09/16/2011 Curriculum Council
Transitioning to New Standards
Understanding the
Current Backdrop
44 States,
DC, & the
Virgin
Islands
adopted
the CCSS
For which set of standards will we be
held accountable?
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
and the augmented California Common Core
Standards (CCCS)
Which standards will be the basis of
our accountability system?? Which
will be tested?
Current Legislation
Proposed & Chaptered (passed and
signed into law)
Reauthorization of …

STAR Reauthorization (AB 250 Brownley)
◦ STAR sunsets in 2012-13
◦ pending legislation may amend this to 2013-14

What about
◦ CAHSEE?
◦ A to G?

What about Accountability
◦ ESEA Reauthorization
◦ API → EQI
Textbook Frameworks and Adoption
Timelines
Suspension of Textbook Adoption

Currently Signed into law Senate Bill 70
◦ suspends the development of math frameworks until
2015 – resulting in delaying math textbook adoption
until 11/18 (ELA to follow in 2020)

Proposed legislation Assembly Bill 250
◦ Requires SBE to adopt revised frameworks and
evaluation criteria aligned with the CCCS no later than
5/30/13 (math) and 5/30/14 (ELA)
◦ Would partially lift suspension so textbook adoption
could happen in 11/16 (for ELA 11/18)
Textbook Adoption Timelines
Last
Adoption
Current
Textbook
Timeline (SB
70)
Proposed
Legislation
(AB 250)
ELA
2008
2020
2017
Math
2007
2018
2015
SBAC assessments to go live in 2014
Proposed Legislation

Bridge Instructional Materials (SB 140)
◦ SSPI Torlakson has invited publishers of SBE adopted
materials in math and ELA to submit supplemental
instructional materials that bridge the gap between
their SBE adopted materials and the CCCS
 Publishers voluntarily make submissions
 SBE will recruit teachers and content specialists to review
submissions
 By September 2012 SBE will examine the results and make
their approvals of the advisory (not SBE-adopted) materials
Textbook Programs Eligible for Review

In Mathematics - SBE approved programs
adopted programs in 2007
◦ K-7 basic grade level programs
◦ No grade 8 programs
◦ No intervention/algebra readiness

In English Language arts – SBE approved
programs adopted in 2008
◦ K-8, program types 1-3
◦ No intervention programs
Proposed Legislation ELD Standards

Alignment of ELD standards to CCCS – ELA (AB
124)
◦ SSPI would recommend new ELD standards on or
before 8/31/12 for SBE adoption at the end of
September.
Needed Legislation – 8th Grade Algebra

The following two issues were created by the
8/2/10 Adoptions of CCCS and require
legislative action for resolution
◦ Grade 8 Mathematics and Algebra – the adoption of a
dual set of standards at Grade 8 raises a number of
issues
 CA’s current Grade 8 Algebra has 51 standards (previously
there were 25)
 In the past CA’s Algebra I course was the same regardless of
the grade level at which it was taught – ESEA requires a single
set at each grade level
 This 51 standard Algebra I course will not be covered by either
assessment consortia: SBAC or PARCC
Needed Legislation – CCR Anchors

College & Career Readiness Anchor Standards
for ELA were not adopted in the CCCS
◦ These anchor standards provide focus for ELA and it’s
staircase design of skills that build up college and
career readiness
 Noteworthy is the fact that the anchor standards in grades K-5
and 6-12 provide the focus and structure within the grade spans
to build to the desired level at high school completion
 The absence of these standards make CA differ from other
adopters of the CCSS and could cause some confusion when
national moves filter down
Current Standards Documents - ELA

English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies,
Science, and Technical Subjects
◦ THE ELA & Literacy Standards
◦ Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements
◦ Appendix B: Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks
◦ Appendix C: Samples of Student Writing
CCCS


Includes CA’s added 15%
Large additions to Algebra I in
grade 8
◦ A total of 51 standards

Two high school courses are
added
CCSS

Appendix A
◦ Designing High School
Courses based on the
Common Core State
Standards
◦ Calculus
◦ Advanced Statistics and
Probability
Current Standards
Documents - Math
NCLB Waivers

Awaiting Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
◦ Provisions available for waiver:
 All students proficient in ELA and math by 2013-14
 The requirement that states identify schools for improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring
 Schools identified for improvement provide public school choice
and Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
According to One Analysis

The authorization to use the 20% of Title I funds
in PI schools which are now reserved for
tutoring and transportation could free up about
$1 billion nationwide for use in other purposes.
US Department of Education States

States can request this flexibility ONLY IF they
“develop a rigorous and comprehensive plan
addressing the three critical areas that are
designed to improve educational outcomes for
all students”
Three Critical Areas that Need to be
Addressed to Apply for the NCLB Waiver
Transitioning to College- and Career-Ready Standards
and Assessments
Developing Systems of Differentiated Recognition,
Accountability, and Support
1.
2.

States must recognize and reward the highest achieving
schools that serve low income students and those that show the
greatest student progress.
States Must also identify two categories of low performing
schools



Priority Schools – the bottom 5% that must implement “turn around”
strategies
Focus Schools – in the next 10% that must implement strategies for
instructional improvement
Three Critical Areas that Need to be
Addressed to Apply for the NCLB Waiver
3.
Evaluating and Supporting Teacher and
Principal Effectiveness
 including assessment on multiple valid measures
“including student progress over time and multiple
measures of professional practice.
Timelines

There will be two windows for states to apply
for the 2012-13 waiver
1. Submit by November 14 for December peer review
2. Submit by mid-February for spring peer review
What Will California Do?
Debate in DC


Likely to enflame the partisan divide over Educational
policy and other issues
Joe Kline (Republican Congressman)
◦ “While I appreciate some of the policies outlined in the secretary’s
waivers plan, I simply cannot support a process that grants the
Secretary of Education sweeping authority to handpick winners
and losers.”
◦ “It sets a dangerous precedent, and every single American should
be extremely wary. Make no mistake –this is a political move that
could have a damaging impact on congressional efforts to enact
lasting reforms to current elementary and secondary education
law.”
Resources Available

US Department of Education
◦ www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility
Roadmap to Winning an NCLB Waiver

fdjgniodfng
1. Transitioning to College and CareerReady Standards and Assessments
1. Is there a plan to provide professional development
to teachers and principals?
2. Will the state disseminate high-quality instructional
materials to accompany the new standards?
3. Is the state planning to increase access to collegelevel courses, dual-enrollment courses, and other
accelerated learning opportunities?
4. Is the state going to work with colleges of education
to better prepare teachers for the new standards?
2. Developing Systems of Differentiated
Recognition, Accountability, & Support
1. Are the state’s new proficiency targets ambitious but
achievable given the state’s existing proficiency
rates?
2. In identifying rewards for successful schools, has the
state made the case that the rewards will actually be
meaningful and worthwhile to schools?
3. For the “focus schools” (not bottom 5% of schools
but the 10% of schools just above that) has the state
justified that the interventions selected will actually
increase student achievement?
4. Has the state outlined a rigorous review process for
outside providers for those who will help with school
turnaround work?
3. Evaluating and Supporting Teacher
and Principal Effectiveness
1. Is student growth a significant enough of the new
evaluation system to differentiate among teachers
who have made “significantly different contributions”
to student growth or closing the achievement gap?
2. Will evaluations be frequent enough?
3. Is there a plan for differentiated professional
development based on evaluations?
4. Will the state’s plan ensure that local school districts
will actually be able to put these new evaluations
systems into place by 2013-14 (as a pilot) and 201415 (full implementation)?