June 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2011 Indian Ridge Middle School Preparing America’s Students for College and Career.

June 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2011Indian Ridge Middle School

Preparing America’s Students for College and Career

DAY 1Welcome and IntroductionData and Research: Why are we moving to Common Core?Standards OverviewCCSS VS. NGSSSHow will we make this Paradigm Shift?CCSS Spiral Activity

DAY 2CCSS Spiral ActivityText Complexity and Text ExemplarsCCSS VS. Core ProgramsWhat is Literacy in History, Science, and Technical Subjects?

DAY 3CCSS Spiral ActivityInstructional ImplicationsDifferentiating InstructionGradual Release ModelMaking the Standards Accessible for all StudentsImplementation Challenges and BarriersPARCC Assessments

DAY 4District Implementation PlanWork ProjectsRole in District CCSS Cadre

Understand the Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Reading

Understand the literacy expectations across content areas

Understand the role of the CCSS and its impact on vertical alignment (PK-12)

Understand text complexity

Develop an Implementation plan for the District

GoalsGoals

• Each state had its own set of academic standards, meaning public education students in each state were learning at different levels

• All students had to be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students from around the world

WHAT:WHAT: THINK-PAIR-SHARE THINK-PAIR-SHARE

WHY:WHY: Allows for individual reflection and small group discussion; gets all voices in the room; sets the stage for the day Allows for individual reflection and small group discussion; gets all voices in the room; sets the stage for the day

HOW:HOW: How have the NGSSS impacted your work as a teacher and how have you used them? Discuss with a partner and prepare to share.

How have the NGSSS impacted your work as a teacher and how have you used them? Discuss with a partner and prepare to share.

GoalsGoals

Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals About College Readiness in Reading

GoalsGoals

Only 51 percent of 2005 ACT-tested high school graduates met ACT’s College Readiness Benchmark for Reading.

Student readiness for college-level reading is at its lowest point in more than a decade.

State standards in high school reading are insufficient or nonexistent.

Those ACT-tested students who can read complex texts are more likely to be ready for college. Those who cannot read complex texts are less likely to be ready for college.

GoalsGoals

•More than 50 percent of first year college students are unable to produce papers relatively free of language errors.

•Analyzing, arguing, and synthesizing information are also beyond the scope of most first year students.

•It would be false to claim that most students cannot write well. What most students cannot do is write well enough to meet the demands they face in higher education and the emerging work environment.

GoalsGoals

•Basic writing itself is not the issue. The problem is that most students cannot write with the skill expected of them today.

•Most students have mastered writing basics, but few are able to create precise, engaging, coherent prose.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Writing Specifications for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2006National Commission on Writing “R” The Need for a Writing Revolution

10

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Remedial Education at Degree-Granting

Postsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000, 2003.

Percentage of U.S. first-year students in two-year and four-year institutions requiring remediation

11Source: OECD, “Education at a Glance,” 2007 (All rates are self-reported)

% of Citizens with Postsecondary Degrees Among OECD Countries, by Age Group (2006)

55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 ALL (25-64)

1 U.S. (38%) Canada (43%) Canada (51%) Canada (55%) Canada (47%)

2 Canada (37%) U.S. (40%) Japan (46%) Japan (54%) Japan (40%)

3 N.Z. (30%) Japan (39%) Finland (41%) Korea (53%) U.S. (39%)

4 Denmark (28%) N.Z. (38%) U.S. (41%) N.Z. (44%) N.Z. (38%)

5 Finland (27%) Finland (34%) N.Z. (39%) Ireland (42%) Finland (35%)

6 Australia (26%) Denmark (33%) Korea (37%) Belgium (42%) Denmark (35%)

7 Sweden (25%) Australia (32%) Denmark (36%) Norway (42%) Australia (33%)

8 Norway (25%) Norway (30%) Belgium (35%) France (41%) Korea (33%)

9 Neth. (25%) Neth. (30%) Norway (35%) Denmark (41%) Norway (33%)

10 U.K. (24%) Switz. (29%) Iceland (34%) U.S. (39%) Belgium (32%)

11 Switz. (24%) Iceland (29%) Australia (33%) Spain (39%) Ireland (31%)

12 Japan (23%) U.K. (29%) Switz. (33%) Sweden (39%) Sweden (31%)

13 Germany (23%) Sweden (29%) Ireland (33%) Australia (39%) U.K. (30%)

14 Belgium (22%) Belgium (27%) Spain (31%) Finland (38%) Neth. (30%)

15 Iceland (21%) Germany (25%) U.K. (31%) U.K. (37%) Switz. (30%)

Florida (37%) Florida (38%) Florida (36%) Florida (37%)

12Source: OECD Education at a Glance, 2007; National Center for Higher Education Management Systems analysis of 2007 American Community Survey. http://www.higheredinfo.org

Question type (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator between student scoring above and below the benchmark.

Question type (main idea, word meanings, details) is NOT the chief differentiator between student scoring above and below the benchmark.

Question level (higherorder vs. lower order; literal vs. inferential) is NOT the chief differentiator

Question level (higherorder vs. lower order; literal vs. inferential) is NOT the chief differentiator

Research analyzed the Reading section of the ACT college entrance exam to determine which skills differentiated those that achieved benchmark and those that did not. (About half, 51%, of the half million test takers who take the test

each year)

What students could read, in terms of its complexity, rather than what they could do with what they read, was determined to be the greatest predictor of

success.

What students could read, in terms of its complexity, rather than what they could do with what they read, was determined to be the greatest predictor of

success.

What I Think I Know

Confirmed Misconceptions New Information Wonderings

Aligned with college and work expectations

Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills

Build upon strengths and lessons learned about 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

Learning Progressions

•Fewer, Higher, Clearer Standards

College and Career Readiness Standards developed in 2009

Final CCSS ReleasedJuly, 2010

Full Implementation2013-2014

Adopted by GrowingNumber of StatesCurrently 45?

✔✔

2013-14 ~ fully implement CCSS; assess FCAT 2.0

2014-15 ~ fully implement CCSS; assess PARCC

* 2011-12 kindergartners – first students assessed on CCSS as third graders in 2014-15.

Primary goal - increase number of students who graduate high school ready for college and careers

Primary goal - increase number of students who graduate high school ready for college and careers

• Two National Assessment Consortiums PARCC and SBAC

Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) – FLORIDA’S Consortium

www.parcconline.org

• Participation of 24 states and District of Columbia

• Primary goal - increase number of students who graduate high school ready for college and careers

21

Sept. 2011

Development phase begins

Sept. 2012

First year field testing and

related research and

data collection begins

Sept. 2013

Second year field testing begins and

related research and

data collection continues

Sept. 2014

Full administration

of PARCC assessments

begins

Oct. 2010

Launch and design phase

begins

Summer 2015

Set achievement

levels, including

college-ready performance

levels

K 1 2 3

PARCC design

• Variety of item types assessing reading and writing inshort answer, longer open response,

performance based, richer multiple choice formats

• Testing at key points throughout school year(4 X per year)

• Separate assessment for grades K-2

• Reading Standards for Literature K-5 (10 standards)

• Reading Standards for Informational Text K-5 (10 standards)

• Reading Standards: Foundational Skills K-5 (4 standards)

• Writing Standards K-5 (10 standards)

• Speaking and Listening Standards K-5 (6 standards)

• Language Standards K-5 (6 standards)

Range, Quality, and Complexity of Student Reading K-5

Page 10

GoalsGoals

Design and Organization

Reading the Standards

Reading Strand for Literature Fourth Grade

Standard #

RL.4.9 Compare and contrast the treatment of similarthemes and topics (e.g., opposition of good andevil) and patterns of events (e.g., the quest) instories, myths, and traditional literature fromdifferent cultures.

CCR.9 Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

Reading the Standards

Writing Strand

Third Grade

Standard #

CCR.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.

W.3.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. a. Establish a situation and introduce a narrator and/or characters;

organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally.b. Use dialogue and descriptions of actions, thoughts, and feelings to

develop experiences and events or show the response of characters to situations.

c. Use temporal words and phrases to signal event order.d. Provide a sense of closure.

GoalsGoals

Comprehension (standards 1−9) Standards for reading literature and informational texts Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on students’ ability to read and comprehend informational texts Aligned with NAEP Reading framework

Range of reading and level of text complexity(standard 10, Appendices A and B) “Staircase” of growing text complexity across grades High-quality literature and informational texts in a range

of genres and subgenres

GoalsGoals

Four categories (standards 1−4)Print concepts (K−1)Phonological awareness (K−1)Phonics and word recognition (K−5)Fluency (K−5)

• Not an end in and of themselves• Differentiated instruction

GoalsGoals

Writing types/purposes (standards 1−3)Writing argumentsWriting informative/explanatory textsWriting narratives

Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on studentswriting arguments and informative/explanatory textsAligned with NAEP Writing framework

GoalsGoals

Production and distribution of writing (standards 4−6)Developing and strengthening writingUsing technology to produce and enhance writing

Research (standards 7−9)Engaging in research and writing about sources

Range of writing (standard 10)Writing routinely over various time frames

GoalsGoals

Comprehension and collaboration (standards 1−3) Day-to-day, purposeful academic talk in one-on-one,

small-group, and large-group settings

Presentation of knowledge and ideas (standards 4−6)Formal sharing of information and concepts, including through the use of technology

GoalsGoals

Conventions of standard EnglishKnowledge of language (standards 1−3)Using standard English in formal writing and speakingUsing language effectively and recognizing language varieties

Vocabulary (standards 4−6)Determining word meanings and word nuancesAcquiring general academic and domain-specific words and

phrases

GoalsGoals

Spiralling packet activity #1

Work in your table groups to highlightor underline the new skill and conceptsadded to each grade level from the year prior.

WHAT:WHAT: Coding Strategy Coding Strategy

WHY:WHY:

WHAT:WHAT:

Allows for individual reflection and small group discussion; gets all voices in the room; sums up the day Allows for individual reflection and small group discussion; gets all voices in the room; sums up the day

Use the coding strategy while reading the key takeaway document:

*I already knew this! ! Interesting Information? I don’t understand + New Information