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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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).
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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).
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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).
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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?
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND 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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Survey results:demographics
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Demographics: grade level
ElementaryMiddle schoolHigh school
43%
33%
24%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Survey results:Collaboration & Curriculum
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
30%
24%11%11%
24%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Survey results:Common Core
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Does your building have a CCSS implementation plan?
YesNoNot Sure
53%35%
12%
Communication! “Not sure” is as good as “No.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Have CCSS-related professional development opportunities been offered in your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
39%25%
16%13%
7%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Have you participated in CCSS-related professional development opportunities outside of your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
34% 16%
25%20%
5%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
To what extent has implementation of the CCSS taken place in your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
37%
13%32%
12%
5%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
To what extent have you personally begun implementation of the CCSS in your classroom?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
30%24%
28% 10%9%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Survey results:Next-generation Assessments
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND 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?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
I have reviewed official information about the Smarter Balanced assessment published by the SBAC or Idaho Department of Education
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
29%19%
34%14%
4%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Have SBAC-related next-generation assessment professional development opportunities been offered in your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
44%27%
20%
7% 1%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
To what extent have you participated in SBAC-related next-generation professional development opportunities outside of your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
47%
26%
18%
7% 2%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
To what extent has implementation of SBAC style next-generation classroom assessments taken place in your building?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
30%27%
33%
9% 2%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
To what extent have you personally implemented SBAC style next-generation assessments in your classroom?
NeverRarelyOccasionallyFrequentlyVery frequently
38%
23%26%
10%
3%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Survey results:Open-ended Responses
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Common Core State Standards: Q22. What is your biggest concern about transitioning to the CCSS?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
• 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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Teachers ranked time as the most important resource needed•The majority of open-ended comments about the CCSS supported this concern
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION 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).”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Next-generation assessments: Q22. What is your biggest concern about developing next-generation style assessments?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION 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!”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
Again, teachers ranked time as the most important resource needed•The majority of open-ended comments about next-generation assessments supported this concern
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
“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.”
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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?
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS 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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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).
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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).
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
There is a gap between reading/understanding the standards and being ready to implement the Common Core in the classroom.
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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%
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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).
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
#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).
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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)
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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).
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
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
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer
TRANSITIONING TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND NEXT-GENERATION ASSESSMENTS
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
© Copyright 2013 Micah J. Lauer