1. March 2, 2011 Stan W. Heffner Associate Superintendent Center for Curriculum and Assessment Ohio Department of Education BFK ESC Progress Network So…Where Are We Now?

2. ► College and Career Ready? ► Model Curriculum ► Professional Development ► New Assessments The Latest Updates On: 2

3. ► College and Career Ready? ► Model Curriculum ► Professional Development ► New Assessments The Latest Updates On: 3

4. Ready for College and Career? OGT CCR OGTCCR 4

5. Ohio College Students Needing Remediation 5 Source: Ohio Board of Regents

6. ACT, “The Conditions of College & Career Readiness, Class of 2010: Ohio.” Are Ohio’s Students College Ready? 6

7. Are US Students College Ready? ACT, “A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness,” 2010, http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/FirstLook.pdf. 7

8. Are US Students College Ready? ACT, “A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness,” 2010, http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/FirstLook.pdf. 8

9. Are US Students College Ready? ACT, “A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness,” 2010, http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/FirstLook.pdf. 9

10. Are US Students College Ready? ACT, “A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness,” 2010, http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/FirstLook.pdf. 10

11. U.S. Performs Around the Average in Reading: 14 th /32 OECD Nations 11

12. U.S. Performs Below the Average in Mathematics: 25 th /32 OECD Nations 12

13. U.S. Improves in Science but Still Behind: Ranked 17th/25 OCED Nations 13

14. Our Best Students Lag Behind The mean scores of the top 5% of students in each of the study countries (PISA 2006) United States Korea Hong Kong 14

15. Common Core Adoption 15 *Maine and Washington have adopted the CCSS provisionally ** Minnesota adopted the CCSS in ELA only Source: PARCC consortia

16. Common Core Standards: Math  Greater emphasis on reasoning and problem solving  Teach content through the standards for mathematical practice 16

17. Common Core Standards: ELA  Shift in emphasis from fiction to nonfiction in reading and writing: GradeShare of Literary Content Share of Information Content 450% 845%55% 1230%70% Distribution of Literary and Informational Passages by Grade in the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework Based on Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 17

18. Coordination: K-12 and Higher Ed Meetings in 5 regions over 3 years YearNo. of Meetings Meeting Activities 20113Compare what is taught in H.S. and what colleges expect 20122Coordinate H.S. and Higher Ed expectations 20132Develop an articulated curriculum (grades 6-14) 18

19. ► College and Career Ready? ► Model Curriculum ► Professional Development ► New Assessments The Latest Updates On: 19

20. …the state board shall adopt a model curriculum to ensure that the academic content and skills are taught …the state board shall adopt a model curriculum… The model curriculum shall be aligned with the standards, to ensure that the academic content and skills specified for each grade level are taught to students, and shall demonstrate vertical articulation and emphasize coherence, focus, and rigor. ORC §3301.079(B) Why a Model Curriculum? 20

21. Model Curricula: March 2011 Aligned System of Assessments: 2014 Revised Academic Content Standards: June 2010 One piece of an integrated whole: 21 What?How? How Well?

22. Model Curriculum Template 22

23. Teacher Input Teacher Teams Regional Coordinator Lead Content Expert Lead Content Expert Lead Content Expert 23

24. Process of Involvement  Selected content experts for each area on :  Advisory groups  Writing groups  Content committees  1,892 teachers participated in writing the Instructional Strategies and Resources

25. Public Feedback  Online survey  All components of the model curriculum  Educators and non-educators across the state  November 2010- January 2011 25

26. Who Gave Feedback? Groups who provided feedback:

27. Public Feedback

31. What did we hear?  Desire for more Instructional Strategies and Resources  Broader coverage of all material  Wider variety of ways in which to teach the material  Greater specificity  Not yet comfortable with the online format, some are asking for:  Page numbers  Book format 31 Preliminary Feedback

32. Continuous Development Based on public input and feedback ODE is: Adjusting the drafts based on public response Making additions and updates Adding to the model curricula continuously

33. Model Curricula Units Available Elementary (K-8) Secondary (9-12) TOTAL English language arts 16434198 Mathematics 9355148 Science 8233115 Social studies 178140318 TOTAL 517262 779

34. 2010 2011 Review Committees Met June-September 2010 State Board to Adopt Model Curriculum March 2011 Public Input Solicited October 2010- January 2011 Public Feedback Integrated November 2010- January 2011 Final Draft Released February 2011 Regional Teacher Teams Met July-September 2010 Standards Adopted June 2010 Model Curriculum Timeline 34

35. Model Curriculum Collaboration? Advantages:  Cost-sharing  Collective expertise  Use existing resources that work well Possible Partners in Development:  Regional State Consortia  Learning Point Associates  Council of Chief State School Officers  Assessment Consortia 35

36. Other Potential Projects Linking E-Courses to “Common Core” Standards:  Sharing, collaborating and refining online learning programs and classes Developing English Proficiency Tests  Federally-funded opportunity for state consortia to develop tests aligned with Common Core English language arts standards  Greater emphasis on defining an English Language Learner and point of declassification 36

37. ► College and Career Ready? ► Model Curriculum ► Professional Development ► New Assessments The Latest Updates On: 37

38. Regional Next Steps  Meetings facilitated by 16 regional ESCs  Continue “Standards 101” presentations  Introduce “Model Curriculum 101” presentations  Webcasts/Webinars  LEA Implementation Plan and Tools (e.g., Standards Crosswalk) 38

39. Standards Rollout Timeline (Late October 2010- May 2011) EventResponsible PartyDATE Develop content for spring standards rollout  Webcast  Presentations  Implementation Plan ODE with partners October 2010 – January 2011 Make provisions for spring regional meetingsESCs November 2010 – February 2011 Training for facilitation of spring regional sessions  ESC representatives  Lead Content Experts ODE w/partners Kick Off Meeting April 8 Promotion of Spring Standards Rollout ODE and regional partners April-August 2011 Spring Standards Rollout MeetingsESCsMarch- May 2011 39 Regional Next Steps

40. ► College and Career Ready? ► Model Curriculum ► Professional Development ► New Assessments The Latest Updates On: 40

41. New Assessments aligned with the academic standards and model curriculum “The state board of education shall… develop achievement tests aligned with the academic standards and model curriculum for each of the subject areas and grade levels required by section 3301.0710 of the Revised Code.” OAC § 3301-13-01(C)(1) 41

42. OGT Passage College Ready Why Develop New Assessments? 42

43. ► K-8 Combine reading and writing into a single English language arts assessment Establish 3 performance levels (instead of 5) ► High School College Test Series of End of Course exams Senior Project Ohio’s New Assessments: HB1 43

44. Both Achieve & SMARTER Balanced consortia have: ► On-line testing ► Interim and summative components ► Item Types  Multiple choice  Extended response  Technology-enhanced  Performance assessments ► High school tests: End-of-course vs. End-of-year ► Rapid reporting system to inform instruction ► Teachers involved in developing and scoring tests Common Assessment Elements 44

45. SMARTER Balanced Chart (SBAC) Source: the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

46. Achieve Partnership (PARCC) Through-course ASSESSMENT4 Speaking Listening 25 % Through-course ASSESSMENT 1 ELA Math 50 % Through-course ASSESSMENT 2 ELA Math 90 % END OF YEAR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT 75 % Through-course ASSESSMENT 3 ELA Math PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments, model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials Summative assessment for accountability Required, but not used tor accountability English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 - 11 Source: the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

47. Comparison  Measure depth of understanding, research skills, and complex analysis  Given last 12 weeks of year  Scored within 2 weeks  Tasks for grades 3-8:1ELA, 1 math each year  Tasks for grades 9-11: accumulate up to 6 ELA, 6 math over three years  1-3 tasks that assess a few “keystone” standards/ topics  Given at three points during the school year, near the end of quarters  Results within 2 weeks  Computer-delivered PARCCSBAC Performance TasksThrough-Course Assessments Source: the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

48. Comparison  Includes 40-65 questions per content area  A computer adaptive assessment given during final weeks of the school year  Multiple item types, scored by computer  Re-take option, as locally determined  40-65 questions  Computer-based, with mixed item types; computer scored  Scores from focused assessments and end-of-year test will be combined for annual accountability score. PARCCSBAC End of Year Adaptive Assessment End of Year Comprehensive Assessment Source: the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS

49. Accurately Assessing All Learners Alternative Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) Three-state consortium based on belief that:  Cognitive deficits impact the ability to access and perform assessment tasks  Ideal modifications remove barriers without simplifying content  Appropriately modified assessments can accurately and fairly measure proficiency of students with disabilities who have persistently performed poorly Source: Stoica (2010) 49

50. AA-MAS project findings: ► Specific learning barrier patterns exist among low-achieving students with and without disabilities. ► Students who perform poorly may not have had the opportunity to learn grade level content. ► More research is needed for SBAC and PARCC consortia. Source: American Education Research Association (2010). 50 Accurately Assessing All Learners

51.  Field testing: 2012-2013  Standard setting: 2013-2014  New tests implemented: 2014-2015 Assessments 51

52. Implementation Timeline 52 20102011201420122013 State Board Adopts Model Curriculum March, 2011 State Board Adopts Standards June, 2010 Transition Complete Transition Complete ! June, 2014 Transition: Teacher development Teacher development Local curriculum revision Local curriculum revision Test development Test development 2011 - 2014

53. Preparation for Districts 53 2010-2011 Introduce new standards Participate in creating model curricula 2011-2012 Build awareness of new standards Introduce model curricula Conduct crosswalk activities Initiate formative instruction PD Begin using new standards in grades K-2 2012-2013 Introduce performance tasks and scoring rubrics Continue formative instruction PD Practice online formative assessments Introduce instructional improvement system 2013-2014 Integrate standards and curricula into district curricula and teachers’ course planning Integrate performance tasks in course activities Prepare for online testing Complete formative instruction PD

54. Questions?