1. Title III Accountability Leadership Institute
Transitioning to the CCSS: Key Shifts in English Language Arts and English Language Development
Title III Accountability Leadership Institute
Santa Clara, CA December 3, 2012
Tom Adams, Director
Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Resources Division
Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, Director English Learner Support Division
Barbara Murchison, Education Programs Consultant Common Core Systems Implementation Office

2. Common Core State Standards Implementation: Critical Dates
The SBE adopted the CCSS in 2010
The SBE adopted the ELD Standards in November, 2012
New assessments scheduled for Spring 2015
Next likely SBE adoption of materials in 2014 (Mathematics) and 2016 (ELA)
Since the adoption of the CCSS for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects in August, 2010, California has followed an interesting road of implementation.
Ultimately, our goal to prepare teachers, schools, districts, and communities in their instruction of students as they prepare to be career- and college-ready at the end of their K-12 experience.
The new ELA/ELD Framework is a one resource, along with instructional materials and professional learning support, critical to help prepare the field for the new assessments.

3. Common Core State Standards: Major Shifts
The vast majority of states have voluntarily signed on to these fewer, clearer, higher” standards
Several major shifts in the standards that have big implications for ELs:
Increased emphasis on informational text,
specification of literacy skills in history/social studies, science, and technology
Much greater emphasis on text complexity [scaffolding systematically removed].
Huge emphasis on arguing from evidence [Not just personal experience]. This seen in all subject areas.

4. General Purpose of Frameworks
Provide support for teachers and guidelines for educational programs
Guidance to school districts in the development of local curriculum.
Direction to publishers for the development of instructional materials
Guidelines for local selection of instructional resources (Grades 9-12)
Reflect current and confirmed research
Guidance for teacher professional development programs, in-service, pre-service and teacher licensing standards
Frameworks serve several purposes :
One purpose is to provide support for teachers and administrators as you develop your local educational programs and deliver the curriculum.
Another key purpose is to give direction to publishers as they develop instructional materials for state adoption for grades K-8.
This is done through the criteria for the evaluation of instructional materials included in each framework for which there is a statewide instructional materials adoption.

5. Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Materials, K-8
Frameworks contain the criteria for the evaluation of instructional resources grades K-8, pursuant to Education Code sections
Criteria must be adopted at least thirty months prior to when the Board is scheduled to take action on an adoption.
The evaluation criteria give direction to publishers for the development of instructional materials and are used to evaluate the materials submitted for adoption.
The Framework includes the criteria for evaluating instructional materials.
The evaluation criteria must be adopted at least 30 months prior to the adoption of instructional materials (unless legislation allows for a shorter time period).
This allows publishers time to develop instructional materials that will meet the evaluation criteria.
Today, I am going to focus on the ELA/ELD Framework that will support the implementation of the new CCSS for ELA and the new ELD standards.

6. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework
Development Process
This chart shows the major steps of the curriculum framework development process.
All meetings are open to the public.
1. Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) Appointed by State Board of Education (SBE)
March 2012
2. Meetings of Four Focus Groups (Educators Appointed by SSPI) Held to Solicit Input on New Framework
May/June 2012
3. SBE Appoints Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (CFCC)
November 2012
4. CFCC Meets 6 Times to Draft Framework
February–July 2013
5. Draft Framework Presented to IQC
September 2013
6. IQC Conducts 60-Day Field Review; Draft Framework Posted on Internet
October/November 2013
7. IQC's ELA/ELD Subject Matter Committee Meets; Suggests Edits to Draft Framework
December 2013
8. IQC Meets; Recommends Draft Framework to SBE
January 2014
9. Recommended Framework Posted on Internet for 60-Day Public Review
February/March 2014
10. SBE Meets; Acts on IQC's Recommendation to Adopt Framework
May 2014
11. Framework Posted on Internet; Print Edition Published
2015

7. Beginning Steps
SBE appointed members to the Instructional Quality Review Commission in March 2012
SBE approved the timeline for revision of the ELA/ELD Framework in May 2012
Before the revision of the 2014 English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework could begin, there were a number of critical steps that had to happen.
First, in order for the process to proceed, the Instructional Quality Review Commission (formerly known as the Curriculum Commission) was reorganized, funded, and new members were appointed in March (The link on the slide will direct you to the current members, meeting agendas, and recent actions.)
In May, the SBE approved the timeline for the revision of framework (see link).

8. 8 8

9. Focus Group Meetings
Purpose is to gather input on revision of framework (CCR Title 5 requirement)
Four meetings, open to the public, held May-June 2012
All focus group members current educators
Focus Group Report used to develop guidelines for work of the framework committee
Before a revised framework could be developed, direction was needed.
The Focus Group meetings are critical opportunities to receive input and suggestions from educators and public stakeholders from around the state.
Begin in mid-May through early June, four focus group meetings were held throughout the state. As each location, about 15 educators were appointed by the Superintendent to participate in the guided conversation. All meetings were open for public input, and written comments were also encouraged.
All the input received was collated into a Focus Group Report. The report included written and oral comments, as well as some of the identified research and resources related to the CCSS for ELA, English language development, and best teaching practices.

10. Guidelines for 2014 Revision of the ELA/ELD Framework
Based on input from the focus group meetings, written comments received, and statutory requirements
Reviewed and recommended by the IQC in September, and approved by the SBE in November
ELA/ELD CFCC members will develop framework based on the CFCC Guidelines
Based on the focus group report, written comments, and relevant statutory requirement, the draft “CFCC Guidelines for the Revision of the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework” was developed.
Over the summer, members of the ELA/ELD Subject Matter Committee (a subgroup of the IQC) held informational meetings and finalized the draft guidelines.
In September, the ELA/ELD SMC and IQC met, made some additional edits, and forwarded a final draft of the guidelines to the SBE for consideration.
On November 7, 2012, the SBE approved the guidelines as presented.

12. The Language Demands of the Common Core
“Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and evaluate complex texts across a range of types and disciplines…can construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information. Likewise, students are able independently to discern a speaker’s key points, request clarification, and ask relevant questions. They build on others’ ideas, articulate their own ideas, and confirm they have been understood.”
(CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, p. 7)

13. The Language Demands of the Common Core
“Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures…They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others.”
(CCSS for Mathematics, p. 6)

14. Language uses also key in creating new science standards1.
Among essential science practices:
Constructing explanations and designing solutions
Engaging in argument from evidence
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
K-12 Science Framework (NRC, 2012, pp. 45, 49)

15. Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee
Over 125 applications received between June-August
20 members appointed by SBE in November
Teachers: 4 Elementary teachers, 4 middle school teachers; 5 high school teachers
Others: 5 county educators, 1 university professor, 1 self-employed consultant
During the same time that the guidelines were being finalized, the CDE was soliciting for members to serve on the CFCC.
Currently regulations call for the CFCC to be composed of between 9-20 members, with a majority of those members still in the classroom.
In addition, at least one of the members must have expertise working with English learners and one with students with special needs. Also, the appointments must include a content expert in reading/language arts.
As you can see from the slide, over 125 applications were received, and the IQC recommended, and the SBE approved, the appointment of 20 members. Almost all of the members have English learner experience, a high number have experience working with students with special needs, and a high percentage were considered content experts.

16. Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee
Co-Chairs: Becky Sullivan and Martha Hernandez
Writers: Nancy Brynelson and Hallie Yopp Slowick, with assistance from Pam Spycher
Six 2-day public meetings scheduled between February and July 2013
Two of the members were also appointed to serve as Co-Chairs. The rationale for co-chairs is to provide leadership for both ELA content and ELD content and support for the work of the CFCC.
Two writers have been working over the past 4-5 months gathering research, crafting the framework outline, and writing draft chapters – Nancy Brynelson and Hallie Yopp Slowick from the Center for the Advancement of Reading. And recently, we were able to add the expertise of Pam Spycher from WestEd, one of the primary writers of the new ELD standards that were adopted in November.
The CFCC is scheduled to meet from February through July, 2013

17. Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee
Meeting Dates in 2013
February 28-March 1
March 27-28
April 25-26
May 30-31
June 27-28
July 25-26
All meetings held at the CDE Office in Sacramento

18. CCSS Implementation: 2011 Legislation
Assembly Bill 124 Chapter 605, Statutes of 2011: ELD Standards
Assembly Bill 250 Chapter 608, Statutes of 2011: ELA/ELD Framework
Senate Bill 140 Chapter 140, Statues of 2011: Bridging Materials
Over the past two years, Governor Brown signed several important pieces of legislation that have impacted the CCSS implementation.
We’ll spend just a couple of minutes reviewing these bills.

19. AB 124 (Fuentes): Adoption of New ELD Standards
Established the English Language Development Standards Advisory Committee to update, revise and align the English Language Development (ELD) standards with the Common Core State Standards
Committee included teachers and administrators with expertise in instructing English learners
The SBE adopted the new ELD standards on November 7, 2012

20. New ELD Standards Adopted on November 7, 2012, by the SBE
Aligned to the CCSS and designed to help English learners build critical knowledge and skills
Describe key knowledge, skills, and abilities in core areas of English language development

21. CA ELD Standards: Purpose
Align with California’s Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (Common Core State Standards)
Highlight and amplify key language knowledge, skills, and abilities in the Common Core State Standards critical for ELs to succeed in school while they are developing English
The purpose of the ELD standards in the current context of Common Core is to align with these standards so that they highlight and amplify the key language (read from slide). To this end, Correspondence with in English Common Core in Language arts is strong and consistent.

22. CA ELD Standards: Purpose
Provide opportunities for ELs to access, engage with, and achieve in grade-level academic content while they are learning English
Use in tandem with the Common Core State Standards and not in isolation
Strengthen English Language Development in light of next-generation content standards
Use comment w/ 2nd point: AS to Level of Rigor: Level of rigor is high and many in the filed who have heard from support the concept and intent that ELD is an expected part of English language arts regardless of the number of students in a classroom that are English learners. This represents a shift in determining who is responsible for teaching Els, that is all teachers are now responsible and these standards provide clear indicators of how schools can achieve the goal of ensuring appropriate instruction for both ELD and Content for their Els. However this leads to a discussion on the shifts between the previous ELD standards and the ones before you today.

23. Key Shifts in the 2012 CA ELD Standards
FROM A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF…
TO UNDERSTANDING…
Language acquisition as an individual and lock-step linear process 
Language acquisition as a non-linear, spiraling, dynamic, and complex social process
Language development focused on accuracy and grammatical correctness
Language development focused on collaboration, comprehension, and communication with strategic scaffolding to guide appropriate linguistic choices
Use of simplified texts and activities, often separate from content knowledge
Use of complex texts and intellectually challenging activities with content integral to language learning
The First Shift addresses the shift in how language acquisition is conceptualized in the 2012 standards. It also addresses the shift to 3 proficiency level descriptors and to the spiraling nature of the ELD standards. Example: Students don’t learn the present tense, then the past tense, then the future tense, etc… we learn language based on the context in which we need to use it and the related skills. As a traveler we can learn basic communication phrases in taking a trip to Japan or Spain, however in K-12 settings we learn language via the types of conversations and texts we need to engage in as part of learning (e.g., text book, magazines, videos on the plant cycle). In each of these cases the tense and grammar may vary, and ELS cannot be expected to “wait to learn that tense” or “form” prior to being exposed to it.
The 2nd shift addresses the shift from focusing primarily on accuracy to focusing on primarily meaning and also on form. In the example above, a beginning EL who watched a video on the plant cycle may now need to work with another student to outline or draw the key concepts derived from this video, a teacher may provide a graphic organizer for the student to demonstrate the “steps”. While this is Science, it is also Language Arts in that the student is then to use this information to write a short description. This clearly demonstrates how an EL teacher may draw from what the Science lesson is and in turn how the science lesson may reflect language. The organizing tool can be used in one setting to demonstrate “understanding of content” and the other to provide “direction on writing a summary”. Thus, Students learn language by interacting in meaningful ways around intellectually challenging content (having collaborative discussions, interpreting texts, arguing for a position, etc.). In addition, teachers can make strategic choices about teaching their students how the language in these situations (e.g., an argument) is structured. This is how the ELD standards focus on both meaning and form.
#3 addresses a shift in how cognitive challenge and content are conceptualized in the 2012 ELD Standards. The cognitive challenge is consistent from emerging levels through bridging levels with the level of scaffolding adjusted depending on student need. For example, students at all levels of proficiency can participate in a collaborative discussion around the plant cycle. Students at emerging levels will likely need more support, such as the graphic organizer mentioned or sentence frames, than bridging students in order to fully participate an demonstrate understanding along with use of language in context. This shift reflects the movement from ELD to teach “grammar ” in isolation of content and for the content teacher to teach content in isolation of language. Both teachers work from the “content” (e.g., Science/ EL) to meaning making.
(Adapted from Walqui, 2012)

24. Key Shifts (continued)
FROM A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF…
TO UNDERSTANDING…
English as a set of rules 
English as a meaning-making resource with different language choices based on audience, task, and purpose
A traditional notion of grammar with syntax and discrete skills at the center
An expanded notion of grammar with discourse, text structure, syntax, and vocabulary addressed within meaningful contexts
Literacy foundational skills as one-size-fits-all, neglecting linguistic resources
Literacy foundational skills targeting varying profiles of ELs, tapping linguistic resources and responding to specific needs
#1 address the shift in how the 2012 CA ELD Standards views the teaching of English to EL students. This is a broader vision of language. We’re moving from focusing on rules to focusing on using language for meaningful purposes.
#1 and 2 also shows the shift from traditional, rules-based grammar (subject, predicate; identifying parts of speech), and syntax (sentence structure) which has its limits, to a focus on showing students the linguistic choices they have in making meaning (e.g., form, register, vocabulary). We’re not throwing out traditional grammatical terms, which are an important tool (metalanguage). But we want to open it up for students to be able to choose words and use grammar for meaning beyond the “knowing” of a verb, a noun, adjectives, to go beyond “knowing” “identifying” but using in context.
For example -- After viewing a film on plants growing a student might state: Sunshine and water help plants grow; OR the film illustrated how plants receive nutrients from the sun, the earth and water. In the same day a student is exposed to both “present tense” in responding to a question; to past tense in describing what happened”. Therefore, learning in a discrete manner does not engage all the “language experience” that happens in one school day.
#3 addresses how we’re taking a nuanced and student-centered approach to foundational literacy skills, which is more respectful of students and teachers and also grounded in research as all of the standards.
(Adapted from Walqui, 2012)

25. SB 140 (Lowenthal): Supplemental Instructional Materials Review
Supplemental Instructional Materials will bridge the gap between the content in the current materials being used schools and the CCSS
Materials will work with either adopted materials or other materials being used in district
The first round of supplemental materials approved November 7, 2012, by the SBE (list of approved programs at 25

26. Assembly Bill 250 (Brownley): Implementing CCSS
Starts process for the development and adoption of curriculum frameworks aligned to the CCSS
Integrates new ELD standards in the ELA Framework
Extends the operative date of the state’s assessment system by one year
Creates professional learning modules

27. CCSS Implementation: 2012 Legislation
Senate Bill 1200 Chapter 654, Statutes of 2012: Standards
Assembly Bill 1246 Chapter 668, Statutes of 2012: Math Instructional Materials
Senate Bill 1719 Chapter 636, Statues of 2012: ELD Materials

28. SB 1200 (Hancock): Review and Modification of the CCSS
Adopt the College and Career Readiness Anchor standards and resolve technical edits to the CCSS for ELA
Recommend modifications to the California additions to the CCSS for Mathematics (includes deletion of Grade 8 Algebra course)
Convene a group of science experts to develop and recommend content standards before July 31, 2013, for adoption by the SBE before November 30, 2013
To help with the implementation of the CCSS, some issues needed additional clarification.
One major concern was the inclusion of an Eighth Grade Algebra class unique to California. SB 1200 outlined the specifics of the modifications:
Maintain rigor so students graduate prepared for college and careers,
One set of standards adopted at each grade level
Standards for Algebra I based on the CCSS and redundant standards are eliminated
The bill also allowed the addition of the CCR anchor standards to ELA. And, in science, the Next Generation of Science Standards are being finalized by a collaboration of 25+ states (including California) that are due for release next year and will need to be reviewed by California for adoption. 28

29. AB 1246 (Brownley): Accelerate Process to Adopt Mathematical Instructional Materials
Allows districts flexibility to purchase instructional materials not on state-adopted list – materials must be reviewed by districts and deemed aligned to content standards and are sufficient
For mathematics – adopt instructional material evaluation criteria no later than March 31, 2013; adopt instructional materials for K–8 no later than March 30, 2014
The different funding streams for districts and LEAs is very complicated. In 2009 there were some major changes, some that added flexibility to the what funds district could use for instructional materials. In the past, districts could only purchase state-adopted instructional materials with their state Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Funds (IMFRP). But with flexibility, IMFRP funds could be placed in the general fund for other educational purposes.
AB 1246 still requires districts ensure that there are sufficient instructional materials for all students (often referred to as meeting the Williams Requirement) but the materials do not have to be SBE-adopted. Materials must be standards-aligned – determined and adopted by the local school board.
To help expedite and get instructional materials into the classroom, SBE would adopt instructional materials designed to meet the CCSS for math by March 30, To help offset the cost, the adoption would be funded by publisher fees.

30. AB 1719 (Fuentes): Supplemental Instruction Materials Review
Develop a list of SBE-approved supplemental instructional materials for English learners, aligned with the new ELD standards, by June 30, 2014
Develop a list of SBE-approved supplemental instructional materials for K–7, aligned with the CCSS for mathematics, by July 30, 2013
As noted previously, the SBE just adopted new ELD standards aligned with the CCSS in November. And, as also noted, new CCSS-aligned instructional materials in ELA are not scheduled for adoption until So, much like the supplemental instructional review started last year for ELA and Math, there is a need for supplemental instructional material for English learners based on the new ELD standards. AB 1719 requires CDE to develop a list of materials by March 1, 2014, and the SBE to approve (or reject) the materials by June 30, 2014.
In conjunction with the review conducted last year, in which supplemental materials aligned to the CCSSM developed by publishers of the currently adopted mathematics programs were reviewed, this process would add general supplemental materials that could be used with any currently adopted mathematics program in grades K–7 by July 7, 2013.

31. CCSS ListServ To join the CCSS Resources Updates:
Join the ListServs to receive information and updates regarding the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the SBAC Assessment
To join the CCSS Resources Updates:
Send a "blank" message to:
To join the SBAC/Assessment Updates: 31

32. Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, Director
Questions?
Tom Adams, Director
Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Resources Division
Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, Director
English Learner Support Division
Barbara Murchison, Education Program Consultant Common Core Systems Implementation Office 32