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
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
% 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.
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
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
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