The Common Core State Standards

Focus for School Board Members

NSBA webinar ♦ March 6, 2012Center for Public Education

Kentucky School Boards Association

Today’s presenters

• Patte Barth, NSBA’s Center for Public Education

• Roberta Stanley, NSBA’s federal relations

• Bill Scott, Kentucky School Boards Association

• Kerri Schelling, KSBA

3

The Common Core Standards are intended to be:

• Aligned with college and work expectations• Focused and coherent• Include rigorous content and application of knowledge

through high-order skills• Build upon strengths and lessons of current state

standards• Internationally benchmarked so that all students are

prepared to succeed in our global economy and society• Based on evidence and research• State led – coordinated by NGA Center and CCSSO

SOURCE: Common Core State Standards, www.corestandards.org

The Common Core Standards process:

• CCSSO and NGA’s Center for Best Practices

• Advisory group: Achieve, Inc.; ACT, Inc.; College

Board, NASBE, and SHEEO

• Two rounds of public review

• Final documents released June 2010

• No federal dollars for development; foundation support

46 states & DC have adopted the CCSS

adoptednot adopted

5

CCSS vs NCLBCommon Core State Standards No Child Left Behind

INFLEXIBLE on CONTENTstates must adopt 100% of CCSS K-12 standards

INFLEXIBLE on ASSESSMENTmust begin assessments on CCSS within three years

FLEXIBLE on ACCOUNTABILITYno requirements for public accountability

FLEXIBLE on CONTENT states define their own standards

INFLEXIBLE on ASSESSMENTmust assess state standards yearly 3-8 and once in high school

INFLEXIBLE on ACCOUNTABILITYnumerous provisions

NSBA & CCSS

• supports NGA/CCSSO state-led process

• supports federal funding for research and/or help to states for developing assessments

• opposes federal mandates or coercion, eg. a condition for receiving Title 1 funds

• opposes a national test

What’s in the standards – English language arts

Reading• Balance of literature and informational texts• Text complexityWriting• Emphasis on argument/informative• Writing about sourcesSpeaking and Listening• Inclusion of formal and informal talkLanguage• Stress on general academic and domain-specific

vocabulary

SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

What’s different? English language arts

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

Alignment with college and career readiness

expectations

SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

What’s in the standards –Mathematics

• Number & quantity• Algebra - algebraic thinking K-5

• Functions• Modeling - high school

• Geometry• Statistics & probability• Emphasis on Mathematical practice

SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

What’s different? –Mathematics

Modeling -- choosing and using mathematics and statistics to represent and analyze everyday situations to understand them better

Eg., planning a table tennis tournament for 7 players with 4 tables and everyone plays each player

SOURCE: Common Core Standards, June 2010

Pathways through high school mathematics

Traditional sequence Integrated sequence

• 2 algebra courses• 1 geometry course• DPS included• 1 higher course

• 3 integrated courses• all include number, algebra, geometry, DPS• 1 higher course

SOURCE: Common Core Standards, Mathematics Appendix A, 2010

Algebra II

Geometry

Algebra I

Math III

Math II

Math I

pre-calculus, calculus, advanced statistics, discrete math,

advanced quantitative reasoning, specific technical

POS

State CCSSassessment consortia

• formed to develop common “next generation”

assessments aligned to the CCSS

• supported by $346 million federal grants

• PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for

College & Careers headed by Achieve, Inc.

• SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium headed by

Washington state department of education

13

What’s in common?

• intended to assess higher order thinking at grades 3-8

and high school

• measure growth and proficiency

• computer-administered online to provide rapid feedback

• both summative assessments for accountability, and

formative assessments to monitor students’ progress

• aligned resources, ie., model lessons, diagnostic tools,

professional development

14

How do PARCC/SMARTER differ?

• PARCC is computer-delivered; SMARTER will be

“computer adaptive”

• SMARTER is developing comprehensive high school

assessment; PARCC is developing EOC high school

assessments, including for two math pathways

• SMARTER is budgeted to translate assessments into 5

languages, one of which will be Spanish

15

Points of collaborationSMARTER & PARCC

• working to ensure comparability of scores

• developing protocols for Artificial Intelligent scoring

• examining interoperable technology infrastructure

• working toward same deadlines

16SOURCE: Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, webinar April 4, 2011

24 states & DC are in the PARCC consortium

participantnon participant

17

28 states are in the SMARTER consortium

participantnon participant

18

46 states & DC are involved

involvednot involved

19

Next Generation Science Standards

• Collaboration of Achieve, NRC, AAAS, NSTA and 26 lead states

• “Internationally benchmarked”

• First draft to be released in 2012; 2 public reviews

• Intended to be adopted ‘in whole’

• Carnegie Corp, Noyce Foundation & Dupont sponsors

20

What will be in the standards

Science• Practices: behaviors necessary

to the work of scientists & engineers

• Cross-cutting concepts: the ‘big ideas’, eg., patterns, scale, cause & effect, etc.

• Disciplinary core ideas: physical sciences; life sciences, earth & space sciences; and engineering, technology & applications.

SOURCE: Next Generation Science Standards, www.nextgenscience.org21

26 lead states – Next Generation Science Standards

participantnon participant

22

Other assessment consortia

• Alternative assessments: $67 million to Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) and National Center and State Collaboration (NCSC)– Assessments for students with “most significant cognitive

impairments”

• Assessments for ELL: $10.5 million to ASSETS, Assessment Services Supporting Els Through Technology Systems

23SOURCE: The K-12 Center at ETS, www.k12center.org

The Common Core State Standards

The challenges

ACT’s ‘first look’ at the common core standards

English language arts

Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark

SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 201025

ACT’s ‘first look’Achievement gap - ELA

Percent of 2009 11th graders scoring at college-career ready benchmark

SOURCE: ACT, Inc., A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness, December 201026

Technology needs

• 33 states offer some level of online testing• Most don’t assess all students• Most are voluntary• Most are summative only• Most schools will need more computers &

more bandwidth

27SOURCE: SETDA, Technology Requirements for Large Scale, Computer-Based & Online Assessment, June 2011

District needs

• Professional development for staff• Aligned assessments & curriculum• Aligned instructional materials• Supports for students

28

The Common Core State Standards

How states are preparing

State survey

• Most states say CCSS are more rigorous than their current standards

• Most states say full implementation will take at least until 2013 or beyond

• All are developing professional development materials & guides for districts

SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

State survey (con’t)

• Most states have established partnerships between state education agency and higher ed

• Half are aligning undergraduate admissions policies with CCSS

SOURCE: Year 2 of implementing common core state standards: States’ progress and challenges, Center on Education Policy, January 2012

School district challenges

• Almost 3/5 of districts in CCSS states view CCSS as more rigorous

• 2/3 are developing plans and timelines

• 3/4 view adequate funding as a major challenge

• 2/3 say they are getting inadequate guidance from state

• Few see teacher/principal resistance as a major challenge although 3/5 see it as a minor one

SOURCE: Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation, Center on Education Policy, September 2011

The Common Core State Standards

The federal view

Federal Policy and CCSS

Race to the Top• One of four reform areas: standards & assessments.• States do not have to adopt common standards to be

eligible; but get points for doing so, more points for joining larger consortium (e.g. CCSSO/NGA).

• Points for supporting transition to new standards/assessments.

• Same criteria applied to assessments.• Make up 70 points of 500 points total.• 11 states and DC received RTTT funds (I and II), 9

more states eligible for phase III.

Federal Policy and CCSSNCLB waivers

• ED announced waivers 9-23-2011.

• 10 broad areas of flexibility include: waive 2014 deadline of 100% proficiency; waive identification of schools for improvement; free up 20% set-aside for choice and tutoring, 10% for professional development, etc.

• In exchange for four reform principles, include: develop and implement rigorous college- & career-ready standards & assessments in reading & math.

• Adopt English language proficiency standards aligned to new standards and assessments.

• Flexibility through 2013-2014 school year, can apply for extension.

Federal Policy and CCSSCollege- and career- ready standards must be:

• Standards that are common to a significant number of states (states can supplement up to 15% with additional standards for a content area); or

• Standards that are approved by a “state network of institutions of higher education”, certify students will not need remedial courses (a network of 4-year IHEs that enroll at least 50% of students who attend state’s 4-year public IHEs).

High quality assessments must be:

• Valid, reliable and fair; measure college & career readiness.

• Measure student growth.

Passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009 propelled Kentucky into a new era in public education

Mutual accountability for K-12 and post secondary systems

Preparing all students for life after high school… ◦college and career readiness for all.

Changes in Kentucky’s System

37

New academic standards New assessments Program reviews Improved professional

development New accountability system Unified plan for improving

college/career readiness

38

38

Senate Bill 1 (2009)

90% of fastest growing jobs require at least two (2) years of education beyond high school.

80% of all jobs require some training beyond high school.

Nation’s colleges need to increase number of degrees by 10% per year to meet demand.

Kentucky = 5,200 more graduates per year

Where Are the Jobs?

39

High School Graduation Rate = 76%

38 % of Kentucky’s 2011 high school graduates were College or Career Ready

High remediation rate = fewer college degrees

Kentucky’s Challenge

40

Added cost with no credits

Adds time/expense to college education

Result: more likely to leave w/o diploma

College freshmen requiring remedial reading have 17% chance of attaining degree in 8 years

Remedial Courses = Major Obstacle to College Degrees

41

42

College Ready Criteria

ACT (11th Grade)

English – 18

Mathematics – 19

Reading – 20

COMPASS (12th Grade)

KYOTE (12th Grade)

Must meet one of the following requirements to be considered College Ready:

43

College Readiness System

ACT’s College Readiness Benchmarks* are early indicators of likely college success based on student EXPLORE, PLAN, or ACT scores.

Test Content Area

EXPLORE

8th

PLAN10th

ACT11th

English English 13 15 18

Math Algebra 17 19 19

Reading Social Sciences

15 17 20

Science Biology 20 21 24* Reflects the minimum score needed on an ACT subject area test to indicate a 50%

chance of obtaining a “B” or better or a 75% chance of obtaining a “C” or better in the corresponding credit-bearing college course.

44

Academic:a) Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

(ASVAB)b) ACT Work Keys (applied math, locating

information and reading for information)

Technical:a) Kentucky Occupational Skills

Standards Assessment (KOSSA)

b) Industry certificates

Career Ready CriteriaMust meet one benchmark for academic area and one for technical area.

1. Course/Assessment Alignment with Standards

2. Transitional Interventions

3. Accelerationo Advance KYo Project Lead the Way

4. Persistence to Graduation –- Collection and Use of Data

5. Academic and Career Advising

6. Career Readiness Definition/Pathways

7. Innovative Routes To Graduation

8. District 180/Turnaround Low Performing Schools

9. New Accountability Model

College/Career Readiness Strategies

45

10 years of research by Iowa Association of School Boards and NSBA

Do school boards make a difference in student achievement?

What are the specific board roles that impact student achievement?

The Lighthouse Project

Set clear and high expectations Create the conditions for success Hold the system accountable Create the public will to succeed Learn as a board team

Leadership Roles ofEffective Boards

Embrace the new standards!− Clearer and more rigorous− Focused on specific knowledge and skills

necessary for postsecondary success How much does your board know

about new standards?

Set Clear and High Expectations

Support high quality professional development− Do teachers have sufficient time and

support to learn new standards?− What can the board do to support

this effort?

Create Conditionsfor Success

Monitor district’s progress toward successful implementation of the new

standards

What is the district doing to prepare?

What kind of reports does the board receive?

Hold the System Accountable

Help public understand significance of new standards

Engage local media in your efforts

Create the PublicWill to Succeed

Include relevant topics on board agendas & work sessions

Use multiple sources of information⁻ Kentucky Department of Education₋ Kentucky Educational Television₋ Prichard Committee – “Ready Kentucky”

Learn as a Board Team

Partnerships with state agencies and organizations (accurate/timely/consistent information)

Whole board training modules

Statewide training opportunities

Facilitation of community discussions

KSBA’s Support of Board Leadership

Bill Scott, executive directorBill.scott@ksba.org

Kerri Schelling, director, board team development

Kerri.schelling@ksba.org

Kentucky School Boards Associationwww.ksba.org

Learn more

Learn moreNSBA resourcesRace to the Top

www.nsba.org/economicstimulusNCLB waivers

Conference calls, weekly highlights, Webinarwww.nsba.org/advocacy

kbranch@nsab.orgU.S. Department of Education Website

http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

Watch this space

www.centerforpubliceducation.org or contact

Patte Barth, pbarth@nsba.org