CASE MeetingFebruary 2, 20114:00 - 5:30 p.m.

Carrie Heath PhillipsCouncil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

Carrieh@ccsso.org

Bambi J. Lockman, ChiefBureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

Florida Department of EducationBambi.Lockman@fldoe.org

Common Core State Standards Initiative Overview

State-led and developed common core standards for K-12 in English/language arts and mathematics

Initiative led by Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA)

Common Core State Standards Initiative

What are educational standards?

Why do they matter?

Why do we need common standards? Why now?

Disparate standards across statesGlobal competition Today’s jobs require different skills.For many young people, a high

school degree isn’t preparing them for college or a good job.

Why is This Important for Students, Teachers, and Parents?

Provides clear, focused guideposts

Delineates learning progressions that can help target instruction to the learners’ level

Offers economies of scale

Foundation for the Standards

Aligned with college and work expectationsPrepare students for success in entry-level, credit-

bearing, academic college courses (2 and 4 year postsecondary institutions)

Prepare students for success in careers that offer competitive, livable salaries above the poverty line, opportunities for career advancement , and are in growing or sustainable industries

Standards Development Process

College- and career-readiness standards for English/language arts and mathematics developed summer of 2009.

Based on the college and career readiness standards, K-12 standards for each grade were developed.

Continual input throughout the process from wide range of stakeholders.

Public comment period with nearly 10,000 responses.Final standards released on June 2, 2010.

As of February 1, 2011, 41 states and DC have fully adopted the Common Core State Standards; 2 states have provisionally adopted the standards; and 1 state has adopted the ELA standards only.

www.corestandards.org

Questions?

Reactions?

What’s in the

Standards

Statement on Application for Students with Disabilities

“Students with disabilities are a heterogeneous group with one common characteristic: the presence of disabling conditions that significantly hinder their abilities to benefit from general education (IDEA 34 CFR §300.39, 2004). Therefore, how these high standards are taught and assessed is of the utmost importance in reaching this diverse group of students.”

“Promoting a culture of high expectations for all students is a fundamental goal of the Common Core State Standards.”

Intentional design limitations

The standards do NOT define:

How teachers should teach.

All that can or should be taught.

The nature of advanced work beyond the core.

The interventions needed for students well below grade level.

The full range of support for English learners and students with special needs.

Everything needed for students to be college and career ready.

STANDARDS FOR

ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS (ELA)

&

LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS

Design and Organization

Introduction Description of capacities of a literate student (ex., demonstrate

independence, come to understand other perspectives and cultures)

Three main sections K−5 (cross-disciplinary) 6−12 English Language Arts 6−12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical

Subjects

Three appendices

A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms

B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks

C: Annotated student writing samples

In developing knowledge and skills in English/language arts, learners:

Demonstrate independence.

Build strong content knowledge.

Respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline.

Comprehend as well as critique.

Value evidence.

Use technology and digital media strategically and capably.

Come to understand other perspectives and cultures.

"Habits of mind" fostered by the Common Core State Standards

Design and Organization

Four strandsReadingWritingSpeaking and ListeningLanguage

An integrated model of literacy

Media requirements blended throughout

ELA Key Advances

Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Text complexity

Writing Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing Writing about sources

Standards for reading and writing in history/

social studies, science, and technical subjects Complement rather than replace content standards

in those subjects Responsibility of teachers in those subjects

MATHEMATICS

STANDARDS

Design and Organization

Standards for Mathematical Practice Carry across all grade levels Describe habits of mind of a mathematically expert student

Standards for Mathematical Content K-8 standards presented by grade level High school standards presented by conceptual theme

Appendix Designing high school math courses based on the Common

Core State Standards

In developing knowledge and skills in mathematics, learners:

Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

Model with mathematics.

Use appropriate tools strategically.

Attend to precision.

Look for and make use of structure.

Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

"Habits of mind" fostered by the Common Core State Standards

Fractions, Grades 3–6

3. Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.

4. Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.

4. Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.

4. Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.

5. Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.

5. Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.

6. Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to divide fractions by fractions.

Math Key Advances

Focus in early grades on number (arithmetic and operations) to build a solid foundation in math

Evened out pace across the gradesHigh school math focus on using math and solving

complex problems, similar to what would see in the real world

Problem-solving and communication emphasized

Questions?

Reactions?

Implementation &

Common Assessments

What’s Next with Implementation?

States are implementing the standards now Plans vary based on state context Redesigning professional development and curriculum frameworks in

2011• Key challenge: develop educator understanding of level of student

performance expected in the new standards and pedagogy to teach the standards in an integrated manner.

Communicating with stakeholders in 2011 Most major changes in instructional materials, graduation

requirements, etc., not expected until 2013 or later Teachers in most states will start teaching to the Common Core State

Standards in 2-3 years. Common assessments will be administered in 2014-2015 school year.

What’s Next with Assessment?

New tests tied to the Common Core State Standards will be live in 2014-2015 school year. Grades 3 – high school Two different consortia are developing

assessments, so instead of every state having their own test, there will be only two different types of testing programs throughout the nation.

Florida’s Race to the Top Funds90% of Funds Allocated Directly to Districts and for Educator ResourcesTotal Award: $700,000,000

30

COMMON CORE STANDARDS & ASSESSMENTS TIMELINE

30

Summative and formative assessment design underway

Statewide capacity-buildingWork with all districts/schools to:

• Understand Common Core standards

• Implement effective formative assessments aligned to Common Core

• Adjust teacher pedagogy

Common Core Resources and Supports

Instructional Coaches hired

Through-course assessments, given in stages throughout the school year, available for pilot use

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

PARCC Summative Assessments operational

CCSS in ELA & Math published

Approx 40 states adopt CCSS, including Florida

PARCC wins $184M RTTT assessment grant

Florida students take CCSS-aligned PARCC Assessments in math and literacy, gds 3-11

CCSS-aligned resources available to districts

Florida wins $700M RTTT award

Course Descriptions aligned with CCSS

Adopt Inst Materials for CCSS

Interim Assessment Items Banks for Core Areas

RTT Assessment Support Team hired

January 2011 31

Grant Year

Measuring Student Growth Activity Evaluation System Re-Design Activity

Year 1

Fall

November 1 – Release Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) to solicit bids for development and implementation of student growth measures;

November 30 - Implementation committees established for Student Growth and for Assessments

January 21 - timeframe for final contractor selection

Jointly with FADSS, organize the district and consortium work around student assessments

November – Release ITN for national experts in teacher evaluation to provide face-to-face support to participating districts in re-development and implementation of their evaluation systems.

December 17 – Revised Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) adopted by the State Board of Education.

January 31 – anticipated timeframe for final contractor selection

Year 1

Spring

April - Select new statewide measure(s) for student growth in FCAT-associated courses

May - Provide LEAs with 3 years of baseline data for these students and teachers; explanatory/PD materials

July - updated LEA data using newest FCAT results

Issue grants for hard to measure subjects

Ongoing - Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in adding MOU components to evaluation system documentation

February - First Community of Practice meeting held on evaluation systems

May 1 – Initial LEA revised teacher evaluation systems due to DOE

June 1 – DOE provides feedback to LEAs

Year 2

2011-12

Provide LEAs with guidelines and best practices for development of growth models, with example models, using local district-wide assessments and selected standardized assessments

Provide FCAT performance data using new growth measure

Recommend adjustments to growth measures based on implementation committee review of LEA results and feedback on use of measures

Professional development is provided on use of growth measure results for classroom instruction

Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in implementing the evaluation system

LEAs review system implementation results with consultant assistance and make adjustments to evaluation systems, including the addition of the next phase of MOU requirements (based on LEA schedule)

DOE does initial analysis of evaluation system results and provides LEAs with baseline data

All principal evaluation systems due

Year 3

2012-13

Report results of LEA uses of state and locally-selected growth measures

Adjustments (after YR 2 of FCAT 2.0) made to state growth measure based on evaluation and feedback; statewide communication around changes is provided

Updates made (if any) to local growth measures document based on assessments developed from RTTT item banks

Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in implementing the evaluation system

LEAs review with consultant assistance and make adjustments to evaluation systems and add in the next level of MOU requirements

DOE does Year 2 analyses of evaluation system results and provides districts with data

Year 4

2013-14

Report results of LEA uses of state and locally selected/developed growth measures

Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in fully implementing the evaluation system

January 2011 32

Standards & Assessment ResourcesFocus Area Products Focus Timeline

Common Core Standards Updated CPALMS Standards, course descriptions, and exemplary sample lessons

2013-14: completion

Common Core Tutorials Updated FCAT ExplorerRevise existing student tutorials such that online tutorials are based on Common Core content standards

2011: High School Content2012: Elementary Content2013: Middle School Content 2014: Mini-assessments

Aligned, High-Quality Assessments

Formative Assessments – reading and mathematics

High-quality classroom tasks for quick feedback on learning

2011-12: Math K-32013-14: Reading K-8

Interim Assessment Item Bank & PlatformTest items, test builder, test delivery & scoring for district/school use

2012-13: Test items available2013-14: Technology system available

Interim Assessments – reading and mathematics

Align FAIR; build FAIM (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Mathematics)

2013-14

Summative Assessments – English/language arts & mathematics

PARCC assessments, including EOCs2013-14: Field Test2014-15: Operational

Revised Certification Subject Area Examinations (FTCE)

STEM- and Common Core-related examinations aligned to NGSSS/CCSS/FEAPs with increased rigor in content and content-specific pedagogy

2013: PK-3, Elementary (K-6), Math (5-9) and (6-12), Biology, Chemistry, Physics (6-12), General Science (5-9), Prof. Ed. 2014: English (5-9) and (6-12)

Professional Development

Lesson Study ToolkitsSupport educators’ continuous improvement of instruction and student learning

2012-13: Pilot 2013-14: Statewide availability

Reading and STEM Coaches Support for struggling schools

Beginning Teacher Support Programs Support for new and early career teachersDistricts implement according to Scope of work timelines

PD to support teacher evaluation system results

Support for educators’ continuous improvement of instruction and student learning

Districts implement according to Scope of work timelines2010-14: state provides assistance through consultants

Improved methods for evaluating PDSupport for districts, schools and educators in planning and selecting PD

Districts implement according to Scope of work timelines 2011-14: state provides assistance through consultants

Summer Academies

Consortia

Led by states; not organized through CCSSO and NGA

44 states participating in one or both consortia.

Funded by U.S. ED’s Race to the Top Program

Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) $170M (plus $15.8M for transition) from feds

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium $160M (plus $15.8M for transition) from feds

PARCC Assessment Consortium

SMARTER Balanced (SBAC) Assessment Consortium

Consortia Similarities

Beyond multiple choice and short answer tests; will include performance tasks

Focus on depth of understanding and higher-order thinking skills

Computer-based, with quick turn-around for scoring

Digital libraries of resources, including released items, formative assessments, data-management system, and professional development

Consortia Differences

Computer-based adaptive testing is used in SMARTER Balanced Consortium. PARCC has computer-based, but not adaptive, testing.

Through-course exams given at defined points through the school year in PARCC and are part of the summative assessment. SMARTER Balanced has optional interim assessments and their summative assessment will be offered twice each school year.

Teacher scoring is emphasized in SMARTER Balanced when evaluating performance tasks.

Assessments for Students with Disabilities

End to 2% assessments

Two consortia funded to develop 1% assessments

General Supervision Enhancement Grants

Alternate Assessments (1%) aligned to Common Core Standards

Common Assessment by 2014-15Two Assessment Consortium

National Center and State Collaborative Partnership (NCSC)

• 19 states and approximately 41 million

Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium

• 11 states and approximately 22 million

General Supervision Enhancement Grants

Similarity to General Assessment Grants Common Assessment by 2014-15 Use of Computer Based Assessment where

possible

Differences Significant component related to research-

based curriculum and instruction

Questions?Reactions?