Common Core
State Standards
CCSS
Presentation Objectives
 TLW:
 understand the development process and design of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
 become familiar with the ELA components of the CCSS
 become familiar with the Math components of the CCSS
 understand the CCSS assessment development and
timeline for implementation
 be able to locate CCSS website resources
 discuss and develop an implementation plan for the
CCSS at the building level
CCSS Development
 The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), coordinated by the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), committed to developing a common core of
state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards.
 48 states supported the concept
 40 states have officially adopted them
 External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams
throughout the process
 Revisions made in response to feedback
 Final standards released June 2, 2010
 Michigan State Board of Education adopted in June 15, 2010
CCSS are:
 Aligned with college and work expectations
 Internationally benchmarked so that all students are
prepared to succeed in our global economy and society
 Build upon strengths and lessons of current state
standards
 Based on evidence and research
 Robust and relevant to the real world
 Focused and coherent
 Fewer, clearer, and higher standards (???)
The Common Core State
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
 The assessment framework
Along with CCSS,
 • Educators must be given resources, tools, and time to
adjust classroom practice.
 • Instructional materials needed that align to the
standards.
 • Assessments must be developed to measure student
progress.
 • Federal, state, and district policies will need to be
reexamined to ensure they support alignment of
the common core state standards with student
achievement.
Design and Organization



Content standards define what students should understand and be
able to do
Clusters are groups of related standards
Domains are larger groups that progress across grades
Domain
Cluster
Standard
STANDARDS FOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
&
LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL
STUDIES,
SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL
SUBJECTS
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
Media requirements blended throughout
Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and
Technical Subjects 6-12
 Is the “next generation” of science standards
 Includes 10 Reading Standards for grades 6 - 12
 The old standards were written on 15 year old standards.
 STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Uses an interdisciplinary approach
 Includes core democratic documents in American history.
Writing Standards for Literacy in History/ Social
Studies, Science and Technical Subjects 6-12
 10 rigorous standards for “writing across the
curriculum”
 Includes research and writing from “multiple print and
digital sources”
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
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
Design and Organization
K−12 standards
 Grade-specific end-of-
year expectations
 Developmentally
appropriate,
cumulative
progression of skills
and understandings
 One-to-one
correspondence with
CCR standards
Reading Foundational Skills
Four categories (standards 1−4)

Print concepts (K−1)
 Phonological awareness (K−1)
 Phonics and word recognition (K−5)
 Fluency (K−5)
•
•
Not an end in and of themselves
Differentiated instruction
Common Core
State Standards
CCSS - Math
Design and Organization
Eight Mathematical Practices
 Carry across all grade levels
 Describe habits of mind of a mathematically
expert student
CCSS - Eight Standards for
Mathematical Practice
 1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
 2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
 3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
 4. Model with mathematics.
 5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
 6. Attend to precision.
 7. Look for and make use of structure.
 8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
Design and Organization
State Standards for Mathematical Content
 K-8 standards presented by grade level
Posters available

At http://store.kressdesign2.com/
 Address label stickers


At http://www.mictm.org/
Design and Organization
State Standards for Mathematical Content
 Organized into domains that progress over
several grades
Fractions, 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.
Design and Organization
State Standards for Mathematical Content
 Grade introductions give 2–4 focal points at each
grade level
Focal points at each grade level
Design and Organization
State Standards for Mathematical Content
 High school standards presented by conceptual
theme
High School
Conceptual themes in high school
 Number and Quantity
 Algebra
 Functions
 Modeling
 Geometry
 Statistics and Probability
CCSS and GLCE Comparisons
 Two Resources:
 Michigan Department of Education

http://michigan.gov/documents/mde/CCS_Math_Alignment
_Intro_4-23-10_sc_319725_7.pdf
 Michigan Council of Mathematics


Documents are called “Crosswalks”
Long form and short form
 http://www.mictm.org/
Common Core
State Standards
CCSS - Assessment
Race to the Top Assessment
Competition
 Assessment Consortia
 Development of an infrastructure and content for a
common assessment in measuring CCSS in English
Language Arts and Mathematics
 Two consortia
 SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
 Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College
and Career (PARCC)
Michigan - Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
Governing States
Advisory States
CT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI, AL, CO, DE,GA, IA, KY,
MO, MT, NC, NM, NV, NH, NJ, ND, OH,OK, PA
OR, UT, VT, WA, WI,
SC, SD
WV
17
14
Assessment Update
 A new assessment system will be implemented in 2014-
2015 and will be based on the work of the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium
 This will be a ‘system of formative and summative
assessments, organized around Common Core
standards, that
 support high-quality learning and the demands of
accountability
 balance concerns for innovative assessment with
the need for a fiscally sustainable system that is
feasible to implement’
Assessment Prototype
 19 Multiple Choice questions
 3 Constructed Response questions
 18 Technologically Enhanced
 2 Performance Events
 Possibly scored by local teachers first
Timeline for transitioning
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
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
Resources
 Michigan Department of Education
http://www.michigan.gov/mathematics
http://www.michigan.gov/ela
 Common Core State Standards Initiative
http://www.corestandards.org
 Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics
http://mictm.org
 Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability
http://www.michigan.gov/oeaa
 Summative Multi-state Assessment Resources for Teachers and Educational Researchers
http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER
 Michigan’s Mission Possible
http://missionliteracy.com
 Website for CCSS posters
http://store.kressdesign2.com/
Two words…
 Rigor
 Relevance
Kent ISD –
 Common Core Coaching Network
 Curriculum Crafter
 Summer Common Core work
Questions?
3-2-1 Summarizer
 Please write 3 things that you learned about the CCSS.
 Please list
2 resources that you can go to for more
information on CCSS.
 Please list
1 way that you can begin to familiarize
yourself with the new CCSS.
Presentation Objectives
 TLW:
 have a basic understanding of the development and
design and of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
 become familiar with the ELA components of the CCSS
 become familiar with the Math components of the CCSS
 Understand the CCSS assessment plan
 Discuss and develop an implementation plan for the
CCSS at the building level
 Please discuss the 3 questions on the CCSS
worksheet page.
 Please discuss and design a CCSS Implementation
Action Plan for your building.
 Building level teams will summarize their action plans
to the group.