & Math

Gap Analysis

6th Grade Unpacking Current Practice/Gap

Implications/Next Steps

Ratios and Proportional Relationships 1. Interpret and compute quotients of fractions, and solve word problems involving division of fractions by fractions, e.g., by using visual fraction models and equations to represent the problem.

1. Divide fractions by fractions.

Speaking and Listening

Unpacking Current Practice/Gap

Implications/ Next Steps

Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas – Grade 6

4. Present claims and findings, sequencing ideas logically and using pertinent descriptions, facts, and details to accentuate main ideas or themes; use appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation.

Speaking and Listening Standards

K-2 p. 23

3-5 p. 24

6-8 p. 49

9-12 p. 50

Planning time

• Planning Template

• Implementation Guide with Tools

• Share Out

• Feedback for IISD Team

“What we need is to infuse the work around the common core with an element of visionary thinking. The standards themselves do not confine teaching to the realm of the scripted or undemocratic, but without serious reflection and rethinking, they will.”

“The balance depends on our collective ability to come to terms with the standards and to use them as an opportunity for reflection and growth. Let us hope that we can muster the courage and energy to do so.”

-Sarah Fine in Education Week, Oct. 20, 2010

“Moving Forward With the Common Core”