TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT- GENERATION ASSESSMENT MODELS Results from a survey of educator preparedness and recommendations.

TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENT MODELS

Results from a survey of educator preparedness and recommendations for implementation

By Micah J. Lauer Joint School District Number 2, Meridian, ID

© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer

Some facts for considerationAn estimated 30-60 % of students who are admitted to

colleges and universities in the United States require remedial courses in order to facilitate the start of their higher education experiences (Complete College America, 2012; Conley, 2008).

Of all high school graduates who took the ACT test in 2012, 60% met only one or two of the four college readiness benchmarks, thus identifying these students as being at risk for struggling in college (ACT, Inc, 2012)

TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS


Facts (cont.)Technical manuals and other texts in the workplace can also

exceed the reading abilities of many students, with lexile ratings well beyond grade 12 complexity levels (Stenner, Koons, & Swart in Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d.).

A recent study conducted by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) details the struggles of thirty-five states that have elected to adopt the CCSS. The study reports that educators across the country commonly agree that the CCSS are more rigorous than their previous state standards (Kobler & Rentner, 2012).



Facts (cont.)Other recent studies support the findings of the

CEP study, indicating that anywhere from 50-80% of teachers are unprepared to teach the new standards (Scholastic & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012; Lestch, 2012; Schmidt, 2012).



Facts (cont.)Traditional style tests fail to measure CCSS skills (Fuhrman,

1996 in Seamon, 2003; Porter, McMaken, Hwang, Yang, 2011).

Of state math and language assessments analyzed during a 2011 study, none demonstrated alignments better than .19, with 1.0 representing perfect alignment (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, Yang, 2011).

To achieve the goal of CCSS implementation, states must make significant changes to their standards and assessments (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, Yang, 2011).



Project purpose• It has been established that:• Students are not being prepared for career and college at a

high enough level• The CCSS are significantly different and more rigorous than

most current standards• Many teachers are not prepared for CCSS implementation• Next-generation assessment models are vastly different

than traditional testing models – which have weak alignment with CCSS skills

• Additionally, at this time, little to no published data exists to assess educator preparedness for developing next-generation assessments that measure CCSS skills



Project purposeAddressing a series of important questions:• How do teachers in Joint School District Number 2

measure in terms of CCSS implementation and the development of next-generation assessment?• To what extent are teachers informed about these

topics?• To what extent is implementation taking place?• What type of resources are being requested?• How should the district move forward with

implementation?




Project overview• Survey of K-12 certified

teachers in Joint School District No. 2, Meridian, Idaho• Survey designed to assess

teacher preparedness for the implementing the Common Core State Standards and developing next-generation assessments



Survey design• 34 question format:

• Most questions formatted with a 1-5 Likert frequency scale• Two open-ended response questions included to

acquire a more in-depth understanding

Topic Size

Demographics 4 questions

Collaboration/curriculum 5 questions

Common Core 13 questions

Next-generation assessments 12 questions



Logistics• Survey was delivered to 1895 email recipients

via web-based K12 Insight Survey tool used by Joint School District No. 2• Two week response window: Tues. Feb 26th –

Tues. Mar 12th • Email reminder sent at one week mark• 300 responses in first week• 175 responses in second week



Response & Statistical Reliability• 475 total responses• 25.1% response rate• 95% confidence level• +/- 4% confidence interval

• A minimum sample size of 330 was needed to achieve 95% confidence and +/- 5% confidence (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD00600.pdf)

n = N 1 + N (e)

330 = 1895 1 + 1895 (.05)2 2


http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD00600.pdf


Survey results:demographics



Demographics: grade level

ElementaryMiddle schoolHigh school

43%

33%

24%



Demographics: teaching experience

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 25+0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Resp

onde

nts

Years experience© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer


Demographics: primary subject area of instruction

Language Arts: 12.25%Mathematics: 10.64%Science: 9.24%History/social studies: 5.62%Music: 1.2%Physical Education: 1.41%Other: 14.26%

Did not answer: 45.38%*

* Note: Elementary teachers were not prompted to choose a primary subject area



Survey results:Collaboration & Curriculum



Do you participate in a weekly professional learning community (PLC) group with other educators from

your primary subject area(s) of instruction?

62% 22%

3% 5% 8%

NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently

22%62%

84% total

Green means go! The two highest (green) categories in each graph represent the desired target and serve as an indicator of acceptability



Does your PLC group spend collaboration time on the following subjects?

Frequency of occurrence

Common Core implementation

Next-generation assessments

Creating studentmaterials

Never 7.8% 22.5% 5.5%Rarely 12.9% 18.3% 11.6%Occasionally 27.0% 29.7% 28.2%Frequently 30.6% 18.9% 30.7%Very frequently 21.7% 10.5% 24.0%52.3% 29.4% 54.7%



Do in-service/professional development activities in your building involve using PLC collaboration time for developing student-centric resources (learning

activities/assignments/assessments) for classroom use?


30%

24%11%11%

24%



How often do you utilize classroom lessons/learning activities from the following sources?

Frequency Materials that I created

Materials created by peers

District materials

Never 0.6% 3.6% 9.2%Rarely 1.9% 11.1% 22.3%Occasionally 12% 34.1% 31.4%Frequently 35%* 36.4%* 24%Very frequently 50.4%* 14.8%* 13.1%

*Teachers frequently create their own lessons/activities and also borrow from peers – what opportunities and challenges does this present in terms of transitioning to the Core Standards?



Survey results:Common Core



I have read and reviewed the Common Core State Standards document for my primary subject

area(s) of instruction

30%

24%11%11%

24% NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently

24%32%

30%

5%8%



How informed do you feel about the purpose of the Core Standards the research behind the

standards?

Highly uninformed

Uninformed

Somewhat informed

Informed

Highly informed

34% 35%

10%5%

16%



How informed do you feel about the CCSS that apply to your specific content area(s)?

Highly uninformed

Uninformed

Somewhat informed

Informed

Highly informed

31%

17%

34%

10%7%



How prepared do you feel to create lessons that teach the CCSS for your primary subject area(s) of instruction?

Highly unprepared

Unprepared

Somewhat prepared

Prepared

Highly prepared

39%28%

18%

6%9%

There is a noticeable difference between reading the standards, feeling informed about the standards, and being prepared to implement the standards – this underscores the importance of professional development and collaboration



Does your building have a CCSS implementation plan?

YesNoNot Sure

53%35%

12%

Communication! “Not sure” is as good as “No.”



Have CCSS-related professional development opportunities been offered in your building?


39%25%

16%13%

7%



Have you participated in CCSS-related professional development opportunities outside of your building?


34% 16%

25%20%

5%



To what extent has implementation of the CCSS taken place in your building?


37%

13%32%

12%

5%



To what extent have you personally begun implementation of the CCSS in your classroom?


30%24%

28% 10%9%



With regard to your needs for implementing the CCSS, rank the following seven items:

Weighted outcomes:1. Time to develop lessons and other curriculum materials2. Sample CCSS activities, assignments/projects, and

lessons3. Collaboration with educators in my primary subject area(s)4. Professional development opportunities5. Textbooks, primary documents, content-specific literature6. Advice from educators who have implemented the standards7. Technology for students to use



Survey results:Next-generation Assessments



How often do you utilize classroom assessments from the following sources?

Frequency Materials that I created

Materials created by peers

District materials

Never 2.18% 6.84% 16.7%Rarely 3.93% 13.69% 20.22%Occasionally 12.45% 26.93% 29.89%Frequently 36.24%* 38.85%* 20.88%Very frequently 45.2%* 13.69%* 12.31%

*Teachers frequently create their own assessments and borrow from peers –again, what opportunities and challenges does this present?



How frequently do you utilize the following type of tasks in your classroom assessments?

Frequency Multiple choice Fill-in-the-blank Performance task

Never 7.89% 6.39% 3.3%Rarely 21.05% 17.18% 9.69%Occasionally 33.33% 33.26% 23.35%Frequently 27.63% 33.26% 31.28%*Very frequently 10.09% 9.91% 32.38%*

*Performance tasks are a significant component of SBAC next-generation assessment models



I have reviewed official information about the Smarter Balanced assessment published by the SBAC or Idaho Department of Education


29%19%

34%14%

4%



How informed do you feel about the philosophy behind the SBAC assessment?

Highly uninformed

Uninformed

Somewhat unin-formed

Informed

Highly informed

34%25%

17% 19%

5%



How prepared do you feel to develop and administer next-generation classroom assessments that are aligned with the philosophy of the SBAC?

Highly unprepared

Unprepared

Somewhat prepared

Prepared

Highly prepared

37%33%

21%

7% 2%



Have SBAC-related next-generation assessment professional development opportunities been offered in your building?


44%27%

20%

7% 1%



To what extent have you participated in SBAC-related next-generation professional development opportunities outside of your building?


47%

26%

18%

7% 2%



To what extent has implementation of SBAC style next-generation classroom assessments taken place in your building?


30%27%

33%

9% 2%



To what extent have you personally implemented SBAC style next-generation assessments in your classroom?


38%

23%26%

10%

3%



With regard to your needs to develop and administer next-generation classroom assessments rank the following resources:

Weighted outcomes:1. Additional time to develop next-generation style assessments2. Sample next-generation style classroom assessments for my

subject area(s)3. Professional development opportunities4. Collaboration with other educators in my primary subject area(s)5. Advice from educators who have administered next-generation

style assessments6. Technology for students to use



Survey results:Open-ended Responses



Common Core State Standards: Q22. What is your biggest concern about transitioning to the CCSS?



“I have reviewed the CCSS but I do not understand how they apply to subjects other than Math and Language Arts. I do not see how I am to implement these standards in subjects such as Science or History. I do not know what these CCSS look like in those classrooms that are not core content areas.”

“We have had no training, and I don't even know what CCSS is for sure.”

“No clue at all what CCSS is.”



“It seems that all of the responsibility for implementation is being put on the shoulders of already overburdened teachers. All of the above needs for implementation require more time. There is only so much time in a day, week, school year, etc. We are trying to assemble a plane in flight with student passengers. Let's try not to kill them and ourselves at the same time.”

“That it seems like a waste of time. There are big holes in the subject matter and the students are going to struggle and possibly give up.”



“I teach all non common core classes.”

“Will it truly benefit students and teachers?”

“I think the CCSS is destined for complete student failure. I am not sure that it was created or implemented to increase student learning or performance. In fact, I think the direct opposite is true. I believe it is a means to further bring down the USA in it's position as a world power. It is also designed for teacher failure and burn-out.”



Commonality among previous respondents

Q11. I have read and reviewed the Common Core State Standards document for my primary subject area(s) of instruction.

Answer range: Rarely – occasionally

Q13. How informed do you feel about the CCSS that apply to your specific content area(s)?

Answer range: Highly uninformed – uninformed

Q14. How prepared do you feel to create lessons that teach the CCSS for your primary subject area(s) of instruction?

Answer range: Highly unprepared - unprepared



• High level of correlation between negative comments and lack of understanding about the CCSS• Teacher buy-in and effective implementation

cannot occur if there is a lack of knowledge and understanding

• Comments emphasize the importance of training – teachers need to be informed to be successful



Teachers ranked time as the most important resource needed•The majority of open-ended comments about the CCSS supported this concern



“Having the time to develop lessons and activities that connect with CCSS.”

“Needing time to plan and coordinate valid assessments, rubrics and how to score student work.”

“Time - not having enough time to create lessons, activities and assessment. And not enough time to grade those.”

“Time, time, time. I need much more time with my building PLC partner to search and develop activities and assessments.”



“Not being given appropriate time to collaborate with teachers as well as more time to grade the student assessments- which are at a higher level/Bloom's of learning and require more time to grade. TIME is big. Need more of it to do justice to common core.”

“Time: There is not enough time in the day to develop lessons, grade Smarter Balance type tests (formative/summative) and collaborate with teammates. We spend an IMMENSE amount of time on our own (weekends/evenings, grading and preparing at home).”



“Time to plan. I took the summer to organize and understand standards and the classroom supplies I have available. I simply need time to modify and adjust the lessons and assessments based on my student needs. TIME, TIME, TIME to plan is what I really need!”

“Time needed to be the most successful. We have been trained like crazy but no time is given for reflection, discussion with peers, of materials and time to create meaningful and helpful materials.”

“Time. It takes a lot of time to make performance tasks and then build units of instruction around those targets.”



Next-generation assessments: Q22. What is your biggest concern about developing next-generation style assessments?



“I have never even heard of these. I have no idea what they are about.”

“I have no idea what next-generation style assessments are. Should I?”

“This does not pertain to me.”

“That I don't even know what it is!”



Again, teachers ranked time as the most important resource needed•The majority of open-ended comments about next-generation assessments supported this concern



“TIME.”

“Time.”

“The time it will take. We need more collaboration time. We need more help from the district level, especially in science.”

“Time to do so.”

“Time to administer them as well as grade them. TIME! I love the assessment style- would love more time to create them.”



Recommendations• Implementing the CCSS and transitioning to next-

generation assessments involves challenges:• Teachers need time and resources such as lesson

and assessment examples• Budgetary resources are limited• How should schools proceed so that effective

implementation can occur?



Recommendations (cont.)• Schools need to establish a highly-structured

outcome-based CCSS/next-generation assessment implementation plan• Only 35% of survey respondents reported their

school having an implementation plan• With limited time/resources, an effective way to

administer training and accomplish implementation is through the utilization of existing time: PLC collaboration, staff meetings, and in-service professional development days



Recommendations (cont.)• Many of the following recommendations are

based on an action plan implemented during the 2012-2013 school year by Heritage Middle School, Meridian, Idaho#1 – Work to achieve the full potential of PLC

collaboration #2 – Identify & train teacher-leaders

#3 – Utilize staff meetings and professional development time for implementation training

#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift © Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer


#1 – Work to achieve the full potential of PLC collaboration • Proven: adhere to the PLC model presented by DuFour &

Eaker (1998) • Dedicated: weekly PLC collaboration time for grade-level

content area groups• Every week, every teacher

• Structured: ensure that PLC time is purposeful and outcome-based• Is there a road-map for the quarter, semester, year?• Is there an agenda to drive each meeting?• Are there regular executable goals/outcomes?• Do collaboration efforts focus on CCSS and next-generation

assessments?



#1 – Work to achieve the full potential of PLC collaboration (cont.)• Sacred: no grade-level, student/discipline, or other

topics/meetings – collaboration time focused solely on student learning (lessons, assessments, etc.)• Does PLC occur in most schools? Yes.• 84% of respondents frequently or very frequently participate in

PLC collaboration• What takes place during PLC time?• Only 54% of respondents frequently or very frequently use PLC

time to create student learning materials• Only 52% frequently or very frequently work on CCSS

implementation• Only 29% frequently or very frequently work on next-

generation assessment implementation© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer


#1 – Work to achieve the full potential of PLC collaboration (cont.)• Accountability: it matters • Regular attendance by administrators who are

assigned to PLC groups• Reporting responsibilities – PLC’s share what they

have accomplished with their administrator• PLC outcomes tied to portfolio and evaluation

• Cross-curricular: seek out and make time for opportunities to collaborate with other subject areas on cross-curricular CCSS implementation



#2 – Identify & train teacher-leaders• Work within budgetary constraints: maximize limited

resources• Send teacher-leaders from grade levels and core subject

areas (as applicable) to professional development opportunities focused on the CCSS and next-generation assessments

• Compound the impacts of your investment: the efforts of few benefit many• Teacher-leaders inform school leadership teams• Teacher-leaders teach others in their content areas• Trained staff members deliver professional

development© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer


#2 – Identify & train teacher-leaders (cont.)• Administration involvement: working

concurrently from the top-down and bottom-up• Teacher-leaders are only a part of the equation• Administrators need to be informed to effectively

lead implementation efforts• Attend trainings with teacher-leaders to better

inform the professional development process, guide/mentor individual teachers, and impact PLC collaboration group efforts



#3 – Utilize staff meetings and professional development time for implementation training• Shift focus of staff meetings to the presentation of

CCSS and next-generation assessment strategies:• If a subject can be effectively covered in an email or

weekly newsletter, use those forms of communication instead of valuable face-to-face staff meeting time

• Have trained teachers present/model strategies• Direct PLC groups to implement strategies, with

teachers reporting back to their administrators about the outcomes



#3 – Utilize staff meetings and professional development time for implementation training (cont.)• Dedicate in-service time to CCSS and next-generation

assessment training and PLC collaboration efforts• Teacher-leaders lead professional development,

outsource as applicable• PLC teams execute what they learn during break-out

sessions• Whole staff re-convenes to share outcomes – increase

accountability and provide opportunities for discussion and feedback



#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift• The Common Core represents a significant

paradigm-shift:… teachers will need to know the standards; they will need the background content

knowledge and the professional commitment to teach the standards to students; and they will need to have mastered instructional strategies that help them assist students of all abilities and ages in attaining much higher standards than have previously been in place (SMTI & TLC Working Group on Common Core State Standards, 2012).



#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift (cont.)• Research indicates that the fundamental changes

presented by the CCSS are still not understood by many educators (Alberti, 2013). • “I have talked with thousands of educators about the standards,

and I have realized that one of the biggest risks we currently face is full-speed implementation without an understanding of the changes that the standards require.”

• The CCSS also represents a significant departure from existing curriculums both in terms of topic areas and emphasis of cognitive skills (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, Yang, 2011).



#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift (cont.)• Survey data supports this concern

Survey respondents answering “frequently” or “very frequently”:• Have read and reviewed standards 62% • Informed about overall standards & research

50%• Informed about own subject area standards 51%• Prepared to develop lessons and teach 37%


There is a gap between reading/understanding the standards and being ready to implement the Common Core in the classroom.


#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift (cont.)• As teachers experience a paradigm-shift in the

classroom, administrators need to experience a paradigm-shift in evaluation• Cannot expect that people “get it” and are “doing it” right –

purposeful guidance and oversight is needed• Use of PLC collaboration time (frequently, very frequently):• Time is spent making resources for learning: 55%

(If time is not being used to plan instruction, make lessons/assessments, what is going on instead? Other tasks are not an effective use of time.)

• Time is spent on Common Core: 52%• Time is spent on next-generation assessment: 30%



#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift (cont.)

“Not long ago, while working with a group of school principals, I explained the big changes that were coming because of the Common Core State Standards. Everyone burst out laughing.

Why the raucous response? The principals explained to me that officials from their state's education department had assured them that they were already meeting most of the Common Core requirements and that no big changes were necessary” (Shanahan, 2013).



#4 – Promoting paradigm-shift (cont.)• Need to see examples of strategies, lessons, and

assessments frequently – cannot just rely one or two formal evaluations or one or two sample lessons/assessments per semester

• Build requirements into portfolio and evaluation tools and encourage as much work as possible to be done collaboratively during a common collaboration time

In some cases, favorite subjects may disappear from the curriculum, which may prove challenging for some educators. One recent study reported that only 25% of teachers surveyed would quit teaching a topic if it was dropped from the curriculum (Schmidt, 2012).


A few final thoughts• CCSS implementation and next-generation

assessments cannot be an “occasional” occurrence• If teachers are not attending to these tasks

frequently or very frequently, implementation is not likely to be timely or effective



Final thoughts (cont.)• The standards are to be taught in Idaho for the 2013-

2014 school year – schools not currently working toward implementation are already behind• 2013-2014 should be about strengthening and refining

implementation, not making initial efforts• Next-generation professional development

opportunities are critical• How else are CCSS skills accurately measured other

than next-generation assessments?• Assessment should be the target upon which instruction

is built (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)



Final thoughts (cont.)The CCSS is not a matter of “old wine in new

bottles” (Shanahan, 2013).

“Educators who shrug off these changes will face a harsh reality. The Common Core State Standards are significantly higher than what we're used to” (Shanahan, 2013).



Final thoughts (cont.)“The standards are designed to be robust and

relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2013).

“Students should graduate with a résumé, not a transcript.” – Arnold Packer




For comments, questions, or more information concerning this research project, contact:

Micah J. [email protected]://www.micahlauer.com (Power Point slides, other materials)

Useful implementation resources:

Idaho State Department of Education CCSS information http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium http://www.smarterbalanced.org/Boise State Writing Project (offering CCSS professional development) http://www.bswproject.com/Pages/default.aspx


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.micahlauer.com/

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

http://www.bswproject.com/Pages/default.aspx

TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT- GENERATION ASSESSMENT MODELS Results from a survey of educator preparedness and recommendations.

Documents

lauer slide

current standards

ccss skills transitioning

assessments porter

state math

language assessments

generation assessment

goal of ccss implementation