Common Core
Preparation: Literacy
New Leader for New Schools
Spring Foundations 2012
Claire Fisher, Cohort 9
claire.fisher@ousd.k12.ca.us
Do Now: Self Assessment
Use the self assessment to guide you
through reflecting on where your current
site is in regards to implementing
Common Core standards for ELA.
Decide your position on the statement:
My site is currently highly
prepared to implement the
Common Core standards.
(strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Learning Targets



Residents will be able to assess how well they are
addressing Common Core skills at their current
site and decide action steps to improve their
literacy programs.
Residents will be able to use an observation tool
that gives feedback to how well classrooms are
implementing Common Core.
Residents will be able to identify leadership
moves they can make to improve the school’s
literacy plan specifically around addressing
Common Core skills.
Edna Brewer MS: Case Study
EBMS in a nut shell:


817 students grades 6-8th grade
Demographics: 35% AA, 30% Asian, 20% Latino,
5% White, 10% undeclared, 60% free and reduce
lunch
ELA test scores:
3% FBB, 6% BB, 22% B, 29% Pro, 23% Ad
About a 30% gap between AA and White/Asian
students in ELA

Progression of Literacy @ EBMS
Currently: Partner
planning, common
assessments, focused
department meetings
on argumentative
writing
Last year: Very little
collaboration and unity
Future: ELA and
History departments
collaborate, build
internal toolkit for
Common Core, high
expectations for
Partner planning
Conditions for Successful Implementation
Curriculum Mapping Implementation
Vision
+
Skills
+
Incentives
+
Resources
+
Action Plan
=
Sustainable
Change
Skills
+
Incentives
+
Resources
+
Action Plan
=
Confusion
Incentives
+
Resources
+
Action Plan
=
Anxiety
Resources
+
Action Plan
= Resistance
Action Plan
=
Frustration
=
Treadmill
Vision
+
Vision
+
Skills
+
Vision
+
Skills
+
Incentives
+
Vision
+
Skills
+
Incentives
+
Key Questions:
Vision -- "Why are we doing this?"
Skills -- "How do we build effective maps?"
Incentives -- "How will mapping improve
teaching and learning?"
Resources
Resources -- "Do we have tools, time, and training to map effectively?"
Action Plan -- "Over the next three years, do we have attainable
timelines and goals? Who will be the responsible parties for
implementations, monitoring, and feedback?"
Leadership Moves
 Professional
 Time
Development (skills)
structures (resources)
 Teacher
expectations (action plan)
 Observations
and feedback: time in
classrooms (resources and skills)
Professional Development
Frame a new skill or strategy
-have model teachers share lessons, share a video tape of
a lesson, or bring the materials to share (teacher led PD is
very powerful!)
- give ample collaborative planning time with clear
expectations for the outcome
- ensure that administration or instructional supports are
present during the PD in order to be part of the process
- plan follow ups for the outcomes that connect the PD days
(have a best practice share of the artifact they created at
the previous PD)
- gallery walks or other best practice shares
Time Structures
Time is worth more than money in
schools!
- think about how the teachers prep time is used and
scheduled
- ensure that prep time can be used as collaboration time
between partner planners, department members, lead
teachers with mentees, and administrators
- as an administrator, plan on being present during those
crucial planning times at least 1 time a week
Teacher Expectations
 Bureaucratic
-
lesson plan turn in
unit test results
benchmarks and unit assessment results
instructional guidelines
 Non-Bureaucratic
- being present at partner planning or department meetings
- regular data meetings
Observations and Feedback
 Observations
- make it into classrooms regularly (set a reasonably high
expectation and then stick to it, i.e. one day a week, one
hour a day)
- use the checklist to look for signs of Common Core
implementation
- Ask students questions, look at work, move around
 Feedback
- timely is better than perfect; give the feedback within 24
hours
- focus on only 1-2 growths with really specific steps for
moving forward
Video: Practice Using the tool
 Context
for the Video
 Overview
of the Observation Tool
SBAC & PARCC
Two national state-based consortia are
overseeing development of assessments for
CCSS, with funding from Race to the Top
PARCC: The
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers
SBAC: SMARTER
Balanced Assessment
Consortium
National Consortium of
States for SBAC
•
•
•
29 states
representing 48%
of K-12 students
19 governing, 10
advisory states
Washington state is
fiscal agent
PARCC States
Key Elements of a Performance
Tasks
Real-world tasks
and/or scenario-based
problems
Multiple approaches,
points of view and
interpretations
Content that is relevant &
meaningful to students
Integration of knowledge
and skills across multiple
standards/strands
Extended responses,
research skills and complex
evidence-based analysis
Demonstration of knowledge and skills, including
21st century skills such as critically analyzing &
synthesizing media texts
Sample Assessment Dig-In
• What do you notice that is similar or different
from how students are currently assessed in
state tests?
• What key elements of a Performance Task do
you see strongly reflected in this item?
• What reactions and questions come up for
you?
Assessment Design Feature #1: Claims
Claims are BROAD learning goals that group several CCSS
standards into a broad statement about something a reader or
writer should be able to do. Here’s an example:
Claim #2: Students can produce effective
writing for a range of purposes and audiences.
W4: Produce clear and
coherent writing…
appropriate to task,
purpose, and audience
W1: Argumentative
Writing
W2: Informative/
Explanatory Writing
W8 and W9: Using
valid evidence
W3: Narrative
Writing
L1 and L2: Command
of Conventions
Summary of Claims & ELA and Literacy CCSS
Claim #1 – Students can read closely & critically to comprehend a
range of increasingly complex literary and informational texts.
•
•
•
Literature: RL 1-3, 5-7, & 9
Informational text: RI 1-3, 5-9
Read/ Literacy: 1-3, 5-9 (gr 6–11)
Claim #2 – Students can produce effective writing for a range of
purposes and audiences.
•
•
•
Opinion / Argument (W1), Informational (W2); Narrative (W3),
Writing Literacy 1-2 (gr. 6-11)
Plan / Organize / Edit (W4); Language – Edit (L1, L2)
Writing – Gather evidence (W8) and Draw evidence (W9) (gr 4-11)
Summary of Claims & ELA and Literacy CCSS
Claim #3 – Students can employ effective speaking and
listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences.
•
•
Listening (SL – 1d, 2,3)
Speaking (SL – 4,5,6)
Claim #4 – Students can engage appropriately in
collaborative and independent inquiry to investigate /
research topics, pose questions, and gather and present
information.
•
•
•
Writing (W7, W8) & draw evidence: W9 (gr 4-11)
Reading Literacy: 1-3, 5-9 (gr 6-11)
Writing Literacy: 1-2 (gr 6-11)
Summary of Claims & ELA and Literacy CCSS
Claim #5 – Students can use oral and written language
skillfully across range of literacy tasks.
•
•
•
Read Literature (RL4); Info (RI4); Read /Literacy: 4 (6-11)
Language Use: 3,4,5
Speaking / Listening: LS1d,2,3
NOTE: This claim is “bundled with the other claims” in the assessment
design, i.e. it is not assessed in isolation but in the context of reading,
writing, listening and speaking.
Design Feature #2: Depths of Knowledge
1-Recall and Reproduction
3-Strategic Thinking
2-Basic Application of Skills & Concepts
4-Extended Thinking
Resources
PARC
http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/Common_Core_Work
book.pdf
Smarter Balance
http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/
Urban Debate League
http://www.urbandebate.org/index.shtml
Close Reading
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CloseReading.ht
ml