Halfway there: Implementing the Common Core Standards Patte Barth Center for Public Education Agenda • a quick overview of the CCSS • truths, untruths & ambiguities • what to expect in 2014 • be prepared • q&a The Common Core State Standards A policy overview The Common Core Standards are intended to be: • Aligned with college and work expectations for ELA and math • Focused and coherent • Include 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 • Based on evidence and research • State led – coordinated by NGA Center and CCSSO SOURCE: Common Core State Standards, www.corestandards.org 4 What ‘adoption’ means for states • must adopt 100% of CCSS K-12 standards – CCSS should not represent more than 85% of curriculum • must begin assessments on CCSS within three years • no requirements for public accountability SOURCE: NGA, CCSSO 46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS adopted not adopted 6 Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts 7 Second thoughts adopted not adopted 2nd thoughts 8 CCSS development was state-led. True The Common Core Standards process: • CCSSO and NGA’s Center for Best Practices • Advisory group: Achieve, Inc.; ACT, Inc.; College Board, NASBE, and SHEEO • Two rounds of public review • Final documents released June 2010 • No federal dollars for development; foundation support NSBA & CCSS • supports NGA/CCSSO state-led process • supports federal funding for research and/or help to states for developing assessments • supports nationally available tests that states may adopt voluntarily • opposes federal mandates or coercion, eg. a condition for receiving Title 1 funds Next Generation Science Standards • Collaboration of Achieve, NRC, AAAS, NSTA and 26 lead states • “Internationally benchmarked” • Final version released April 9, 2013 • Intended to be adopted ‘in whole’ • Carnegie Corp, Noyce Foundation & Dupont sponsors 12 26 lead states – Next Generation Science Standards participant non participant 13 The federal government is behind the CCSS assessments Mostly true • federal dollars support assessment development • state consortia are doing the work State CCSS assessment consortia • formed to develop common “next generation” assessments aligned to the CCSS • supported by $346 million federal grants • PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College & Careers headed by Achieve, Inc. • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium headed by Washington state department of education 15 24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium participant non participant 16 28 states are in the SMARTER consortium participant non participant 17 Other assessment consortia • Alternative assessments: $67 million to Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) and National Center and State Collaboration (NCSC) – Assessments for students with “most significant cognitive impairments” • Assessments for ELL: $10.5 million to ASSETS, Assessment Services Supporting ELLs Through Technology Systems SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.org 18 Federal technical review of state consortia Expert panel to review consortia processes: • how they establish test validity • how they developed test items The panel will not review individual items SOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, March 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/performance.html States had to adopt the CCSS to qualify for RTTT grants or NCLB waivers. Not true, but it didn’t hurt Federal Policy and CCSS College- and career- ready standards must be: • common to a significant number of states; or • approved by a “state network of institutions of higher education”, certify students will not need remedial courses (a network of 4-year IHEs that enroll at least 50% of students who attend state’s 4-year public IHEs). High quality assessments must be: • Valid, reliable and fair; measure college & career readiness. • Measure student growth. Federal Policy and CCSS Race to the Top • States do not have to adopt common standards to be eligible; but get points for doing so, more points for joining larger consortium (e.g. CCSSO/NGA). • Points for supporting transition to new standards/assessments. • Same criteria applied to assessments. • Make up 70 points of 500 points total. RTTT scoring rubric for standards & assessments (total 500 points) Selection criteria Points Percent Standards and assessments 70 (of 500 total) 14% (1)Developing &adopting common standards 40 (i)Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards 20 (ii)Adopting standards 20 (2)Developing & implementing common, high-quality assessments 10 (3)Supporting transition to enhanced standards & high-quality assessments 20 Federal Policy and CCSS NCLB waivers • develop and implement rigorous college- & career-ready standards & assessments in reading & math. • adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to new standards and assessments to support ELL students. CCSS will cost the country $16 billion to implement Hard to say SOURCE: Pioneer Institute, 2012 CCSS assessments might save dollars $27 current per pupil cost for state assessments (Brookings Institute) $11-20 estimated per pupil for CCSS assessment (PARCC - SMARTER) SOURCES: Brookings Institute, 2012; PARCC, 2012; Education Week, December 7, 2012 Other implementation costs • new curriculum and materials • technology • professional development other cost considerations • were your standards due for an overhaul anyway? • are these things your state needs? The Common Core State Standards How they differ from current practice The CCSS are mediocre. Not true Fordham Institute: CCSS to state standards • CCSS “clearly superior” to 39 states’ standards in math and 37 states in ELA • CCSS “clearly inferior” to 3 states in ELA • All others were about the same SOURCE: Fordham Institute, The State of state standards – and the common core, 2010 The CCSS-ELA will crowd out classical literature. Not true Balance of texts grade level percent of time on literary reading percent of time on reading for information elementary 50% 50% middle school 45% 55% high school 30% 70% NAEP 2009 reading framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012 Balance of writing modes grade level writing to persuade writing to explain writing to convey experience elementary 30% 35% 35% middle school 35% 35% 30% high school 40% 40% 20% NAEP 2009 writing framework, recommended by common core standards, 2012 What’s different? English language arts Standards 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 Emphasis on research and using evidence Attention to text complexity SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010 Why emphasize reading for information? literary experience/ reflect & evaluate acquire & use information US 4th grade ranking PIRLS, 2010 2nd 5th US 15-year-olds ranking PISA, 2009 6th 14th US students do well internationally in reading literature but fall behind in reading for information. Rankings based on statistically significant differences in scores between US and other countries. Sample texts, grade 6-8 SOURCE: Common core state standards, ELA, Appendix B, www.corestandards.org PARRC/ELA assessment guidelines Two CCSS standards are always in play—whether they be reading or writing items: – Reading Standard One (Use of Evidence) – Reading Standard Ten (Complex Texts) SOURCE: PARRC, August 2012 PARRC/grade 10 constructed response Use what you have learned from reading “Daedalus and Icarus” by Ovid and “To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Triumph” by Anne Sexton to write an essay that provides an analysis of how Sexton transforms Daedalus and Icarus. * * * Develop your essay by providing textual evidence from both texts. Be sure to follow the conventions of standard English. SOURCE: PARRC sample item, 2012 The CCSS do not require cursive writing. True Schools cannot teach cursive writing. Not true The CCSS-math are internationally benchmarked. True Comparison of CCSS-math to top-achieving countries • Are world-class • Can potentially elevate the academic performance of America’s students • Most states have a long way to go: some less SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012 Comparison of CCSS-math to top-achieving countries Top-achieving countries SOURCE: William H. Schmidt, Michigan State University, analysis for Achieve, Inc. 2012 CCSS What’s in the standards – Mathematics • • • • • • Number & quantity Algebra - algebraic thinking K-5 Functions Modeling - high school Geometry Statistics & probability • Emphasis on Mathematical practice SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010 pre-calculus, calculus, advanced statistics, discrete math, advanced quantitative reasoning, specific technical POS Pathways through high school mathematics • • • • Algebra II Math III Geometry Math II Algebra I Math I Traditional sequence Integrated sequence 2 algebra courses 1 geometry course DPS included 1 higher course SOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010 • 3 integrated courses • all include number, algebra, geometry, DPS • 1 higher course The emphasis on mathematical practices is fuzzy math. Let’s take a look Before CCSS Which of the following numbers will round to 26? a) b) c) d) 25.3 25.5 26.7 27.1 46 SOURCE: Virginia SOL released items, grade 4 math, 2010 After CCSS Capacity of different baseball stadiums San Francisco Giants’ stadium: Washington Nationals’ stadium: San Diego Padres’ stadium: 41,915 seats 41,888 seats 42,445 seats Jeff said, “I get the same number when I round all three numbers of seats in these stadiums.” Sara said, “When I round them, I get the same number for two of the stadiums but a different number for the other stadium.” Can Jeff and Sara both be correct? Explain how you know. 47 SOURCE: The Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, grade 4 What’s different? • Both assess rounding • The second further requires the ability to reason mathematically, critique the reasoning of others, and communicate their own reasoning 48 SMARTER Grade 4 SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013 SMARTER Grade 4 SOURCE: SMARTER Balanced sample items, 2013 The CCSS will make every student college and career-ready. Remains to be seen The Common Core State Standards The challenges Timeline! PARCC/SMARTER assessments will be ready in 2014-15 Kentucky has already started 53 Technology needs • • • • • 33 states offer some level of online testing Most don’t assess all students Most are voluntary Most are summative only Most schools will need more computers & more bandwidth SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011 54 Conditions for Success • Professional development for staff – Do teachers have sufficient time and support to learn new standards? • Aligned assessments & curriculum • Aligned instructional materials • Supports for students 55 Managing initial expectations ACT’s ‘first look’ at the common core standards English language arts Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark 53 51 38 reading writing language SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010 NAEP performance v. common core standards – Mathematics Percent of 2009 8th graders answering NAEP/common core items correctly 58 54 number algebra SOURCE: Brown Center on Education Policy, How well are American students learning? January, 2011 Lessons from Kentucky: 1st year CCSS scores show decline in proficiency rates KCCT 2010-11 73 76 48 elementary-reading 40 elementary-math K-PREP 2011-12 70 65 47 middle schoolreading 41 middle school-math SOURCE: Education Week, Scores drop on KY’s common core-aligned tests, November 19, 2012 Create the public will to succeed • Short term consequences • Long term (mutual) benefits • Engage local media in your efforts SOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013 Hold the system accountable Monitor district’s progress toward successful implementation of the new standards • • • What kind of reports is the board receiving? How does the superintendent’s evaluation reflect implementation of the standards? Establish relationships with key stakeholders SOURCE: David Baird, Kentucky School Boards Association, 2013 Learn as a Board team • State Level Collaboration • Include relevant topics on board agendas & work sessions • Use multiple sources of information ⁻ ⁻ State Department of Education Center for Public Education Watch this space Stay up to date about progress in common core implementation and policy www.centerforpubliceducation.org/commoncore Download videos, presentations and other data resources www.data-first.org/learning-center