Presentation on theme: "ADP Network Webinar December 1 & 2, 2011. State Collaboration to Produce and Pool Quality Instructional Materials 2 Tri-State Consortium (MA, NY, RI)"— Presentation transcript:
ADP Network Webinar December 1 & 2, 2011
State Collaboration to Produce and Pool Quality Instructional Materials 2 Tri-State Consortium (MA, NY, RI) April, September, and October 2011 meetings States have very different and strong opinions of what comprises an “instructional unit”; rubrics must be constructed to show quality regardless of how the units are arranged. States are piloting the rubrics by evaluating previously-developed units. Protocols for calibration will be developed. Each state has committed to bring teams of 3-4 members outside of the SEA to quarterly meetings to review samples of units developed by each state. States will be able to pool their respective instructional units with assurances of high quality – a tremendous service to teachers. This will also provide each state with a group of individuals who are able to certify instructional materials as quality.
Lessons Learned 3 States are on very different timelines and have differing priorities and requirements when in comes to developing instructional materials. Quality review can be done regardless of how each state defines the components of a unit. Rather, it is done based on key priorities of quality as opposed to a checklist of various components. It is a better use of states’ collective efforts to develop a rubric and protocols to collectively review the quality of materials developed by each individual state or their contractors.
Other Achieve work to Evaluate Quality of Educational Resources 4 To help states, districts, teachers, and other users align resources to the CCSS and determine the quality of electronic resources (e.g., applets, lessons, practice problems, units, online textbooks, support materials), Achieve created a series of evaluation rubrics. The rubrics can be applied across content areas; at this point the CCSS for English/Language Arts and Mathematics are available in the tool. Achieve worked with the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME) to create an online tool that allows the rater to identify, evaluate, and sort objects based on quality. OER Commons is now hosting the tool and its resulting evaluation data on (www.oercommons.org). ISKME is also providing technical support to other organizations who would like to use the rubrics for resources found outside of OER Commons, ensuring a rich dataset of Common Core aligned content across the Web.www.oercommons.org More information is available at
Common Core Implementation Analysis
Analysis of CCSS Implementation in 19 States 6 Arkansas (AR)Maine (ME) Colorado (CO)Massachusetts (MA)* District of Columbia (DC)*Maryland (MD)* Delaware (DE)*New Jersey (NJ) Florida (FL)*New York (NY)* Georgia (GA)*North Carolina (NC)* Hawaii (HI)*Ohio (OH)* Indiana (IN)Rhode Island (RI)* Kentucky (KY)Tennessee (TN)* Louisiana (LA)Total: 19 states reviewed *Race to the Top Winner
7 States are clamoring to see what their peers are creating—either because they don’t want to reinvent the wheel, or because they seek exemplary work they can adapt. Examples: Rubrics to ensure alignment of instructional materials Webinars introducing the new assessments Some states will reach across state lines for assistance, but many expect Achieve and/or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) to facilitate this document sharing. The desire to see, use, and share state materials* States voice a need to create urgency around the standards, raise awareness among parents and stakeholders, and convince teachers that the standards really do represent new expectations. Many states—including those with histories of college- and career-ready reforms—call for a national marketing campaign that could begin in 2012 to lay the groundwork for full implementation in The desire for a national marketing or advocacy campaign Two Needs Surfaced Across the 19 States
Monitoring of CCSS Implementation 8 States are taking various approaches to monitoring how their districts are implementing CCSS. States that are relying only on surveys sent to attendees of professional development sessions States that have created or will create processes or tools to gauge how districts are executing the CCSS States that currently are not monitoring their districts for fidelity of CCSS implementation, or they have not yet developed plans to do so even if they want to have this feedback loop
Educator Engagement 9 Nearly every state said teachers, principals, or content specialists are involved in some way in CCSS implementation. The most common ways of engaging educators are: Serving on committees or panels in English or math to conduct gap analyses, review the standards, crosswalk current standards with CCSS, etc. Writing curriculum, model instructional units, sample lesson plans, etc. Leading professional development sessions as master teachers Serving on school-based leadership teams to attend professional development sessions about the CCSS, then returning to their school to train other teachers Piloting assessment items, formative assessments, and instructional materials Videotaping exemplary lessons modeled by teachers
Professional Development 10 All 19 states had plans or are developing plans for professional development, including training activities or materials intended to inform educators about the CCSS and how they compare to and contrast with the state’s current standards. Most of the activities are a mix of online and face-to-face trainings, “train the trainer” sessions, or regional forums.
Curriculum and Instructional Materials
12 Most states have plans or are developing plans to change curriculum and instructional materials to align to the CCSS. States that currently have neither a plan nor one in development States that are changing or have developed plans to change curriculum and instructional materials States that are in the process of developing plans, or will rely on PARCC for materials
Curriculum and Instructional Materials 13 There are many nuances to how states are developing curriculum and instructional materials. For example: Full curriculum Model instructional units with or without lesson plans Curriculum maps Lesson study Guidance
Rubrics for Instructional Materials 14 States are taking mixed approaches in terms of helping districts choose instructional materials that are aligned to CCSS. States that currently do not have a rubric that schools and districts can use to determine whether instructional materials are aligned with the CCSS States that do have a rubric or process Seven are using state- developed rubrics or are vetting materials at the state level. Two are using rubrics from the Council of Chief State School Officers or vendors under contract. One is urging districts to use its CCSS-aligned curriculum frameworks as the rubric.
16 Many—but not all—states see the need for partnerships with other states as they move forward with CCSS implementation. Overall, some trends in state partnerships emerged: Background materials Aligned instructional materials and rubrics to determine alignment Implementation plan and checklist Cross-state sharing and more multi-state convenings Help with legislative issues
18 States identified many common challenges as they implement CCSS: Staff capacity Connections with other reforms Engagement of higher education Engagement of business/industry Awareness and urgency
20 Laura Slover Senior Vice President PARCC Stephen Pruitt Vice President Content, Research & Development Alissa Peltzman Director State Leadership & Policy Development