Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012

Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012
Get Immersed in the Standards and Next Generation Assessments Bristow, OK Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012

Effective Implementation
Rigor Relevance Relationship

Effective Implementation

Instructional Leadership Organizational Leadership
Teaching Student Achievement Instructional Leadership Organizational Leadership

What will our students need to:
Know Do

PISA 2009 Overall Reading Scale 1 Shanghai-China 556 2 Korea 539 3
Finland 536 4 Hong Kong-China 533 5 Singapore 526 6 Canada 524 7 New Zealand 521 8 Japan 520 9 Australia 515 10 Netherlands 508 17 United States 500 20 Germany 497 21 Ireland 496 22 France 25 United Kingdom 494 33 Spain 481 43 Russian Federation 459 48 Mexico 425 53 Brazil 412 57 Indonesia 402 PISA 2009 Overall Reading Scale Significantly Above OECD Average Not Significantly Different (OECD Average 493) Significantly below OECD Average

PISA 2009 Overall Math Scale 25th last time 1 Shanghai-China 600 2
Singapore 562 3 Hong Kong-China 555 4 Korea 546 6 Finland 541 9 Japan 529 10 Canada 527 11 Netherlands 526 13 New Zealand 519 15 Australia 514 16 Germany 513 22 France 497 28 United Kingdom 492 31 United States 487 32 Ireland 34 Spain 483 38 Russian Federation 468 51 Mexico 419 57 Brazil 386 61 Indonesia 371 PISA 2009 Overall Math Scale Significantly Above OECD Average Not Significantly Different (OECD Average 496) Significantly below OECD Average 25th last time

PISA 2009 Overall Science Scale Last time 21 1 Shanghai-China 575 2
Finland 554 3 Hong Kong-China 549 4 Singapore 542 5 Japan 539 6 Korea 538 7 New Zealand 532 8 Canada 529 10 Australia 527 11 Netherlands 522 13 Germany 520 16 United Kingdom 514 20 Ireland 508 23 United States 502 27 France 498 36 Spain 488 39 Russian Federation 478 50 Mexico 416 53 Brazil 405 60 Indonesia 383 PISA 2009 Overall Science Scale Significantly Above OECD Average Not Significantly Different (OECD Average 501) Significantly below OECD Average Last time 21

Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011
Reading Risk OK Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011

Proficiency Grade 4 Reading 2009
Proficient Required NAEP Score Oklahoma 62 % 211 Massachusetts 54 % 234 Missouri 47 % 229 Arizona 72 % 193 New Mexico 52 % 207 New York 77 % 200 Florida 74 % 206 2nd in the eGrade 4 from Proficient

Reading Risk OK Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011

Proficiency Grade 8 Reading 2009
Proficient Required NAEP Score Oklahoma 66% 249 Massachusetts 79% Missouri 50% 267 Florida 54% 262 Mississippi 48% 254 Rhode Island 62% 252 Missouri number one

Math Risk OK Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011

Proficiency Grade 4 Mathematics 2009
Proficient Required NAEP Score Oklahoma 66 % 228 Massachusetts 48 % 255 New Jersey 73 % 231 New York 87 % 207 New Mexico 77 % 224 Indiana 229 Missouri 45 % 246 Second in the country

Math Risk OK Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011

Proficiency Grade 8 Mathematics 2009
Proficient Required NAEP Score Oklahoma 59 % 269 Massachusetts 49 % 300 Missouri 47 % 287 New Mexico 43 % 277 Minnesota 58 % New Jersey 71 % 272 Rhode Island 53 % 275 Third in the country

Elbow Partner What are your risks?
How will you prepare your school if you anticipate a potential dip in scores? Do you have a communication strategy?

Lexile Framework® for Reading Study Summary of Text Lexile Measures
Interquartile Ranges Shown (25% - 75%) 1600 1400 1200 Text Lexile Measure (L) 1000 800 600 Personal Use Entry-Level Occupa-tions High School Lit. College Lit. High School Texts College Texts Military SAT 1, ACT, AP* * Source of National Test Data: MetaMetrics

Content Reading and Writing Strategies that Work for All Students
MetaMetrics Survey 2000 Arkansas Democrat Gazette 1230 L Associated Press 1310 L LA Times 1330 L Miami Herald 1200 L New York Post 1280 L Oakland Tribune 1210 L Raleigh News & Observer 1220 L Wall Street Journal 1320 L USA Today Kuzmich, 2006

On-the Job Lexile Requirements
National Adult Literacy Study 1992 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 International Center for Leadership in Education 2009 Construction Craftsman Nurse Sales Secretary

Organizational Leadership
Student Achievement Organizational Leadership

Organizational Leadership
Culture Culture

Levin and Elmore Everyone needs to collaborate to ensure that daily teaching and learning practices are the focus of the school All responsible for success Principals and teachers are fundamentally evaluators Leaders responsible for cultural changes – by displacing specific norms, structures, and processes by others

Hattie, 2012 Build collective capacity of teachers to show success
achievement making learning valued outcome students respect themselves and others build community

Does your culture do this?
Collaboratively build teams Team works to solve dilemmas in learning Collectively share and critique the nature and quality of evidence that shows our impact on student learning Cooperate in planning and critiquing lessons, learning intentions, and success criteria Hattie, John Visible Learning for Teachers

Elbow Discussion How will you create a culture in your schools of ALL students “college and career ready”?

Teaching Rigor and Relevance Rigor and Relevance

Rigor/Relevance For All Students
B

Knowledge Taxonomy 1. Awareness 2. Comprehension 3. Application
4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation

Application Model 1. Knowledge in one discipline 2. Application within one discipline 3. Application across disciplines 4. Application to real-world predictable situations 5. Application to real-world unpredictable situations

Rigor/Relevance Framework
6 Rigor Thinking /Knowledge 5 4 3 2 Action/Application Relevance 1 1 2 3 4 5 108

Levels Bloom’s C D A B 6 5 4 Knowledge 3 2 1 Application

Knowledge in one discipline Apply knowledge in one discipline
Students gather and store bits of knowledge/information and are expected to remember or understand this acquired knowledge. Application A Acquisition Comprehension 2 Low-level Knowledge Awareness 1 Knowledge in one discipline 2 Apply knowledge in one discipline

A Quadrant Verbs Products definition worksheet list quiz test workbook
name label define select identify list memorize recite locate record definition worksheet list quiz test workbook true-false reproduction recitation

Students use acquired knowledge to solve problems, design solutions, and complete work.
Application B Application Comprehension 2 Awareness Low-level Application 3 Apply knowledge across disciplines 5 Apply to real-world unpredictable situation 4 Apply to real-world predictable situation

B Quadrant Verbs Products scrapbook summary interpretation collection
apply sequence demonstrate interview construct solve calculate dramatize interpret illustrate scrapbook summary interpretation collection annotation explanation solution demonstration outline

Knowledge in one discipline Apply knowledge in one discipline
Students extend and refine their knowledge so that they can use it automatically and routinely to analyze and solve problems and create solutions. Evaluation C Assimilation Synthesis Analysis High-level Knowledge Application 1 Knowledge in one discipline 2 Apply knowledge in one discipline

C Quadrant Products Verbs essay abstract blueprint inventory report
plan chart questionnaire classification diagram discussion collection annotation sequence annotate examine report criticize paraphrase calculate expand summarize classify diagram

Students think in complex ways and apply acquired knowledge and skills, even when confronted with perplexing unknowns, to find creative solutions and take action that further develops their skills and knowledge. Evaluation D Adaptation Synthesis Analysis High-level Application Application 3 Apply knowledge across disciplines 4 Apply to real-world predictable situation 5 Apply to real-world unpredictable situation

D Quadrant Verbs Products evaluation evaluate newspaper validate
estimation trial editorial radio program play collage machine adaptation poem debate new game invention evaluate validate justify rate referee infer rank dramatize argue conclude

D C A B Rigor/Relevance Framework Four Quadrants of Learning
Assimilation C Adaptation D Complex Analytical Challenging Real World RIGOR High Acquisition A Application B A B Routine Memorization Practical Hands On Low Low High RELEVANCE 14

History - High School D C Summarize global impacts of WWII and project impacts of Iraq war Analyze original documents and summarize reasons for US opposition to entering WWII RIGOR High A B Identify nations involved and reasons for WWII Interview local WWII veterans and describe impacts from their perspective. Low Low High RELEVANCE 18

Example Multiple Performances for Single Standard Math – K-5 Level
Domain: Operational Thinking for Algebra R/R Quadrant Student Performance A Use color counters to solve simple computational problems B Sort quantities to discover fractions of the whole C Find values in number sentences when represented by unknowns D Develop formula for determining a large quantity without counting, such as beans in a jar.  International Center for Leadership in Education

Rigor/Relevance Framework Teacher/Student Roles
Think Student Think & Work R I GOR High A B Teacher Work Student Work Low Low High RELEVANCE

Did Students Get it Right?
Rigor/Relevance Framework Did Students Get it Right? D C Rational Answer Right Questions R I GOR High A B Right Answer Right Procedure Low Low High RELEVANCE

KNOWLEDGE Problems D C Projects Activities A B A P P L I C A T I O N

Launched at Model Schools Conference 2012
New CCSS handbooks Launched at Model Schools Conference 2012 Visit

Next Generation Assessments
Current Assessments Next Generation Assessments Bloom’s 6 C D A B 5 Focus for Next Generation Testing 4 3 2 1 Application

Goals of the PARCC System
Create high-quality assessments Build a pathway to college and career readiness for all students Support educators in the classroom Develop 21st century, technology-based assessments Advance accountability at all levels Build an assessment that is sustainable and affordable Notes: 4. Develop 21st century, technology-based assessments includes developing and implementing automated scoring systems and processes to deliver quick results

Create High Quality Assessments
Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) Extended tasks Applications of concepts and skills Required End-of-Year Assessment Innovative, computer-based items Required 2 Optional Assessments/Flexible Administration Diagnostic Assessment Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD Non-summative Mid-Year Assessment Performance-based Emphasis on hard-to-measure standards Potentially summative TALKING POINTS Graphic depiction of the assessment system. The system includes a suite of assessments and tools that, taken together, provide a more complete picture of student mastery of standards and progress throughout the year than is currently available on state assessments. Considerations Leading to 2 optional assessments: The cost of the assessments Flexibility on when to administer the optional assessments The amount of testing time needed to administer the assessments Possible disruption to school schedules caused by through-course assessment preparation and administration Constraints the distributed design might have on the flexibility of state and local educators to sequence instruction of the CCSS and to implement their own benchmark and formative assessment initiatives The PARCC assessment system will: Reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in the English and math Common Core State Standards Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice, longer open response, performance-based) Make significant use of technology Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers, parents and students better information about whether students are on track or need additional support in particular areas Diagnostic Assessments One element of the reading diagnostic assessment is a text complexity tool, which will provide a diagnostic of a student’s ability to read texts independently in order to provide useful guidance to educators, parents, and students about appropriate texts for students when reading independently. These assessments will be useful for the implementation of the ELA/Literacy CCSS in the classroom, as they will help educators meet the demands of the ELA/Literacy standards to teach appropriately complex texts by helping teachers understand what “appropriately complex” really means. The diagnostic assessment in math will help educators understand the extent to which students have mastered the key ideas in mathematics ("highlighted domains") in order to pinpoint areas needing improvement or identify areas in which students are excelling. In addition, it will provide greater detail about students who are above and below grade level so teachers can individualize instruction Timeline: Expected Summer/Fall 2014 HS Assessments Taken together, the PARCC assessment components comprise a comprehensive system of assessments that will provide timely information to teachers throughout the year, and provide students with meaningful information about their progress toward college and career readiness Speaking And Listening Assessment Locally scored Non-summative, required

Non-Summative Assessment Components
Flexible Diagnostic Assessment designed to be an indicator of student knowledge and skills so that instruction, supports and professional development can be tailored to meet student needs Mid-Year Assessment comprised of performance-based items and tasks, with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards. After study, individual states may consider including as a summative component Early Assessment Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD Mid-Year Assessment Performance-based Emphasis on hard to measure standards Potentially summative TALKING POINTS Graphic depiction of the assessment system. The PARCC assessment system will: Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in the English and math Common Core State Standards Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice, longer open response, performance-based) Make significant use of technology Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers, parents and students better information about whether students are on track or need additional support in particular areas Summative assessment for accountability Non-Summative assessment 51

Summative Assessment Components
Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) Extended tasks Applications of concepts and skills End-of-Year Assessment Innovative, computer-based items Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) administered as close to the end of the school year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will focus on writing effectively when analyzing text. The mathematics PBA will focus on applying skills, concepts, and understandings to solve multi-step problems requiring abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) administered after approx. 90% of the school year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading comprehension. The math EOY will be comprised of innovative, machine-scorable items TALKING POINTS Graphic depiction of the assessment system. The PARCC assessment system will: Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in the English and math Common Core State Standards Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice, longer open response, performance-based) Make significant use of technology Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers, parents and students better information about whether students are on track or need additional support in particular areas Summative assessment for accountability Non-Summative assessment 52

Technology-Enhanced Items Electronic Item Banking
Use of Technology Technology-Enhanced Items Present assessment material and capture student responses in a way that cannot be accomplished with paper and pencil Ex.: simulation, interactivity, drag-and-drop Electronic Item Banking Adherence to recognized technology standards will allow for supports and accessibility information to be embedded in digital test items Student Access & Engagement Electronically tagged items will allow for proper supports to activate for individual students, promoting access for students with disabilities and ELLs. Technology-enhanced items may include interactive elements Confidential - Not for Distribution

Technology Guidelines for PARCC Version 1.0, April 2012
Minima Processor Speed RAM Available Memory/Storage Resolution Display Size Hardware 1.0 GHz 1 GB 1024x768 10” Class Operating Systems Mac 10.7 Windows 7 Linux (Ubuntu 11.10; Fedora 16) Apple iOS Android 4.0 Desktops, laptops, netbooks (Windows, Mac, Chrome, Linux), thin client, and tablets (iPad, Windows, and Android) will be compatible devices provided they are configured to meet the established hardware, operating system, and networking specifications- and are able to be “locked down”. More on Security: Eligible devices of any form factor or operating system must have the administrative tools and capabilities to “lock down” the device, to temporarily disable features, functionalities, and applications that could present a security risk during test administration. These include, but are not limited to, Web browser access, cameras (still and video), screen capture (live and recorded), , instant messaging, Bluetooth connections, application switching, and printing.

Technology Transition
Technology Readiness Tool Six data collection windows between spring 2012 and summer 2014 Contains data to support local/state planning for the transition to consortia assessment systems Release of Technology Minimum Device Specifications Readiness for online assessments has different dimensions: 1. Computers & other devices Minimum system requirements 2. Ratio of devices to testers Including testing window and session scheduling 3. Network and infrastructure Bandwidth, network utilization, size of content 4. Personnel (staffing & training)

Technology Transition (continued)
Spring 2012 March – June Reports available July 2012 Fall 2012 September – December Reports available January 2013 Spring 2013 January – April Reports available May 2013 Fall 2013 Reports available January 2014 Spring 2014 Reports available May 2014 Summer 2014 June – August Reports available September 2014 Data Collection Windows

Developing the PARCC Assessment System
K-12 Educators HE Faculty

Key Shifts Articulated in the Common Core
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY Building knowledge through content-rich non-fiction and informational texts Reading and writing grounded in evidence from text Regular practice with complex text and its academic vocabulary MATHEMATICS Focus strong where the Standards focus Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades Rigor: Require fluency, application, and deep understanding TALKING POINTS ELA/LITERACY Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Focus on text complexity and what students read Writing Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing Writing about sources (evidence) – answer questions that require students to have read the text Inclusion of formal and informal talk Literacy standards for history, science and technical subjects Promotes the idea that teaching literacy skills is not just the job of the English teacher Complements rather than replaces those subjects MATHEMATICS Focus, coherence and clarity Focus on key topics at each grade level Coherent progressions across grade levels Addresses long-heard criticism of mile-wide, inch-deep math curricula Balance between procedural fluency and understanding of concepts and skills Content standards require both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency Mathematical proficiencies Mathematical proficiencies students should develop (e.g., abstract reasoning, modeling, precision, perseverance, strategic use of tools, making arguments) Using mathematics to understand a problem – even in new or unfamiliar contexts Speaking and Listening (if you want to discuss) BOTH CONTENT AREAS Anchored in college and career readiness Explicitly define the knowledge and skills that students must master to be college and career ready by the end of high school, and the knowledge and skills in each grade that build towards that goal These are the key “shifts” in the Common Core. Work that is being informed by these shifts. Model Content Frameworks Item Prototypes Item Development work ANCHORED IN COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

Claims Driving Design: Mathematics
Students are on-track or ready for college and careers Students solve problems involving the major content* for their grade level with connections to practices Students solve problems involving the additional and supporting content* for their grade level with connections to practices Students express mathematical reasoning by constructing mathematical arguments and critiques Students solve real world problems engaging particularly in the modeling practice Student demonstrate fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for Content in grades 3-6 *See PARCC Model Content Frameworks for details

Innovation: Modeling (not an actual PARCC item)
Karnataka is a state in southwest India. The accompanying table is agricultural data on fertilizer use and grain crop yield in Karnataka. Fertilizer is measured in 100,000 tons. Crop yield is measured in 10 kilograms per hectare. Throughout the years over which these data were gathered, the amount of land in cultivation remained fairly constant. Write a mathematical function that models the relationship between fertilizer use and grain crop yield. Show your work. Use the function you have chosen to predict the yield if the fertilizer use is 500,000 tons. How precise is the prediction you made in Question (b)? Explain. Based on the data and your function, what advice can you offer the government of Karnataka about fertilizer use? Explain Page 392 of 404 in PARCC Item Development ITN Used with permission from COMAP, 2009

Claims Driving Design: ELA/Literacy
Students are on-track or ready for college and careers Students read and comprehend a range of sufficiently complex texts independently Reading Literature Reading Informational Text Vocabulary Interpretation and Use Students write effectively when using and/or analyzing sources. Written Expression Conventions and Knowledge of Language Students build and present knowledge through research and the integration, comparison, and synthesis of ideas. Confidential - Not for Distribution

ELA/Literacy Assessment Items
Evidence-Based Selected Response items Technology-Enhanced Constructed Response items Prose Constructed Response items --Each of these different types of items allow us to capture crucial shifts defined in the standards and elucidated in the Model Content Frameworks, as well as some critical “next generation assessment innovations.” --EBSR items allow students to refer to and cited textual references to support understandings of text. There are no plans at this time for stand alone SR questions—all will call for evidence (give example). These items also allow for students to show divergent thinking (give example) and for students to earn partial credit (showing what they do know, not just what they don’t know)—give examples. All these gains occur without the need for extensive student writing and in machine-scorable formats. --TECR items allow students to demonstrate complex relationships among ideas without writing extensively and in machine-scorable formats. (give ranking example) --Prose Constructed Response items have several key innovations: they allow for analytic prompts (give example); they allow for reading and writing and language conventions to be assessed simultaneously (connecting Reading standard 1 with Writing standard 9 as was the intent of the CCSS); they allow for multiple standards to be assessed simultaneously—thereby allowing for the kinds of text-dependent questions worthy of writing to in the first place.

Item Review Process Core Leadership Committees Comprised of State DOE K-12 and higher education officials Local Educator Committees Comprised of LEA K-12 staff and higher education faculty Bias & Sensitivity Committees Comprised of citizens and educators from various backgrounds 100% of PARCC items will be reviewed prior to and following field testing A total of 24 review meetings will take place throughout the contract period, beginning in spring 2012

Implementation and Transition Support

Educator Leader Cadres
K-12 Engagement Develop expertise on the CCSS and PARCC; develop state and peer leaders; build and expand the number of educators who understand and feel ownership for implementing the CCSS and PARCC Assessments State teams of K-12 teachers, school and district leaders, local and state curriculum directors, and postsecondary representatives National Math and Science Initiative/Lay The Foundation Annual meetings beginning in July 2012 Educator Leader Cadres

Instructional Supports and Tools
Support implementation of the CCSS; support development of assessment blueprints; provide guidance to state, district- and school-level curriculum leaders in the development of aligned instructional materials Released November 9, 2011; Re-Release late June; Final in August. Model Content Frameworks Model Instructional Units Provide educators with examples of ways to implement the CCSS in schools; allow for the development and sharing of ideas for instructional implementation of the CCSS; encourage development of additional PARCC tools Expected Spring 2013 Professional Learning Modules Model Content Frameworks: The Model Content Frameworks for English language arts/Literacy (ELA/literacy) and Mathematics aim to serve as a bridge between the standards and the PARCC assessments. The Model Content Frameworks are voluntary and are not intended to be curricula or scopes and sequences. Rather, they provide further articulation of the key shifts in the CCSS and their connection to the PARCC assessment system. The frameworks can be useful to states and districts as they engage in professional development and in their own curricular development efforts. The Model Content Frameworks were developed through a collaborative state-led process that included mathematics and ELA/literacy content experts in PARCC member states and members of the Common Core State Standards writing team; PARCC helped manage this process. The development process included three rounds of review, including a public review in which about two-thirds of the nearly 2,000 comments were submitted by K-12 educators. In Spring 2012, PARCC will once again solicit feedback from educators and the public to refine the frameworks as necessary. The updated Model Content Frameworks will be available Summer 2012. Audience: State and local curriculum directors (primary audience) ; teachers Model Instructional Units: Any model instructional units developed by PARCC will be voluntary and aim primarily to provide a common illustration of how the Common Core may be organized and taught in the classroom. The model instructional units will reflect, build on, and fill gaps in existing or in-process state-developed model units aligned to the Common Core State Standards and the PARCC assessments. The model units will be developed with educator input to ensure PARCC is developing materials that are most useful to educators. The model units will add to the robust set of instructional materials being developed across PARCC states, individually and collectively. The units will serve as resources that teachers can use in their classroom but will also serve as models for teachers and curriculum directors to use as they develop additional materials aligned to the CCSS. Audience: Teachers; local and state curriculum directors Model Instructional Units

Revised High School Mathematics Frameworks (Under Review)
As with the 3 – 8 Content Frameworks, the Major, Supporting, and Additional Content is labeled. There are a few things that still need to be worked out and are still under discussion, like where to place Probability and Statistics and whether or not to include the plus standards in this document.

Revised High School Mathematics Frameworks (Under Review)

Supports and Tools (continued)
Develop models of innovative, online-delivered items and rich performance tasks proposed for use in the PARCC assessments. Expected Summer 2012 Item and Task Prototypes One-stop shop for PARCC resources; provide an online warehouse for all PARCC tools and resources as well as other instructional material being developed by PARCC states and districts and national organizations Expected Spring 2013 Partnership Resource Center Develop professional development modules focused on assessments to help teachers, school and district leaders, and testing coordinators understand the new assessment system and use of the data Expected Fall 2013 Professional Development Modules

PARCC Timeline

PARCC Timeline Through 2011-2012
PARCC Tools & Resources Model Content Frameworks released (Nov 2011) Educator Leader Cadres launched Item & task prototypes released Fall 2011 Winter 2012 Spring Summer Fall 2012 Updated Model Content Frameworks Released Item development begins PARCC Assessment Implementation

Timeline Through First PARCC Administration in 2014-2015
PARCC Tools & Resources Partnership Resource Center launched Professional development modules released K-2 Formative Tools Released College-ready tools released Diagnostic assessments released Summative PARCC Assessments Spring 2013 Summer Winter 2014 Fall Winter 2015 Spring 2015 Pilot/field testing begins Model Instructional Units Released Expanded field testing of diagnostic assessment Expanded field testing Optional Diagnostic and Midyear PARCC Assessments Standard Setting in Summer 2015 PARCC Assessment Implementation

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS
STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS JUNE 2010 75

Shared Responsibility for Students’ Literacy Development
“The Standards insist that instruction in reading, speaking, listening, and language be a shared responsibility within the school” (p. 4). “This division reflects the unique time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well” (p. 4). Adapted from “Key Design Considerations” (page 4 of the Standards)

English Language Arts and Literacy Standards “Roadmap”
READING WRITING SPEAKING & LISTENING LANGUAGE 10 Anchor Standards for College and Career Readiness 10 Anchor Standards for College and Career Readiness 6 Anchor Standards for CCR 6 Anchor Standards for CCR ELA Standards K-12 Literacy Standards 6-12 Found-ational Skills ELA Standards K-12 Literacy Standards 6-12 ELA Standards K-12 ELA Standards K-12 1 2 3 4 5 Literary Text Inform Text Hist. / S.S. Sci. / Tech Subj. K 1 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10 11-12 1 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10 → → → → → → K K K → → → → → → → → → → → 1 2 3 4 5 1 → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → 1 → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → 2 2 → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → 3 3 → → → → → → 4 4 → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → 5 5 → → → → → → → → → → → 6 6 9-10 11-12 6 7 9-10 11-12 6-8 6-8 7 9-10 11-12 6-8 7 8 8 8 9-10 9-10 9-10 11-12 11-12 11-12 11-12

Increasing Sophistication
Reading Anchor Standard #9 Integration of Knowledge and Ideas Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take. Kindergarten Grades 11-CCR Integration of Knowledge and Ideas 9. Compare and contrast the most important points and key details presented in two texts on the same topic. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas 9. Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.

Six Shifts in ELA/Literacy
Balancing Informational and Literary Text Building Knowledge in the Disciplines Staircase of Complexity Text-Based Answers Writing From Sources Academic Vocabulary

Balancing Literature and Informational Text
Shift 1 Balancing Literature and Informational Text

Literary/Informational Text
Literature Informational Text Stories Drama Poetry Literary Nonfiction and Historical, Scientific, and Technical Texts Includes children’s adventure stories, folktales, legends, fables, fantasy, realistic fiction, and myth Includes staged dialogue and brief familiar scenes Includes nursery rhymes and the subgenres of the narrative poem, limerick, and free verse poem Includes biographies and autobiographies; books about history, social studies, science, and the arts; technical texts, including directions, forms, and information displayed in graphs, charts, or maps; and digital sources on a range of topics

Reading Framework for NAEP 2009
Grade Literary Informational 4 50% 8 45% 55% 12 30% 70% Standards demand a greater focus on informational text literary non fiction Major focus in 6-12

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas 7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words. *8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. 9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

Building Knowledge in the Disciplines
Shift #2 Building Knowledge in the Disciplines

Why Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical?
Students are consistently unable to meet the demands of reading text within a particular discipline. Reading within a discipline is different than reading literature. The ability to read within the discipline is important to citizenship. Being literate across a broad range of disciplines is required to be considered College and Career Ready.

How is reading history/social studies different from other types of reading?
History is interpretive. History is an argument in favor of a particular narrative. Who the author is matters. (sourcing) The author’s purpose matters. (bias and perspective) A single text is problematic. (corroboration)

How is reading science and technical reading different from other types of reading?
Focus is on claims and counter claims Precise details, complex details and processes Analyze results by comparing Determining what question is being raised Navigate text, graphs, tables, charts Evaluate basis for claims

Elbow Discussion How are you insuring that literacy is a shared responsibility

Staircase of Txt Complexity
Shift #3 Staircase of Txt Complexity

Text complexity is defined by:
Overview of Text Complexity Reading Standards include over exemplar texts (stories and literature, poetry, and informational texts) that illustrate appropriate level of complexity by grade Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands Quantitative Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity Best measured by an attentive reader Ability to make an informed decision about the difficulty of a text Knowledge of four factors in developing effective tools: Levels of Meaning or Purpose Reader and Task: Determining whether a given text is appropriate for the student: Cognitive abilities Motivation Topic knowledge Linguistic and discourse knowledge Comprehension strategies Experiences “Reading for Understanding, 2002, The RAND Reading Study group” Quantitative:Word length or frequency (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level text, Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Lexile) Sentence length Text cohesion (University of Memphis, Coh-Metrix) Measurement tools ( Lexile example Structure Language Conventionality & Clarity Knowledge Demands Reader and Task Reader and Task – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned

Step 1: Qualitative Measures
Measures such as: Levels of meaning Levels of purpose Structure Organization Language conventionality Language clarity Prior knowledge demands

Step 2: Quantitative Measures
Measures such as: Word length Word frequency Word difficulty Sentence length Text length Text cohesion

Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges
Text Complexity Grade Band in the Standards Old Lexile Ranges Lexile Ranges Aligned to CCR expectations K-1 N/A 2-3 4-5 6-8 9-10 11-CCR Metametrics has realigned its Lexile ranges to match the Standards’ text complexity grade bands and has adjusted upward its trajectory of reading comprehension development through the grades

Lexile Analyzer http://www.lexile.com/analyzer/

Step 3: Reader and Task Considerations such as: Motivation
Knowledge and experience Purpose for reading Complexity of task assigned regarding text Complexity of questions asked regarding text

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortia

Grade 7 Informational Text

Key Ideas and Details RI.7.1. Cite several pieces of textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. RI.7.2. Determine two or more central ideas in a text and analyze their development over the course of the text; provide an objective summary of the text. RI.7.3. Analyze the interactions between individuals, events, and ideas in a text (e.g., how ideas influence individuals or events, or how individuals influence ideas or events). Craft and Structure RI.7.4. Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the impact of a specific word choice on meaning and tone. RI.7.5. Analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to the development of the ideas. RI.7.6. Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how the author distinguishes his or her position from that of others. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas RI.7.7. Compare and contrast a text to an audio, video, or multimedia version of the text, analyzing each medium’s portrayal of the subject (e.g., how the delivery of a speech affects the impact of the words). RI.7.8. Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient to support the claims. RI.7.9. Analyze how two or more authors writing about the same topic shape their presentations of key information by emphasizing different evidence or advancing different interpretations of facts.

Performance Task Students determine the figurative and connotative meanings of words such as wayfaring, laconic, and taciturnity as well as of phrases such as hold his peace in John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley: In Search of America. They analyze how Steinbeck’s specific word choices and diction impact the meaning and tone of his writing and the characterization of the individuals and places he describes. [RI.7.4] Grade Seven

Shift #4 Text Based Answers

High-quality, Text-dependent Questions & Tasks
“Among the highest priorities of the Common Core Standards is that students can read closely and gain knowledge from texts.” “More questions that can be answered only with reference to the text.” “Sequences of questions should elicit a sustained discussion.” Tasks must “require the use of more textual evidence.”

Shift #5 Writing from Sources

NAEP 2011 Writing Framework
Grade To Persuade To Explain To Convey Experience 4 30% 35% 8 12 40% 20%

College and Career Readiness Anchor Writing Standards
Research to Build and Present Knowledge Conduct short, as well as more sustained research projects based on questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.

Writing and Research the Analyzes and Deploys Evidence
Draw evidence from texts to support and develop: Analysis Reflection Research Increase opportunities to write in response to sources Extensive practice with short, focused research projects “typically taking a week and occurring—at a minimum—quarterly” Increase focus on argumentation and informative writing, less narrative writing

K- argument, The writer of this piece•tells the reader the name of the book (in the title of the paper). oMy fabit (favorite) Book is do you Want to be my FRIEND•states an opinion or preference about the book. o. . . my fait (favorite) pot (part) is the hos (horse)

Grade 2 Argument

Grade 4 argumant

Grade 8 Informative/Explanatory
112

Shift #6 Academic Vocabulary

Language Progressive Skills
Tier I - words of everyday speech Tier II - general academic words, typically found in text, ways to communicate simple ideas Tier III - domain-specific words (informational text) Handout to be used with language section

Developing Literacy Plan
Examine your student data Develop a deliberate process for selecting text Focus on Literary and Information text Focus on Text dependent questions Engage students in writing across the content areas, common process, rubrics One research project per quarter Focus on domain specific vocabulary Rigor/Relevance – Quadrant D Refer to Literacy Checklist

Solid Implementation Focus Fidelity of Implementation
Leading and Lagging Indicators

Proportions of students scoring in each decile
of the MCAS 8th grade ELA distribution

Proportions of students scoring in each decile
of the MCAS 8th grade Math distribution

MCAS Math gains 8th to 10th grade,
compared to others from the same 8th grade decile (School Rank Percentile)

MCAS ELA gains 8th to 10th grade,
compared to others from the same 8th grade decile (School rank percentile/100)

Item Prompt Based on the text, what inference can be made about how tests and testing should occur to ensure an accurate measurement of overall water quality? Explain your inference using details from the text.

Grade 11 Constructed Response
Stimulus Text: Read the following texts then answer the question. Text 1 The following excerpt comes from a speech written in 1872 by women’s rights pioneer Susan B. Anthony. Anthony was arrested after attempting to vote in the 1872 presidential election. After her conviction Anthony wrote this speech to make a constitutional argument for giving women the right to vote.

Grade 11 Constructed Response
Text 2 The following excerpt comes from the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, published in 1690. Item Prompt: Identify the idea common to these two texts. Explain how the ideas in Locke’s treatise support the ideas in Anthony’s argument.

Resources http://www.achievethecore.org http://commoncore.org/maps

STANDARDS FOR MATHEMATICS JUNE 2010
137 137

What’s different about CCSS?
These Standards are not intended to be new names for old ways of doing business. They are a call to take the next step. It is time for states to work together to build on lessons learned from two decades of standards based reforms. It is time to recognize that standards are not just promises to our children, but promises we intend to keep. — CCSS (2010, p.5) Too often in the past, important components of NCTM Standards, such as the process standards, were voluntary for teachers to implement. Now, with CCSS, standard assessments are part of state’s adoptions of the standards. And, because those assessments will address all aspects of the standards, implementing these more challenging aspects of the standards will be mandatory, not voluntary.

Mathematics Instructional Shifts
1. Focus 2. Coherence 3. Fluency 4. Deep Understanding 5. Application 6. Dual Intensity Dual intensity – students are practicing and understanding

Focus – Shift # 1 Key ideas, understandings, and skills are identified
Deep learning of concepts is stressed That is, time is spent on a topic and on learning it well. This counters the “mile wide, inch deep” criticism leveled at most current U.S. standards.

Coherence – Shift #2 Articulated progressions of topics and performances that are developmental and connected to other progressions Conceptual understanding and procedural skills emphasized equally NCTM states coherence also means that instruction, assessment, and curriculum are aligned

Top Achieving Countries
Topic Placement in Top Achieving Countries Topics (32) that at least 2/3 of the top achieving countries include in their ‘core’ curriculum. Grades 1-8.

Topic Placement in the U.S.
Composite math standards from 21 states with topics covered by 2/3 of the states Structure of increasing complexity not seen. Topics are taught repeatedly throughout the grades. Many more topics at each grade level means topics receive less depth. Early introduction of many demanding topics (transformational geometry, measurement error, functions) . Empty rows reflect non-consensus of when to teach a topic, such as properties of common and decimal fractions. Seems to be more of a laundry list approach. Not reflecting the structure of mathematics complexity which requires pre-requisite knowledge

Domains for K-8 Say, “This table is from the Ohio Department of Education. It includes the domains for K–8; in addition, it has the conceptual categories for high school. This table is organized a bit differently from the one on the previous slide. Instead of just listing each domain, they’ve grouped related domains together. For each “colored row,” they identify how domains at the earlier grades progress and lead to domains at the middle and high school levels. The right side of the chart lists the five conceptual categories for high school: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability. If you select one conceptual category and move left along the row, you’ll find the domains at the middle and elementary school levels from which this concept builds.”

Format of Pre-K-8 Standards
Domain Grade Level 2.NBT (code) C l u s t e r H a d i n g Cluster Standard 2.NBT.1 (code) Click to show the headings used to categorize the standards. The broadest header is “Domain” which is the larger groups of related standards. There is a code for each grade level with an abbreviation for the domain (2.NBT) Clusters are groups of related standards under the domain. Standards define specifically what students should know and be able to do and are numbers starting with #1. The coherence of the standards at each grade level is demonstrated through the domains and clusters. The standards are grouped first by domain then by cluster. Each grade has up to 6 domains, and each domain is divided into one or more clusters. (The next slide will show the progression of domains through grade 8.) Focus Coherence Clarity Rigor

Shift #3 Fluency

Rigor -Require fluency, application, and deep understanding
Conceptual understanding – solving short conceptual problems, applying math in new situations, and speaking about their understanding Procedural skill and fluency - speed and accuracy in calculation. Application - “real world” situations

Reasoning Invite Exploration of important mathematical concepts
Allow students to solidify and make connections Make connections and develop coherent framework for mathematical ideas Problem formulation, problem solving and mathematical reasoning

Reasoning More than one solution
Development of all students’ disposition to do math

Mathematically proficient students
Make conjectures Build logical progressions to explore the truth of their conjectures Justify and communicate their conclusions Respond to arguments

Which number does not belong? Why?
Instead of asking which numbers are odd? From: Math for All: Differentiating Instruction, Grades 3-5, Dacey and Lynch

Procedural Fluency Knowledgeable about procedures
Know when and how to use them Skill in performing procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently and with understanding

Grade Fluency K Add/subtract within 5 1 Add/subtract within 10 2 Add/subtract within 20 Add/subtract within 100 (pencil and paper) 3 Multiply/divide within 100 Add/subtract within 1000 4 Add/subtract within 1,000,000 5 Multi‐digit multiplication 6 Multi‐digit division Multi‐digit decimal operations 7 8 Solve simple 22 systems by inspection

Shift #4 Deep Understanding

Cognitively-Guided Instruction Process
Start the study of a new concept with a rich problem or hypothesis Invite your students to engage in the problem Communicate multiple representations of solutions Questions, justify, and critique thinking Use your understanding of student thinking to guide further instruction

Grade 8

Domains for K-8 Say, “This table is from the Ohio Department of Education. It includes the domains for K–8; in addition, it has the conceptual categories for high school. This table is organized a bit differently from the one on the previous slide. Instead of just listing each domain, they’ve grouped related domains together. For each “colored row,” they identify how domains at the earlier grades progress and lead to domains at the middle and high school levels. The right side of the chart lists the five conceptual categories for high school: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability. If you select one conceptual category and move left along the row, you’ll find the domains at the middle and elementary school levels from which this concept builds.”

Mathematics/Standards for Mathematical Practice
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them Reason abstractly and quantitatively Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others Model with mathematics Use appropriate tools strategically Attend to precision Look for and make use of structure Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning 1.Analyze givens, constraints, relationships and goals

Viewing Mathematical Practices/Inside Mathematics
Choose one lesson and watch approximately 5-7 minutes of instruction using your rubric. Have a discussion on evidence of the mathematical practice. Practice 1 Practice 2 Practice 3 Practice 4 Practice 5 Practice 6 Practice 7 Practice 8 Say, “This video is from the website, Inside Mathematics, an initiative funded by the Noyce Foundation. The website includes demonstration lessons, tools and resources to support mathematics educators, and a professional learning community to encourage reflective practice.” “The video we are going to watch is not intended to be an exemplar. Instead, it is meant to provide us with a common context so that we can discuss evidence of student proficiency of the practice standards that we are exploring. As you’re watching the video, consider the questions on the slide.”

Shift #5 Application

As Felicia gets on the freeway to drive to her cousin's house, she notice that she is a little low on gas. There is a gas station at the exit she normally takes, and she wonders if she will have to get gas before then. She normally sets her cruise control at the speed limit of 70mph and the freeway portion of the drive takes about an hour and 15 minutes. Her car gets about 30 miles per gallon on the freeway, and gas costs $3.50 per gallon. Describe an estimate that Felicia might do in her head while driving to decide how many gallons of gas she needs to make it to the gas station at the other end. Assuming she makes it, how much does Felicia spend per mile on the freeway? Alignment 1: N-Q.1, N-Q.3

Modeling Identify the problem Formulate a model
Analyze and perform operations Interpret results Validate the conclusion Report on the conclusion

Shift #6 Dual Intensity

Resources PARCC Resources: http://parcconline.org
Progressions & Common Core Tools Illustrative Mathematics

Resources National Council of Supervisors of Math: Mathematics Assessment Project (MAP):

Recommended Professional Development
Grades K–2, Counting and Cardinality and Number and Operations in Base Grades K–5 Operations and Algebraic Thinking Grades 3–5 Number and Operations—Fractions Grades 6–7 Ratios and Proportional Reasoning Grade 8 Geometry

Practical strategies to support school and district leaders:
Supporting teachers in changing instruction to meet the requirements of the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Assessments Approaching evaluation from the broader perspective of selection, support, and evaluation of all educators Providing meaningful Teacher Evaluations even with limited time and resources

1587 Route 146 Rexford, NY Phone (518) Fax (518)

Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Susan Gendron Senior Fellow, International Center August 14, 2012"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback