1. The Common Core State Standards Focus for School Board Members NSBA webinar ♦ March 6, 2012 Center for Public Education Kentucky School Boards Association

2. Today’s presenters Patte Barth, NSBA’s Center for Public Education Roberta Stanley, NSBA’s federal relations Bill Scott, Kentucky School Boards Association Kerri Schelling, KSBA

3. 3 The Common Core Standards are intended to be: Aligned with college and work expectations 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. 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

5. 46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS adopted not adopted 5

6. CCSS vs NCLB

7. NSBA & CCSS supports NGA/CCSSO state-led process supports federal funding for research and/or help to states for developing assessments opposes federal mandates or coercion, eg. a condition for receiving Title 1 funds opposes a national test

8. What’s in the standards – English language arts Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Text complexity Writing Emphasis on argument/informative Writing about sources Speaking and Listening Inclusion of formal and informal talk Language Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

9. 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 Alignment with college and career readiness expectations SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

10. 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

11. What’s different? – Mathematics Modeling -- choosing and using mathematics and statistics to represent and analyze everyday situations to understand them better Eg., planning a table tennis tournament for 7 players with 4 tables and everyone plays each player SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

12. Pathways through high school mathematics SOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010 Algebra II Geometry Algebra I Math III Math II Math I pre-calculus, calculus, advanced statistics, discrete math, advanced quantitative reasoning, specific technical POS

13. 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 13

14. What’s in common? intended to assess higher order thinking at grades 3-8 and high school measure growth and proficiency computer-administered online to provide rapid feedback both summative assessments for accountability, and formative assessments to monitor students’ progress aligned resources, ie., model lessons, diagnostic tools, professional development 14

15. How do PARCC/SMARTER differ? PARCC is computer-delivered; SMARTER will be “computer adaptive” SMARTER is developing comprehensive high school assessment; PARCC is developing EOC high school assessments, including for two math pathways SMARTER is budgeted to translate assessments into 5 languages, one of which will be Spanish 15

16. Points of collaboration SMARTER & PARCC working to ensure comparability of scores developing protocols for Artificial Intelligent scoring examining interoperable technology infrastructure working toward same deadlines 16 SOURCE: Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, webinar April 4, 2011

17. 24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium participant non participant 17

18. 28 states are in the SMARTER consortium participant non participant 18

19. 46 states & DC are involved involved not involved 19

20. Next Generation Science Standards Collaboration of Achieve, NRC, AAAS, NSTA and 26 lead states “Internationally benchmarked” First draft to be released in 2012; 2 public reviews Intended to be adopted ‘in whole’ Carnegie Corp, Noyce Foundation & Dupont sponsors 20

21. What will be in the standards Science Practices: behaviors necessary to the work of scientists & engineers Cross-cutting concepts: the ‘big ideas’, eg., patterns, scale, cause & effect, etc. Disciplinary core ideas: physical sciences; life sciences, earth & space sciences; and engineering, technology & applications. SOURCE: Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.org 21

22. 26 lead states – Next Generation Science Standards participant non participant 22

23. 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 Els Through Technology Systems 23 SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.orgwww.k12center.org

24. The Common Core State Standards The challenges

25. ACT’s ‘first look’ at the common core standards English language arts Percent of 2009 11 th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010 25

26. ACT’s ‘first look’ Achievement gap - ELA Percent of 2009 11 th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 2010 26

27. 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 27 SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011

28. District needs Professional development for staff Aligned assessments & curriculum Aligned instructional materials Supports for students 28

29. The Common Core State Standards How states are preparing

30. State survey Most states say CCSS are more rigorous than their current standards Most states say full implementation will take at least until 2013 or beyond All are developing professional development materials & guides for districts SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

31. State survey (con’t) Most states have established partnerships between state education agency and higher ed Half are aligning undergraduate admissions policies with CCSS SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

32. School district challenges Almost 3/5 of districts in CCSS states view CCSS as more rigorous 2/3 are developing plans and timelines 3/4 view adequate funding as a major challenge 2/3 say they are getting inadequate guidance from state Few see teacher/principal resistance as a major challenge although 3/5 see it as a minor one SOURCE: Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation, Center on Education Policy, September 2011

33. The Common Core State Standards The federal view

34. Federal Policy and CCSS Race to the Top One of four reform areas: standards & assessments. 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. 11 states and DC received RTTT funds (I and II), 9 more states eligible for phase III.

35. Federal Policy and CCSS NCLB waivers ED announced waivers 9-23-2011. 10 broad areas of flexibility include: waive 2014 deadline of 100% proficiency; waive identification of schools for improvement; free up 20% set-aside for choice and tutoring, 10% for professional development, etc. In exchange for four reform principles, include: develop and implement rigorous college- & career-ready standards & assessments in reading & math. Adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to new standards and assessments. Flexibility through 2013-2014 school year, can apply for extension.

36. Federal Policy and CCSS College- and career- ready standards must be: Standards that are common to a significant number of states (states can supplement up to 15% with additional standards for a content area); or Standards that are 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.

37.  Passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009 propelled Kentucky into a new era in public education  Mutual accountability for K-12 and post secondary systems  Preparing all students for life after high school… ◦ college and career readiness for all. 37

38.  New academic standards  New assessments  Program reviews  Improved professional development  New accountability system  Unified plan for improving college/career readiness 38 Senate Bill 1 (2009)

39. 90% of fastest growing jobs require at least two (2) years of education beyond high school. 80% of all jobs require some training beyond high school. Nation’s colleges need to increase number of degrees by 10% per year to meet demand. Kentucky = 5,200 more graduates per year 39

40. High School Graduation Rate = 76% 38 % of Kentucky’s 2011 high school graduates were College or Career Ready High remediation rate = fewer college degrees 40

41. Added cost with no credits Adds time/expense to college education Result: more likely to leave w/o diploma College freshmen requiring remedial reading have 17% chance of attaining degree in 8 years 41

42. 42 College Ready Criteria ACT (11 th Grade)  English – 18  Mathematics – 19  Reading – 20 COMPASS (12 th Grade) KYOTE (12 th Grade) Must meet one of the following requirements to be considered College Ready:

43. 43 College Readiness System ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks* are early indicators of likely college success based on student EXPLORE, PLAN, or ACT scores. TestContent Area EXPLORE 8th PLAN 10th ACT 11th English 131518 MathAlgebra1719 ReadingSocial Sciences151720 ScienceBiology202124 * Reflects the minimum score needed on an ACT subject area test to indicate a 50% chance of obtaining a “B” or better or a 75% chance of obtaining a “C” or better in the corresponding credit-bearing college course.

44. 44 Academic: a)Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) b)ACT Work Keys (applied math, locating information and reading for information) Technical: a)Kentucky Occupational Skills Standards Assessment (KOSSA) b)Industry certificates Career Ready Criteria Must meet one benchmark for academic area and one for technical area.

45. 1. Course/Assessment Alignment with Standards 2. Transitional Interventions 3.Acceleration o Advance KY o Project Lead the Way 4. Persistence to Graduation –- Collection and Use of Data 5.Academic and Career Advising 6.Career Readiness Definition/Pathways 7.Innovative Routes To Graduation 8. District 180/Turnaround Low Performing Schools 9. New Accountability Model 45

46.  10 years of research by Iowa Association of School Boards and NSBA  Do school boards make a difference in student achievement?  What are the specific board roles that impact student achievement?

47.  Set clear and high expectations  Create the conditions for success  Hold the system accountable  Create the public will to succeed  Learn as a board team

48.  Embrace the new standards! − Clearer and more rigorous − Focused on specific knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary success  How much does your board know about new standards?

49.  Support high quality professional development − Do teachers have sufficient time and support to learn new standards? − What can the board do to support this effort?

50. Monitor district’s progress toward successful implementation of the new standards  What is the district doing to prepare?  What kind of reports does the board receive?

51.  Help public understand significance of new standards  Engage local media in your efforts

52.  Include relevant topics on board agendas & work sessions  Use multiple sources of information ⁻ Kentucky Department of Education ₋ Kentucky Educational Television ₋ Prichard Committee – “Ready Kentucky”

53.  Partnerships with state agencies and organizations (accurate/timely/consistent information)  Whole board training modules  Statewide training opportunities  Facilitation of community discussions

54. Bill Scott, executive director Bill.scott@ksba.org Kerri Schelling, director, board team development Kerri.schelling@ksba.org Kentucky School Boards Association www.ksba.org

55. Learn more NSBA resources Race to the Top www.nsba.org/economicstimulus NCLB waivers Conference calls, weekly highlights, Webinar www.nsba.org/advocacy kbranch@nsab.org U.S. Department of Education Website http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

56. Watch this space www.centerforpubliceducation.org or contact Patte Barth, pbarth@nsba.org