Transition to Common Core Literacy Standards in the Content

Areas

FCASD Secondary Program Overviewprepared with support from the AIU - Christopher

Caton June 2012

Literacy Standards in: History/Social Studies, Science and Technical

Subjects

Writing Standards in:History/Social Studies, Science and Technical

Subjects

FCASD is addressing this as “literacy in all content areas”

State led - coordinated by NGA (National Governor’s Association) Center and CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers)

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

What are the Common Core State Standards/CCSS ?

Continuation of NCLB encouraged by refined educational ideology and direction

Intent: raise educational rigor and achieve state/national standards.

48 States adopted Common Core or version thereof.

PA has altered Common Core to a minimal extent to meet existing (a) assessment tools expectations (b) common language use.

Transition timeline: phase in beginning in 2012 – 2013; guided by AIU Consultant &

FCASD Think Tank expectation for integration of practices in the 2013 – 2014 school

year

Background

Driving Forces Leading to CC Literacy Standards in the

Content Areas

Based on a range of national and internationally benchmarked assessments: 1. Intensity of Rigor:

- proficiency in most state level standardized assessments fall below the proficiency on the NAEP (nation’s report card)

- performance declines in upper grades - students lose momentum in high school

- student readiness for college/work at an all time low. Inadequate:- Verbal reasoning ability- Understanding of words used in text- Background knowledge about domains represented in

text- Familiarity with semantic and syntactic structures that

assist with the understanding between relationships and IDEAS

2. Communications on a national level: discrepancy in proficiency measures across states – uneven student expectations - lack of focused guideposts for parents, educators, students

3. International measures & comparisons: country falling behind; U.S. curriculum tends to be wide as opposed to deep - compared with other successful countries

Driving Forces -- Continued

Profile of a Common Core Graduate

Responsive to varying audience, points of view, tasks, purpose, disciplines

Independent learner and thinker -- focus on metacognition: self assessment, goal setting/plan-making….); able to comprehend and critique works of quality and substance

Values evidence and supports related to argument

Development of skills and attributes in the areas of: Communication, Collaboration, Creativity and Critical

thinking technology and digital media

Understanding of other Perspectives/Cultures

CC Overarching Themes

Common Core Standards support and encourage:

A high degree of rigor, metacognition, and student collaboration.

Emphasis on non-fiction occurs throughout the grades as well as increasing the amount of student reading.

Technology embedded throughout learning experiences and emphasis on the use of digital resources.

CC Overarching Themes -- Continued

Common Core Standards support and encourage:

Speaking and Listening standards are much more specific.

Writing on a daily basis for a variety of purposes academic writing – argument/explanation/research

Relevant levels of Text complexity - prominent addition (with exemplars) Specificity and scaffolding of standards provides vertical articulation to support text complexity.

Text connections throughout the grade levels.

Reading Foundational skill acquired K-5

Writing

Speaking & Listening

Language

Content-area subjects incorporation and cross-curricular implementation of reading & writing.

ELA/Literacy Common Core Focus

Navigation to Common Core(Non-English/Math Courses)

Download:Common Core State Standards Art & Literature in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjectshttp://www.corestandards.org/ -- Select the Standards Tab

And/Or

Navigate Website:http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/reading-informational-text-6-12/grade-11-12/

Adjusted to meet State expectations/needs: Foundational Skills Reading Informational Text Reading Literature Writing Speaking and Listening

PA Common Core Standards Focus

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards

Appendix A: Research behind the standards and a glossary of termsAppendix B: Text exemplars illustrating complexity, quality, and range of reading appropriateness Appendix C: Annotated samples of student writing at various grades

Appendix D: Literacy standards for History and Social Studies

Reading Informational

Text

Reading Literature

Foundational Skills Writing Speaking & ListeningA necessary

component of an effective,

comprehensive reading program

designed to develop proficient readers.

Enables students to read, understand, and

respond to informational texts.

Enables students to read, understand,

and respond to literature.

Develops the skills of informational,

argumentative, and narrative writing as well as the ability to engage in evidence

based analysis of text and research.

Focuses students on communication skills that enable

critical listening and effective

presentation of ideas.

Appendix E: Literacy standards for Science and Technical Subjects

PA Common Core StandardsEnglish Language Arts & Literacy

Navigation to PA Common Core

(English & Math Courses

Download:

http://pdesas.org/Standard/CommonCore

Similar to existing standard coding system

Language collaboration between existing standard and Common Core language

Standard Coding/Numbering

CC. 1. 5. 6. B

PA Common Core

Grade Level

English Language

ArtsSpeaking

& Listening

Speaking & Listening Standard 2

Reading PA Common Core

Coding/Numbering

Increase depth of knowledge with metacognition development throughout all grade levels bands.

Metacognitive development through skill acquisition: Meta-memory Meta-comprehension Self-regulation

Spiral of learning that revisits metacognitive development (learning strategies).

Overall Change

Recognizing Rigor “Depth of Knowledge” tool;

DOK

• A tool and scale of cognitive demand levels (thinking) to align standards with assessments

• Based on the research of Norman Webb, University of Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the National Institute for Science Education

• Defines the “ceiling” or highest DOK level for each Core Content standard for the state assessment

• Guides item development for state assessments

Depth of Knowledge Levels (DOK)DEFINITIONS

Level 1.0

Recall &

Reproduction

Student recalls facts, information, procedures, or definitions.

Level 2.0

Skills &

Concepts

Student uses information, conceptual knowledge,

and procedures.

Level 3.0

Strategic

Thinking

Student uses reasoning and develops a plan or sequence of

steps; process has some complexity.

Level 4.0

Extended

Thinking

Student conducts an investigation, needs time to think and

process multiple conditions of problem or task.

19

Depth of Knowledge

The Depth of Knowledge is NOT

determined by the verb, but the

context in which the verb is used

and the depth of thinking required.

Exploring “The Cognitive Rigor Matrix”

(K. Hess)

Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Levels

applied toBloom’s [Cognitive Process] Taxonomy

Recognizing Rigor; Equalizer Planning Tool

Consider appropriateness in task rigor:

The zone of proximal development has been defined as

“the distance between the actual developmental

level as determined by independent problem solving and

the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978)

In other words, it is the range of abilities that a person has to perform tasks with assistance, but cannot yet perform independently.

Rigor and ZPD -The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Producing Cognitive Sweat!

Meeting the Rigor of the Common

Core