Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects An Overview for School Level and District Level Leadership March 24, 2011 The purpose of our time together today is to provide each of you with the information you need in order to successfully address and relate the concepts associated with the change from Georgia Performance Standards to the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in the area of English language arts. As with all changes in education, there is often an underlying feeling of anticipation or sometimes worry associated with what this must mean. After today’s session, the goal is for you to be well-equipped to know the answers to most of the questions associated with this implementation of Common Core State Standards. Communication, both clear and consistent among all stakeholder groups within our state, is essential during this transition. The message is a positive one. Our extensive work with standards-based instruction and our own GPS has paved the way for a successful transition.

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects An Overview for School Level and District Level Leadership The purpose of our time together today is to provide each of you with the information you need in order to successfully address and relate the concepts associated with the change from Georgia Performance Standards to the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in the area of English language arts. As with all changes in education, there is often an underlying feeling of anticipation or sometimes worry associated with what this must mean. After today’s session, the goal is for you to be well-equipped to know the answers to most of the questions associated with this implementation of Common Core State Standards. Communication, both clear and consistent among all stakeholder groups within our state, is essential during this transition. The message is a positive one. Our extensive work with standards-based instruction and our own GPS has paved the way for a successful transition.

It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
~John Wooden Georgia Performance Standards for English language arts rolled out first and fast. As many of you know, the message regarding the new standards was often delivered in different methods. If a survey were done in our state, you would find that in some places redelivery was very successful and the information received by all teachers was consistent and understandable. Consequently, there were many other areas of our state where the message was watered down so extensively that what was needed and intended to be a very comprehensive training became instead a 30 minute brief overview meeting. The roll out of standards for ELA paved the way for what worked and what did not work regarding the message delivery. We have truly learned from the glitches that occurred during the transition from QCCs to GPS in English language arts. The new Common Core Georgia Performance Standards represent an opportunity for all English language arts stakeholders to come forward and be representatives for all that is excellent about Georgia. It also presents a challenge to be the best of the best with our work towards having the resources and supports in place for all those involved.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative
Beginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards. Over 40 states have formally adopted the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). It is very important to note that the Common Core State Standards Initiative is not a federal mandate. It is a state-led effort. Georgia has been a governing state from the beginning of the process.

Why Common Core Standards?
Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. Equity: Expectations are consistent for all and not dependent on a student’s zip code. Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments, and other materials. Georgia is in a unique position because of the previous work with the GPS in all subject areas. This new endeavor will only serve to strengthen what has come before it. Building on the strength of the Georgia Performance Standards, the Common Core State Standards are designed to be anchored in college- and career-readiness, internationally benchmarked, focused, coherent, clear, and rigorous, and evidence- and research-based.

Why are the Common Core State Standards for ELA right for Georgia?
Previous work with the GPS has prepared Georgia for the implementation of the CCGPS. Prior teacher and administrator GPS training ensures a smooth transition. Although some content may be in different grade levels in CCSS, nearly all of the ELA standards are addressed. CCSS expectations are consistent with a single/high-rigor diploma requirement for all students. Refer to notes on slide. Include the following: In stating the importance of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, the National Governors Association (NGA) as well as the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), unanimously agreed on these three statements: Disparate standards create confusing expectations across the states. Global competitive edge is lagging among students in the U.S. Workforce skills do not match 21st century workplace demands.

How is adoption defined?
100% of the Common Core K-12 standards in ELA must be adopted within 3 years. States are allowed to add an additional 15% to the Common Core. A state will have “adopted” when the authorizing body (Georgia’s State Board of Education) has taken formal action to adopt and implement the Common Core. (This occurred on July 8, 2010.) States have flexibility as to how they communicate adoption relative to state standards. Refer to notes on slide.

Thomas Fordham Institute
The State of State Standards--and the Common Core--in July 21, 2010 The Thomas Fordham Institute issued a report in July of This report compared each state’s current standards to the new Common Core State Standards. The title of the report and the link are listed. What did this report reveal to us about Georgia’s own curriculum?

Thomas Fordham Institute GPS and CCSS in 2010
Georgia (GPS): Grade B+ CCSS: Grade B+ Clarity and Specificity: 2/3 Clarity & Specificity: 2/3 Content and Rigor: 6/7 Content & Rigor: 6/7 Total GPS score: 8/10 Total CCSS score: 8/10 Georgia is one of 5 states receiving a score of B+. Only six scored better: California, District of Columbia, and Indiana: A; Massachusetts, Texas, and Tennessee: A-. According to the Fordham Report, Georgia is one of 11 states considered to be in the same league as Common Core. Louisiana, Colorado, Virginia, and Oklahoma also scored a B+. Emphasize that Georgia is one of the top 11 states as ranked by the Fordham report. Three states were considered to have standards deemed to be clearly superior to Common Core State Standards (Score of A: California, District of Columbia, and Indiana.) Three states were deemed to be superior (Score of A-:Massachusetts, Texas, and Tennessee). Fordham scored Common Core a B+. There were 8 states with scores deeming each state’s comparison as too close to call. Score of B+: Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Score of B: Florida, Alabama, and Arizona. Based on CCSS’s score as well as GPS’s score, it is evident that Georgia’s standards were indeed a good match for Common Core.

What about the alignment of CCSS with GPS?
The Achieve Online Comparison Tool was used in June of 2010 to create an alignment of CCSS to GPS. However, this process did not include alignment of repetitive standards across grade levels as well as alignment of each standard in each high school course. Nevertheless, the alignment tool reported an alignment percentage of 81%. There are approximately 1525 GPS standards and elements. There are approximately 1025 common core standards and elements. When a standard was repeated in another grade level (for example, reading across the curriculum) it was not entered each time as a match but rather taken and entered once because it was repetitive. For example, ELA6RC1 is the same as ELA7RC1, ELA8RC1, ELA9RC1, ELA10RC1, ELAALRC1, ELABLRC1, ELAWLRC1. This standard may have aligned very, very weakly only once. Since June 2010, the alignment documents have all been updated and redone. The alignment has changed several times. If the Achieve Comparison Tool were completed today, it is estimated that the alignment percentage would be above 93%. Of course, alignment was ranked as weak, good, or excellent. The grade level differences which occurred in alignment are questionable in the overall percentage.

What does Alignment really mean?
Alignment is an approximate term used lightly to show a match or comparison. Some GPS standards/elements align or match perfectly in all aspects of comparison to CCGPS. Some GPS standards/elements align or match creatively in all aspects of comparison with CCGPS. See notes on next slide.

Alignment continued… Sometimes, alignment occurs when a Common Core standard matches a GPS standard at a different grade level. This grade level shift may be above the current GPS level or below it. The alignment may occur across different domains. Alignment is a critical part of understanding what has taken place with the adoption of Common Core. Because alignment can occur across grade levels and be ranked as weak, good, or excellent, this may entail a false sense of security regarding perfection. ELA GPS aligned very well with common core in all strands. Creative matches were constant as well as excellent matches. It is the shift in grade level work (particularly in language) as well as the increased rigor in reading with issues of text complexity and an increased focus on informational reading with which teachers will see the biggest shifts. Overall, the focus groups across the state have been extremely positive as well as appreciative of the changes Common Core is making to the ELA curriculum. Yes, there are changes; however, as with all change, we will embrace the familiar and become more determined than ever to succeed in our challenge and goal of continuing to be recognized for our rigorous and well-balanced curriculum.

What are the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects? Title slide only.

Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards Overarching standards for each strand that are further defined by grade- specific standards Grade-Level Standards in English Language Arts (CCGPS) K-8, grade-by-grade 9-10 and grade bands for high school Four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Standards are embedded at grades K-5 Content-specific literacy standards are provided for grades 6-8, 9-10, and It is extremely important to note that the Common Core State Standards in English language arts includes three distinct sections. The first section as noted on this slide represents the anchor standards for the entire Common Core State Standards. The College and Career Readiness Standards are the overarching, or anchor, standards which guide the individual grade level standards. These standards represent the ultimate level of achievement or performance for a graduating student who is college and/or career ready. The second section of the document is the Grade level specific standards. Each standard in each grade level is directly aligned to its corresponding overarching, or anchor, standard from the College and Career Readiness standards. This is a critical piece of understanding regarding the differences and the purposes of the CCR and the CCSS. Sometimes the double c’s cause an area of confusion. The last section of the document represents the content specific literacy standards for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. These standards are intended to be used by the teachers within these content-specific disciplines. Next, let’s focus on a more specific interpretation of the purpose of CCR (College and Career Readiness standards).

College and Career Readiness Standards and Common Core State Standards
The College and Career Readiness Standards were written first. These standards are the “goals” or “indicators” for true college and career readiness once a student graduates high school. Each Common Core State Standard is aligned to a college and career readiness standard. At the beginning of each grade level strand, the list of College and Career Readiness Standards for the strand will come first. These standards are the same for each section of the document: K-5, 6-12, and Literacy (6-12) for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. The goal of each grade level standard is to prepare students for success in the achievement of the college and career readiness standards.

College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor Standards
The College and Career Readiness Standards define general, cross-disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be prepared to enter college and workforce training programs ready to succeed. These standards are not meant to be grade level specific because each represents that the highest performance has been mastered; therefore, the mastery of the grade-level standards will ultimately mean that the student is college and career ready.

College and Career Readiness Standards (CCR)
These standards “anchor” the document and define general, cross-disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be prepared to enter college and workforce training programs ready to succeed. A suggestion for these 32 CCR standards within the walls of a school environment may be to supplement the school’s plan for graduation. For example, many elementary schools participate in programs called “Destination Graduation.” These 32 anchor standards exemplify a college and career ready student. The CCR standards would not need to be a part of a lesson plan or unit of instruction because the Common Core State Standards will be the focus standards for the grade levels.

The CCR is the ANCHOR for ELA CCGPS
There are 32 CCR Standards: 10 in Reading 10 in Writing 6 in Speaking and Listening 6 in Language The entire Common Core State Standards for K-12 were based on these overarching college and career readiness standards. These 32 CCR standards set the foundation for the creation of the grade level specific standards. For example, the CCR standard number 1 in writing aligns perfectly with all of the number 1 standards in the K-12 Common Core State Standards document. Likewise, the third CCR standard in speaking and listening is aligned to all of the K-12 grade level standards for speaking and listening, 3rd standard.

CCR Anchor Example for Reading
CCGPS Reading Standard #1 Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. Reading Standard #1 (Kindergarten- Lit.) With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text. (7th grade Lit.) Cite several pieces of textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. Refer to alignment on slide.

Common Core STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE PREPARING AMERICA’S STUDENTS FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER
These K-12 grade-specific standards define end-of-year expectations and a cumulative progression designed to enable students to meet college and career readiness expectations no later than the end of high school. Refer to slide.

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
CCGPS (There are four strands in ELA.) Reading> standards (lit.) 10 standards (inf.) Writing> standards Speaking & Listening> 6 standards Language> 6 standards Please note here that the total number of standards possible at each grade level is 41. It is extremely important to note that the reading strand has been divided into literary text and informational text; however, the 10 reading standards for College and Career Readiness guide both sets of standards. Standard number 8 under the literary division is not applicable; therefore, this section remains blank on the K-12 document. Each College and Career Readiness standard in reading has two corresponding grade-level standards depending on the type of text except for standard 8. It is also important to note that the inclusion of all standards is phased in during the early grades. For example, kindergarten does not have a standard 4 in the writing strand. Standard 4 does not begin until 3rd grade. Likewise, standards 9 and 10 in the writing strand are also phased in later---standard 9 begins in grade 4 and standard 10 begins in grade 3. In the speaking and listening strand, all standards are present for all grade levels. The language strand does not include standard 3 until 2nd grade.

Key Features of the ELA Standards
Reading: Text Complexity and the growth of comprehension Writing: Text Types, responding to reading, and research Speaking and Listening: Flexible communication and collaboration Language: Conventions, effective use, and vocabulary The text complexity issue is one that is vastly different from GPS. While rating a text is not an exact science, several notable methods are observed, one being the use of Lexile measures. It should be noted that Lexile levels have increased for text complexity above the noted levels now used. It is through the realm of text complexity that comprehension growth should occur. Writing addresses three specific genres: Argumentative, Explanatory, and Narrative. Even though Response to Literature was a genre within GPS, it fits very well with the Argumentative standards and elements. Technical writing in another “genre” specific to GPS. It has been determined that the elements needed to be a successful technical writer exist primarily in the Explanatory section as well as in standard 7. Furthermore, the literacy standards for writing in history, science, social studies, and technical subjects will require the technique of technical writing. It is planned that supplemental documents will be created and provided which will assist teachers in the area of technical writing. It may seem that the element of viewing within GPS has been neglected in the Speaking and Listening strand. Viewing is integrated throughout the document, especially in reading standard 7. The biggest change in language is the movement of vocabulary from reading.

Who is responsible for which portion of the Standards?
A single K-5 section lists standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language across the curriculum, reflecting the fact that most or all of the instruction students in these grades receive comes from one teacher. Grades 6-12 are covered in two content area-specific sections, the first for the ELA teacher and the second for teachers of history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. The K-5 section of Common Core includes all of the standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language as well as the standards necessary for literacy across the curriculum. Most or all of the instruction on the ELA Common Core standards comes from one teacher within grades K-5. Grades 6-12 has the content-specific standards for English language arts of which one teacher is responsible; however, a second set of reading and writing standards for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects is also included. This replaces our reading across the curriculum standards in GPS. It is imperative that content teachers infuse these standards into the literacy within these classes. Professional learning will be provided to the teachers in grades 6-12 in these content-specific courses on the strategies necessary to integrate the reading and writing standards into existing lessons.

Support Documents for ELA Common Core
Appendix A: Research & Glossary of Key Terms Appendix B: Text Exemplars & Sample Performance Tasks Appendix C: Samples of Student Writing Language Progression Chart The Common Core provides several worthy documents to assist teachers with exemplars. Appendix B provides a list of novels, short stories, poems, nonfiction, etc. which represent the text complexity component and comprehension. Appendix C offers a collection of student writings from grades K-12 as well as annotations. A “Language Progressive Skills, by Grade” lists the skills that require continued attention in standards 1 through 3. This chart begins in 3rd grade and continues through grade bands As skills are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking, earlier standards are subsumed by the higher level standards.

Non-negotiables The Georgia State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards and named them “The Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS).” These standards were adopted as written and must be addressed at the specified grade level. We were allowed to adopt 15% of the current GPS to the CCGPS. Refer to slide.

ELA’s 15% November & December: Teachers provided feedback regarding the 15%. January: ELA Advisory Council met and studied the feedback. February: ELA Precision Review Team met and recommended the additions. March: ELA Precision Review Team and ELA Advisory Council met to begin resource work. How did we arrive at the 15%? What was the process? Before the November webinars, months of work had gone into the creation and revision of what began last March 2010 as crosswalk documents. The newer grade level alignment documents are revised and refined from what was begun last year. The documents were posted to the DOE site, and teachers were urged to provide feedback on the alignment. The communication was spread via webinars (CIA monthly informational sessions) as well as via list-serv to academic coaches/instructional coaches. The feedback period ended in January, and the ELA Advisory Council met to review the feedback. There was concern regarding most of the feedback because teachers provided feedback along the lines of “we think this is too difficult for _____graders and should remain in _______grade.” Of course, if Common Core moved a GPS standard to a different grade level, it is now MOVED. We cannot keep it where it is if Common Core does not address it at that level. Following an extensive recommendation period, approximately 65 teachers and teacher leaders met for two days in Stockbridge, GA, to determine the additional GPS standards to add to CCGPS. All congressional districts and grade levels were represented. This work was then vetted with the ELA Advisory Council and both groups were brought together in March in Perry, GA, to finalize the added GPS as well as to begin teacher guidance documents and assessment correlations.

What are the additions from GPS?
Kindergarten: No additions 1st Grade: Writing and Language 2nd Grade: Writing and Language 3rd grade: Language 4th grade: Language 5th through 8th : No additions 9-10th and 11-12th / Language ELA is a very pure, clean document. Approximately 10 elements were added in grades K-12. These elements were prewriting in 1st grade and 2nd grade as well as handwriting. Cursive writing elements remained in 3rd and 4th grade, and 9-12 added the element regarding legible documents.

How are we preparing for CCGPS implementation?
State English Language Arts team drafted initial alignment documents for each grade level; webinars and face-to-face sessions focused on the alignment; educators across the state submitted feedback regarding the alignment. The ELA Advisory Council sorted through the feedback as well as new alignment drafts and provided recommendations on alignment. Precision Review Teams were convened to review the feedback and make recommendations regarding alignment issues as well as additions to CCGPS from GPS. The recommendations of the ELA Precision Review Team were vetted with the ELA Advisory Council. The ELA Advisory Council and Precision Review Team convened to begin work on teacher guidance. ELA’s proposed additions will be presented to GADOE leadership. Professional learning and development of resources will be the number one focus for , with an implementation year of The overall opinions of teachers across the state as well as teacher leaders and administrators has been extremely positive in regards to the CCGPS. While it is true that there are grade level shifts in content, especially in the area of language, the overall consensus is that Georgia is in a remarkable situation to tackle this much needed rigor.

English Language Arts CCGPS Timeline
Please note that your professional learning pre-empts any professional learning for your teachers. That was quite purposeful. Notice that we have dedicated school year to professional learning for teachers and to development of resources. We will need your support to ensure that every teacher in Georgia takes advantage of the information and professional learning sessions next year. We are committed to speaking directly to every English language arts teacher at every grade level, but that will require your support and buy-in of the professional learning process. We need you to explain to your teachers that the professional learning opportunities are critical to the success of the transition and that their participation is required at each juncture. We will begin with an orientation session for every Georgia English language arts teacher. In subsequent grade level/course sessions, teachers will dissect the CCGPS curriculum specific to their grade or course. In the second session , teachers will become astutely familiar with the exact matches of GPS and CCGPS and will scrutinize the specific contrasts between the standards as well.

How are we preparing for CCGPS assessment?
Curriculum has been invited to the initial meetings of the design and development of the CCSS assessments through the PARCC Consortium – Georgia is a governing member of the 26 state collaborative. We have been assured by our assessment division that curriculum will continue to drive assessment. Review the first bullet. PARCC has begun its work with a focus on K-8 assessment systems. Their plans are to offer a series of summative assessments administered throughout the year and intended to focus instruction throughout the year on critical skills and concepts, and to allow for mid-year correction. The cumulative end-of-year assessment will sample all of the grade level standards. Regarding high school assessments, PARCC is currently looking into the best approach for these. The timeline indicates that the first Common Core Assessment will be administered in school year , but I know you are wondering what happens in the preceding years as we will begin our transition in (***Read and focus on Bullet #2 now.) So, what is happening next year? I know that you will want to keep your faculty abreast of the transition, maybe even during pre-planning…..(go to next slide)

CCGPS Precision Review Status Report
School year will be focused on professional learning for K-12 English language arts teachers as well as professional learning in literacy for history, social studies, science, and technical subjects teachers. Coordination will occur between the ELA team and IT to develop and manage a professional learning blueprint as well as ongoing professional learning opportunities. Race to the Top and Gates grants will target sustained professional learning and will provide the needed funding. Data analysis will direct decisions regarding the specific focus for professional learning. The target for all professional learning is to place in the hands of the teachers the necessary resources needed to implement the new Common Core. Transition lessons will be produced and focused on during all professional learning opportunities for all grade levels. My hope is that you find this transition time both exciting and rewarding. Georgia is one of the states poised to experience great success with this new curriculum. Exciting days are ahead!

Leader Actions Include a CCGPS overview in your pre-planning agenda.
Include a CCGPS overview in your parent, PTA, and community meetings. Ensure that 100% of your English language arts teachers participate in the GaDOE and RESA facilitated professional learning sessions. Make CCGPS the focus of your district level and school level professional learning. Refer to slides. I suggest that local Boards of Education also be included regarding updates.

GaDOE English Language Arts Coordinator
Contact Information Kim Jeffcoat GaDOE English Language Arts Coordinator (Office)

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards Mathematics An Overview for School Level and District Level Leadership My purpose today is to provide you, our district and school leaders, with the tools you will need to discuss this very exciting time in Georgia mathematics with each of your stakeholder groups. We are very clear that communication is an integral factor in successful change. When stakeholders are made aware of the solid rationale upon which our decisions are founded, those same stakeholders will become ambassadors of change. 4/22/2017

Their Profound Impact on Our Future
We have a choice. We can simply defend what we have…or create what we need. Sixteen Trends Their Profound Impact on Our Future by Gary Marx This quote very aptly speaks to the Georgia mathematics program in the last 26 years. We have been a part of a rapidly changing society where the workplace looks nothing like it did 25 years ago. A colleague of mine explained it so well – in the early 80’s, 20% of our students moved on to post-secondary institutions and the other 80% moved directly into the workplace. However, the workplace has undergone such drastic changes in the past 25 years, that now 83% of jobs require some form of post-secondary learning prior to employment. It has recently been determined that, in fact, the requirements to be career ready are identical to those requirements to be college ready. Certainly these changes have implications for a viable K-12 curriculum. Let’s take a quick look at mathematics in the past 25 years. 4/22/2017

Georgia’s Mathematics Program Past, Present, and Future
1986 Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) Objectives 2005 Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) 2012 Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS) In 1986, the QCCs offered objectives in which the teaching of mathematics was couched. At that time, computers were just being introduced into the educational process – often 4 or 5 apples 2Es for a mathematics faculty of 12 to 15, graphing calculators were still a dream for mathematics classrooms, and things like DNA profiling were unheard of. The QCCs, however, were clearly an improvement. Unfortunately, other than a cursory review in the early 90’s, the mathematics curriculum saw no changes for the next 20 years – all the while, technology was speeding along & changing our workplace dramatically. In 2005, the roll-out of GPS brought us into the 21st century in mathematics with an emphasis on evidence of student learning and not merely a checklist of objectives to guide teachers. Because not much had changed with regard to mathematics curriculum in 20 years, the transition was and continues to be, at times, rocky – but the transition to GPS closed the gap between career and college expectations and the mathematics that our students were learning in our K-12 program. And now we have an incredibly exciting opportunity to join at least 43 other states and the District of Columbia in our transition to Common Care Georgia Performance Standards. So what exactly is the CCSS Initiative and why is it right for Georgia students? 4/22/2017

Common Core for Mathematics
Standards for Mathematical Content K-8 grade-by-grade standards organized by domain 9-12 high school standards organized by conceptual categories Standards for Mathematical Practice Describe mathematical “habits of mind” Offer standards for mathematical proficiency: reasoning, problem solving, modeling, decision making, and engagement Connect with content standards in each grade The standards are categorized much as our GPS is: Content standards Process Standards The content standards are: (read points) The standards for mathematical practice: (read points) …but how do the content standards address domains in K-8? 4/22/2017

K- 8 Mathematics Standards
The K-5 standards provide students with a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals. The 6-8 standards describe robust learning in geometry, algebra, and probability and statistics. Modeled after the focus of standards from high- performing nations, the standards for grades 7 and 8 include significant algebra and geometry content. Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills will be prepared for algebra in 8th grade or after. Note: please emphasize the text presented in italics on the slide. The high school mathematics standards… 4/22/2017

High School Mathematics Standards
Call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real world issues and challenges Require students to develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly are called to do Emphasize mathematical modeling, the use of mathematics and statistics to analyze empirical situations, understand them better, and improve decisions Identify the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college and career ready. Note: Again, please emphasize the text in italics. The high school standards are grouped by conceptual categories (number and quantity, functions, algebra, geometry, modeling, and statistics and probability) and are not designed to suggest an appropriate delivery system nor are they divided into specific courses. However, Achieve, who has worked in partnership with the CCSS writers, has provided us with two model delivery systems and has suggested flexibility at the course level in terms of standards addressed. 4/22/2017

Model Course Pathways for Mathematics
Courses in higher level mathematics: Precalculus, Calculus (upon completion of Precalculus), Advanced Statistics, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Quantitative Reasoning, or other courses to be designed at a later date, such as additional career technical courses. Algebra II Mathematics III Geometry Mathematics II Please note that the first course in Pathway A is not consistent with our QCC Algebra I course. The standards suggest the same depth and rigor of our current GPS Mathematics I and GPS Algebra courses. While Achieve and the CCSS writers have not designed appropriate 4th mathematics course options, we have addressed appropriate options to include: Mathematics IV Pre-Calculus AP Calculus AB & BC AP Statistics Multivariable Calculus History of Mathematics Advanced Mathematical Decision Making Mathematics of Industry and Government Mathematics of Finance So why is this transition to CCSS right for Georgia? Algebra I Mathematics I Pathway B Integrated approach Pathway A Traditional in U.S.

Why are the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics right for Georgia?
Previous work with the GPS has prepared Georgia for the implementation of the CCSS. Prior teacher and administrator GPS training ensures a smooth transition. Although some content may be in different grade levels in the CCSS, all of the standards are addressed in the GPS. CCSS expectations are consistent with a single/high-rigor diploma requirement for all students. Although the points mentioned earlier would enhance Georgia’s mathematics program, how will this initiative blend with what we are already doing with GPS? (read points listed on slide) –and how does our GPS curriculum fare in terms of CCSS curriculum? 4/22/2017

Thomas Fordham Institute GPS and CCSS in 2010
Georgia: Grade A- Clarity and Specificity 3/3 Content and Rigor 6/7 Total GPS Score 9/10 Georgia is one of eight states receiving at least 9/10 points. CCSS: Grade A- Clarity and Specificity 2/3 Content and Rigor /7 Total CCSS Score 9/10 Note that Georgia is only 1 of eight states to earn 9 or more points out of a possible 10 points; that the GPS curriculum and CCSS curriculum both were awarded a grade of A-; and that while Georgia earned 1 more point than CCSS in clarity, CCSS earned an additional point in rigor. So exactly how much will change when we implement CCSS? 4/22/2017

What about the alignment of CCSS with GPS?
It is prudent to recall that while our GPS curriculum indicates a 90%+ alignment with CCSS, some standards will shift from one grade level to another and the match between GPS and CCSS is not always exact. So what exactly did our adoption mean to our stakeholders? 4/22/2017

So, how exactly do we move from CCSS + GPS to arrive at CCGPS
So, how exactly do we move from CCSS + GPS to arrive at CCGPS? Of course, we must first consider the non-negotiables associated with our adoption. 4/22/2017

What are the non-negotiables?
100% of the CCSS must be delivered in our curriculum. CCSS must be addressed at the grade level where they are assessed. We can address ‘pieces’ of the standards in grades and courses prior to the assessment year, but must ‘put those pieces together’ in the year in which they are assessed. For example, CCSS does not assess money standards until 2nd grade. However, our mathematics educators see the wisdom in beginning the conceptual development of money as early as kindergarten. Another example…while 6th graders are asked to determine the Least Common Denominator and Greatest Common Factor, prior discussions surrounding the connections between prime factorizations and equivalent fractions are certainly appropriate in 4th and 5th grade classrooms. Our adoption requires implementation in three years. So what exactly are we doing to prepare for our implementation? 4/22/2017

How are we preparing for CCGPS implementation?
State Mathematics Team drafted initial alignment documents for each grade level; webinars and face-to-face sessions focused on the alignment; Educators across the state submitted feedback regarding the alignment Precision Review Teams were convened to review feedback and make recommendations regarding alignment issues The recommendations of the precision review teams were vetted by the RESA Mathematics Mentors and the K-12 Advisory Council for final approval District and School Level Leaders will be apprised of the decisions in spring/summer of 2011 Professional learning for all Mathematics Educators will be the number one priority in school year All K-12 Mathematics Classrooms will implement CCGPS in The fact that the CCSS and GPS offered a close, but not exact, match suggested that we dedicate the school year to mathematics educator awareness and to providing teachers with as many details as possible regarding the differences. We recognized the importance of offering our school and district level leadership an increasing awareness of the process prior to teacher professional learning sessions as you are the change agents in your schools and districts. You can view our progress in a timeline format… 4/22/2017

Mathematics CCGPS Timeline
Please note that your professional learning pre-empts any professional learning for your teachers – that was quite purposeful. Notice that we have dedicated school year to professional learning for teachers and to resource development. We will need your support to ensure that every teacher in Georgia takes advantage of the information and professional learning sessions next year. We are committed to speaking directly to every mathematics teacher at every grade level, but that will require your support and buy-in of the professional learning process. We need you to explain to your teachers that the professional learning opportunities are critical to the success of the transition and that their participation is required at each juncture. We will begin with an orientation session for every Georgia mathematics teacher. In subsequent grade level/course sessions teachers will dissect the CCGPS curriculum specific to their grade or course. In that second session, teachers will become astutely familiar with the exact matches of GPS and CCGPS standards and will scrutinize the specific contrasts between the standards as well. Let me show you an example of the document your teachers will examine at the grade level/course session. 4/22/2017

SAMPLE: CCSS + GPS = CCGPS
CC.6.RP.3d Use ratio reasoning to convert measurement units; manipulate and transform units appropriately when multiplying or dividing quantities. Students will consider relationships between varying quantities: Use proportional reasoning (a/b=c/d and y = kx) to solve problems Students will convert from one unit to another within one system of measurement (customary or metric) by using proportional relationships You are looking at a grade 6 common core standard in bold text. The code offers teachers both a cluster standard acronym, a standard number and element letter. (Read the CCSS text). Georgia teachers might not be comfortable with the language of the common core standard – which is why mathematics educators across our state have committed to many hours of effort to offer the descriptors you see below the common core standards. The descriptors connect the CCSS to our current GPS. The descriptors are frequently exact GPS standards or some part of the standard – they are all written in the recognizable language of GPS and will provide teachers with the explanation and definition they will need to fully understand the specifics of what they will need to teach. Note: In the transition year , standards that have shifted to a lower grade will be addressed in both grades. What about assessment in this transition period? 4/22/2017

How are we preparing for CCGPS assessment?
Curriculum has been invited to the initial meetings of the design and development of the CCSS assessments through the PARCC Consortium – Georgia is a governing member of the 26 state collaborative. We have been assured by our assessment division that curriculum will continue to drive assessment. Review the first bullet. PARCC has begun its work with a focus on K-8 assessment systems. Their plans are to offer a series of summative assessments administered throughout the year, intended to focus instruction throughout the year on critical skills and concepts, and to allow for mid-year correction. The first and second quarter assessments will require that students complete one to three tasks; the third quarter assessment will require students to apply key mathematical concepts and processes to multistep problems; the end-of year comprehensive assessment will sample all of the grade level standards and will be composed of questions. In consultation with higher education faculty, PARCC is looking into the best approach for the high school assessments. It is considering building the high school assessments into modules so that they can be assembled into end of course assessments for either a discrete or integrated format. The timeline indicates that the first Common Core Assessment will be administered in school year , but I know you are wondering what happens in the preceding years as we will begin our transition in (Read bullet 2). So, what is happening next year – I know that you will want to keep your faculty abreast of the transition maybe even during pre-planning… 4/22/2017

CCGPS Precision Review Status Report
School year will be focused on professional learning for K-12 mathematics educators. The mathematics team has coordinated with IT division representatives to develop the professional learning blueprint for both initial and ongoing professional learning opportunities. Race to the Top and Gates grants will target sustained and technology-enhanced professional learning and will provide the needed funding. Data analysis will direct decisions regarding the specific focus for professional learning. (Review the bullets on the slide) Educators will be provided with the curricular standards and maps at each grade level and/or course by summer Every mathematics educator will be able to participate in a fall 2011 orientation; plans are to follow up with grade level and course professional learning in the winter of We are working with IT to offer ongoing professional learning video snippets for teacher use as they progress through the course. My hope is that you will begin your conversations surrounding CCGPS in your pre-planning sessions and will devote all school and district level professional learning to this very exciting transition to CCGPS. I do want to speak directly to middle school and high school principals for a moment before we close today. We have just recently been given the go ahead, … 4/22/2017

Secondary Math CCGPS Roll Out Plan
Ninth Graders Tenth Graders Eleventh Graders Twelfth Graders 2011 / 2012 GPS Course w/EOCT GPS Course w/EOCT GPS Course 2012 / 2013 CCGPS Course w/EOCT 2013 / 2014 2014 / 2015 CCGPS Course w/Common Core Assessment …to share this matrix with you. As you examine the matrix, you will realize that while we are fully implementing CCGPS in , we are always focused on what is right for our students. This matrix indicates that students who began their high school mathematics coursework in GPS will not be asked to shift to the CCGPS course pathway. In , only ninth graders entering high school in that year and eighth graders who are taking advantage of the accelerated pathway will participate in the CCGPS high school course pathway. Please note that students who take Accelerated Mathematics I or Mathematics I in 8th grade during the school year will continue in the GPS pathway of courses. 4/22/2017

Leader Actions CCGPS Mathematics Implementation Support 2011-2012 School Year
Include a CCGPS Overview in your Pre- Planning Agenda Include a CCGPS Overview in your Parent, PTA, and community meetings Ensure that 100% of your mathematics teachers participate in the GaDOE and RESA facilitated professional learning sessions Make CCGPS the focus of your district level and school level professional learning As we close today, please take a moment to consider what you can do for your stakeholders to support readiness for the implementation of CCGPS. Please remember that all stakeholders are impacted by the transition and implementation to CCGPS. (Read points listed on slide) 4/22/2017

Thank you for your participation!
Contact Information Sandi Woodall GaDOE Mathematics Coordinator West Georgia RESA 4/22/2017

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Common Core Georgia Performance Standards for Mathematics, English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback