1. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OCTOBER 28, 2010 Common Core State Standards

2. Recently in State initiatives Category October 20, 2010 Common-Standards Watch: New Mexico Makes 40 Welcome back, common-standards devotees! New Mexico becomes the 40th state to adopt the new learning goals.common-standards The state's secretary of education, Susanna Murphy, has approved the math and English/language arts standards, and they were filed yesterday, according to the secretary's chief of staff, Lori Bachman. (There is no state board in New Mexico; standards adoption there is the province of the schools chief.)Susanna Murphy Based on feedback from a public-comment period, however, the secretary decided to delay implementation one year, to 2012. The comments showed concern that the state needed that extra year to prepare for changes in assessment, instructional materials, and professional development reflecting the new standards, Bachman said. So with New Mexico's move, this is how our standards map looks today:

3. Common Core State Standards Alabama Delaware Hawaii Iowa Kentucky Michigan Montana New Hampshire New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania New Jersey North Carolina Ohio Oregon South Carolina Utah Washington Wisconsin South Dakota Connecticut Georgia Idaho Kansas Maine Missouri Nevada Vermont West Virginia Colorado

4. Common Core State Standards State Board request from August 2010 Retreat ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Ask the field if the CCSS are right for Oregon 2. Conduct a match/gap analysis of the CCSS and Oregon math standards

5. Common Core State Standards Today’s Information: Common Core State Standards survey results Observational analysis of English language arts standards Match/gap analysis of mathematics standards  Methodology  Findings Implementation considerations Draft implementation plan and timeline

6. Common Core State Standards: Survey 1. Do the CCSS for [English language arts or mathematics] more clearly communicate student learning expectations than Oregon’s current standards? 2. Do you believe the learning expectations for the [English language arts or mathematics] CCSS contain the appropriate amount of rigor for each grade span (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, HS)? Why or why not? 3. Do you believe the [English language arts or mathematics] CCSS are “college ready” standards (will eliminate the need for students to take remediation courses their first year in college)? Why or why not? 4. Do you believe the [English language arts or mathematics] CCSS are “career ready” standards (will prepare students with the knowledge and skills needed for entry level positions and apprenticeships in the workplace)? Why or why not? 5. Do you believe the State Board of Education should adopt the [English language arts or mathematics] Common Core State Standards to replace Oregon’s current [English language arts or mathematics] standards?

7. Breakdown of Respondents: Number of respondents: 446 K-12 teacher- 185 (42.9%) K-12 administrator (principal, superintendent, curriculum director) - 196 (45.5%) Community college or university faculty- 10 (2.3%) Community college or university administration- 9 (2.1%) Education Service District (ESD) personnel-13 (3%) Student- 0 Parent of school-age children- 7 (1.6%) Community member- 2 (0.5%) Business representative- 1 (.2%) Other- 8 (1.9%) Common Core State Standards: Survey

8. Question 5: Do you believe the State Board of Education should adopt the English language arts Common Core State Standards to replace Oregon’s current English language arts standards?

9. Common Core State Standards: Survey English language arts standards Yes = 116 (79.5%) No = 30 (20.5%)

10. Common Core State Standards: Survey Question 5: Do you believe the State Board of Education should adopt the mathematics Common Core State Standards to replace Oregon’s current mathematics standards?

11. Common Core State Standards : Survey Mathematics standards Yes = 109 (63.7%) No = 62 (36.3%)

12. Common Core State Standards: English Language Arts English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects____________________________ Compared to Oregon standards  Similarities  New Features  Differences

13. Similarities WHY: Achieve helped Oregon write its ELA standards in 2000-02. WHAT: Foundational Reading Standards, K-3 Conventions and Usage, K-5 Emphasis on applying higher–level thinking skills to informational text and literature with emphasis on informational text. Aligned to earlier NAEP Frameworks for Reading and Writing

14. New Features 11/12 Standards Alignment to NAEP Reading 2009 & Writing 2011 Literacy standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards that are the backbone to the CCSS Measures of text complexity Integrated model of literacy Extensive Resources: exemplars of grade-level text, sets of scored writing samples in all subjects Use of technology K-12

15. Differences Reading—Focus on vocabulary & comprehension in every class. Writing—Write on-demand and over several days; use technology; summarize well; focus on research; practice argument and informational writing especially in high school. Speaking & Listening—Practice purposeful academic talk and discussion. Language—Conventions and vocabulary apply to Reading, Writing, and Speaking & Listening.

16. Common Core State Standards: Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis (Crosswalk between the CCSS and Oregon’s standards)

17. Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis What was done  Standard-by-standard comparison of the CCSS and Oregon’s mathematics standards Why it was done  To identify what content is the same among the CCSS and Oregon’s mathematics standards  To identify unmatched standards in the CCSS  Potentially new content  Newly organized content  To identify differences among grade bands (determine patterns)  To identify content that has shifted progression (moved to a different grade level)

18. Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis How it was done  Two independent analyses conducted 1. ODE and Salem-Keizer math specialists 2. State-wide panel of university faculty, district staff, and classroom teachers Over 110 educators nominated; ODE selected 48 for the panel (12 teams of 4) Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center (NWRCC) assisted in planning and facilitation of this work  Validation work conducted  Validated the match/gap process  Examined agreement between Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 to strengthen final results

19. Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis Scope of work  206 Oregon K- high school standards and 168 Advanced Knowledge & Skills were compared to 344 CCSS K-high school standards and 43 advanced standards (HS+)  Combined total of 761 mathematics standards were analyzed Presentation of initial findings  Focused on grade level changes in content  Used weighted averages to identify “big picture” patterns across grade levels  Reported data from perspective of CCSS grade levels

20. Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis CCSS Grade level % of content that stayed at the SAME grade % of content that moved from a LOWER grade % of content that moved from a HIGHER grade % of content NOT MATCHED in CCSS e.g. OR 5 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 3 rd /4 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 6 th /7 th → CCSS 5 th K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS (non +) HS + (AK&S)

21. Mathematics Match/Gap Analysis CCSS Grade level % of content that stayed at the SAME grade % of content that moved from a LOWER grade % of content that moved from a HIGHER grade % of content NOT MATCHED in CCSS e.g. OR 5 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 3 rd /4 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 6 th /7 th → CCSS 5 th K 1 2 3 4 541%11%26%22% 6 7 8 HS (non +) HS + (AKS)

22. Elementary (Grades K-5) Summary CCSS Grade level % of content that stayed at the SAME grade % of content that moved from a LOWER grade % of content that moved from a HIGHER grade % of content NOT MATCHED in CCSS e.g. OR 5 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 3 rd /4 th → CCSS 5 th e.g. OR 6 th /7 th → CCSS 5 th K71%N/A24%5% 161%4%7%29% 252%4%9%35% 348%0%32%20% 416%21%20%43% 541%11%26%22%

23. Secondary (Grades 6-HS) Summary CCSS Grade level % of content that stayed at the SAME grade % of content that moved from a LOWER grade % of content that moved from a HIGHER grade % of content NOT MATCHED in CCSS e.g. OR 7 th → CCSS 7 th e.g. OR 5 th /6 th → CCSS 7 th e.g. OR high school → CCSS 7 th 636%9%28% 730%18%43%8% 840%10%36%14% HS ( non +) 26%2%43%29% HS + (AK&S)63%0%N/A37%

24. Common Core State Standards What unique challenges will implementation of the Common Core State Standards present? Districts that do not offer full-day kindergarten Reading as a shared instructional responsibility across content areas Grade level movement of math content to middle school

25. Common Core State Standards Implementation challenges (continued) Coverage of required math content in a proficiency- based teaching and learning environment Access to computers to develop writing skills. Movement of applied geometry and algebra concepts to middle school Standards transition in two subject areas simultaneously Impact on recent instructional materials and curriculum alignment

26. Common Core State Standards Draft Implementation Plan & Timeline Table 1. History of Oregon’s Current English Language Arts & Mathematics Content Standards and Assessments Table 2. Common Core State Standards and SMARTER/Balanced Common Assessment to Date Table 3. Implementation and Transition Work (to be informed by State Implementation Team)