The Transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and PARCC Assessments

Zach Foughty

Director of College and Career Readiness Indiana Department of Education

February 23, 2012

Agenda

•CCSS Background Info •Indiana’s Transition Plan •Special Concerns for Mathematics •Special Concerns for ELA •Literacy Standards in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects •PARCC

A Few Common Core Facts…

• Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that began in 2009 • It is led by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) along with parents, teachers, school administrators and experts from across the country • Indiana adopted the Common Core in August 2010.

• Preparation: The standards prepare students to be college- and career-ready upon completion of high school.

• Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked to 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 permit unprecedented opportunities for collaboration across states and districts. More than ever, educators may:

• Pool resources and expertise • Create curricular tools • Develop professional development • Administer common assessments

Why Common Core State Standards?

45 States + DC Have Adopted the Common Core State Standards

*Minnesota adopted the CCSS in ELA/literacy only

MATHEMATICS

Focus, coherence and clarity: emphasis on key topics at each grade level and coherent

progression across grades

Procedural fluency and understanding of concepts and skills

Promote rigor through mathematical proficiencies that foster reasoning and

understanding across discipline

High school standards organized by conceptual categories

Key Advances of the Common Core

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Balance of literature and informational texts; focus on text complexity

Emphasis on argument, informative/ explanatory writing, and research

Speaking and listening skills

Literacy standards for history, science and technical subjects

ANCHORED IN COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

Indiana Timeline ISTEP+ Grades 3-8 and ECAs

Year Instruction Assessment

2011-12 Indiana Standards & Essential CCSS See Assessment Guidance Documents

Indiana Standards (Pilot Items - CCSS)

2012-13 Indiana Standards & Essential CCSS Revised Assessment Guidance Documents

Indiana Standards (Field Test some of the CCSS)

2013-14 CCSS and Essential Indiana Standards Revised Assessment Guidance Documents

Indiana Standards (Field Test some of the CCSS)

2014-15 CCSS CCSS

Timeline may change as transition work to the CCSS and PARCC assessments progress.

College- and Career-Readiness Through the Common Core State

Standards for Mathematics

Mathematics

CCSS Principles

• Focus

– Identifies key ideas, understandings and skills for each grade or course

– Stresses deep learning, which means applying concepts and skills within the same grade or course

• Coherence

– Articulates a progression of topics across grades and connects to other topics

– Vertical growth that reflects the nature of the discipline

Maintain Focus and Coherence

• Implementation may miss the point – Readers might not see focus and coherence

– Strategies may be counterproductive

• The goal is coherence in curriculum, instruction, and learning – Standards are taken as atoms, but the power is in the

bonds (Jason Zimba)

– Think in chapters, not lessons (Phil Daro)

• Phase 1 (2011-12): • Standards for Mathematical Practice • Essential Standards (IAS & CCSS)

• Phase 2:

• Standards for Mathematical Content

Math Transition: Two Phases

“The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe varieties of expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students. These practices rest on important ‘processes and proficiencies’ with longstanding importance in mathematics education.”

(CCSS, 2010)

Phase 1

CCSS Mathematical Practices

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively

3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others

4. Model with mathematics

5. Use appropriate tools strategically

6. Attend to precision

7. Look for and make use of structure

8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

Grouping the SMPs

(McCallum, 2011)

Integration of SMPs

• Not “Problem Solving Fridays” • Not “enrichment” for advanced

students • Most lie in the process of arriving at an

answer, not necessarily in the answer itself

• Every lesson should seek to build student expertise in Content and Practice standards

Standards for Mathematical Practice in a Classroom

Traditional U.S. Problem

Which fraction is closer to 1: or ?

Same Problem with SMP integration

is closer to 1 than is .

Using a number line, explain why this is so.

(Daro, Feb 2011)

4 5

5 4

5 4

4 5

English/Language Arts Transition

College- and Career-Readiness Through the Common Core State

Standards for English/ Language Arts

Instructional Transition Documents for grades 1-10 indicate the relationship between Indiana Academic Standards (IAS) and CCSS.

• The information is provided to assist in reviewing existing curriculum

• Connections and distinctions between the standards become evident

ELA Instructional Transition Guidance

Common Core Standards Indiana Academic Standards

Instructional Transition Guidance

Reading Standards for Informational Text Reading: Comprehension and Analysis of

Nonfiction and Informational Text

RI.1 Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

6.2.6 Determine the appropriateness of the evidence presented for an author's conclusions and evaluate whether the author adequately supports inferences. The Common Core Standard is a more succinct expression of two

Indiana Academic Standards.

6.2.7 Make reasonable statements and conclusions about a text, supporting them with evidence from the text.

RI.2 Determine a central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgements.

This Common Core Standard is NEW!

RI.3 Analyze in detail how a key individual, event, or idea is introduced, illustrated, and elaborated in a text (e.g., through examples or anecdotes).

6.2.8 Identify how an author's choice of words, examples, and reasons are used to persuade the reader of something.

The Common Core Standard requires analysis instead of identification. In addition, there is an emphasis on how concepts are introduced, illustrated, and elaborated in a text rather than simply used to persuade.

A Sample from Grade 6

These documents were created to help educators transition from the IAS to the CCSS by providing guidance for setting priorities in both sets of standards.

The document consists of two parts: • A guide to IAS indicators assessed on ISTEP+ and those best

assessed in the classroom

• A list of instructional priorities in the CCSS

Assessment Guidance Documents

Text complexity is defined by: • Qualitative measures- levels

of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands

• Quantitative measures- word length or frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion

• Reader and task considerations- motivation, knowledge, and experiences

Overview of Text Complexity

“Rigorous, text-dependent questions require students to demonstrate that they can follow the details of what is explicitly stated and make valid claims and inferences that square with the evidence in the text.”

PARCC Model Content Framework

Instructional Priorities in CCSS: Text-based Evidence

“Through a progression of research tasks, students are called upon to present their findings in a variety of modes in informal and formal contexts appropriate to the grade level (e.g., through oral presentations, argumentative or explanatory compositions, or multimedia products).”

PARCC Model Content Framework

Instructional Priorities in CCSS: Research

“The standards put a particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness.”

Appendix A

Instructional Priorities in CCSS: The Special Place of Argument

Instructional Priorities in CCSS: The Special Place of Argument

Argument

• Appeals to credibility, character or authority of writer

• Emotional Appeals

• Appeals to Self Interest

Persuasion

• Logical Argument • Claims are supported by

proof • Requires more than

surface knowledge

Literacy Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, Technical Subjects

Literacy Standards

• Literacy must be a shared responsibility • Not just the ELA teacher

• Reading across the curriculum vs. disciplinary literacy

• Supports? • Standards • Secondary Literacy Framework • Videos

Assessment

Partnership for Assessment of College and Careers (PARCC)

www.parcconline.org

A Few PARCC Facts….

• PARCC is a consortium of 24 states working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers

• PARCC states educate about 25 million students

• Educators will be involved throughout the development of the PARCC assessments

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)

Governing Board States Participating States

1. Create high-quality assessments

2. Build a pathway to college and career readiness for all students

3. Support educators in the classroom

4. Develop 21st century, technology-based assessments

5. Advance accountability at all levels

The PARCC Goals

Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments

Priority Purposes of PARCC Assessments:

1. Determine whether students are college- and career-ready or on track

2. Assess the full range of the Common Core Standards, including standards that are difficult to measure

3. Measure the full range of student performance, including the performance high and low performing students

4. Provide data during the academic year to inform instruction, interventions and professional development

5. Provide data for accountability, including measures of growth

6. Incorporate innovative approaches throughout the system

• Summative Assessment Components: – Performance-Based Assessment (PBA): ELA/literacy focus on

writing effectively when analyzing text and mathematics focus on math practices

– End-of-Year Assessment (EOY): ELA/literacy focus on reading comprehension and mathematics focus on innovative, machine-scorable items

• Formative Assessment Components: – Early Assessment: Help inform instruction

– Mid-Year Assessment: Performance-based items and tasks, with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards.

Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments

Goal #1: Create High-Quality Assessments

End-of-Year Assessment

• Innovative, computer-based items

Performance-Based Assessment (PBA)

• Extended tasks • Applications of

concepts and skills

Summative assessment for accountability

Formative assessment

Early Assessment • Early indicator of

student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD

ELA/Literacy • Speaking • Listening

Flexible

Mid-Year Assessment • Performance-based • Emphasis on hard

to measure standards

• Potentially summative

Goal #2: Build a Pathway to College and Career Readiness for All Students

K-2 3-8 High School

K-2 formative assessment

being developed,

aligned to the PARCC system

Timely student achievement data showing students, parents and educators

whether ALL students are on-track to college and career

readiness

ONGOING STUDENT SUPPORTS/INTERVENTIONS

College readiness score to identify who

is ready for college-level coursework

SUCCESS IN FIRST-YEAR,

CREDIT-BEARING, POSTSECONDARY

COURSEWORK

Targeted interventions &

supports: •12th-grade bridge courses • PD for educators

Goal #3: Support Educators in the Classroom

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODULES

INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION

EDUCATOR-LED TRAINING TO SUPPORT “PEER-TO-PEER” TRAINING

TIMELY STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

K-12 Educator

Goal #4: Develop 21st Century, Technology-Based Assessments

PARCC’s assessment will be computer-based and leverage technology in a range of ways to: •Item Development

– Develop innovative tasks that engage students in the assessment process

•Administration – Reduce paperwork, increase security, reduce shipping/receiving & storage

– Increase access to and provision of accommodations for SWDs and ELLs

•Scoring – Make scoring more efficient by combining human and automated

approaches

•Reporting – Produce timely reports of students performance throughout the year to

inform instructional, interventions, and professional development

Goal #5: Advance Accountability at All Levels

• PARCC assessments will be purposefully designed to generate valid, reliable and timely data, including measures of growth, for various accountability uses including:

– School and district effectiveness

– Educator effectiveness

– Student placement into college, credit-bearing courses

– Comparisons with other state and international benchmarks

• PARCC assessments will be designed for other accountability uses as states deem appropriate

PARCC Timeline

SY 2011-12

Development begins

SY 2012-13

First year pilot/field testing and

related research and data collection

SY 2013-14

Second year pilot/field testing and

related research and data collection

SY 2014-15

Full administration

of PARCC assessments

SY 2010-11

Launch and

design phase

Summer 2015

Set achievement

levels, including

college-ready performance

levels

Resources

• www.doe.in.gov/commoncore

• Learning Connection

– IDOE – Curriculum and Instruction

– IDOE – Assessment Information for Teachers

• www.parcconline.org

• www.corestandards.org

QUESTIONS?