OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Common Core State Standards and Assessment Initiative Informational Webinars September and October 2010

OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Common Core State Standards and Assessment Initiative

Informational WebinarsSeptember and October 2010

Presented by:

Jessica Vavrus, Asst. Superintendent, Teaching and Learning

Joe Willhoft, Asst. Superintendent, Assessment and Student Information

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NThe Common Core State Standards Initiative - BackgroundBeginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards.

States agreed to participate in the development process, provide input on drafts, and consider eventual adoption.Signing MOA did not require commitment to adopt.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) with assistance from Project Achieve, ACT and the College Board (SAT). O

FFIC

E O

F S

UPE

RIN

TEN

DEN

T O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

OSPI Common Core Information Sessions Sept. & Oct. 2010 2

| Slide 3

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NCurrent and Future Focus for Common State Standards

Current (led by CCSSO and NGA): K-12 English Language Arts Common Core State Standards K-12 Mathematics Common Core State Standards

Future (currently led by various national associations): Next Generation Science Standards(draft by Fall 2011)

(Framework currently under development) English Language Development Standards (within 1 year) Social Studies (within 2 years) Arts (development may begin in January 2011)

OSPI Common Core Information Sessions Sept. & Oct. 2010

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Why Common Core State Standards? Preparation: The standards articulate college- and career-

readiness. They will help ensure students acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in post-secondary education and training.

Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive.

Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them.

Adapted from Understanding the Common Core, Achieve, June 2010

OFF

ICE O

F S

UPE

RIN

TEN

DEN

T O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

4OSPI Common Core Information Sessions Sept. & Oct. 2010

| Slide 5

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Why Common Core State Standards?, cont. Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent

on a student’s state of residence. States have time to consider what state-specific additions to the

standards might look like

Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools including textbooks, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

Opportunities for ALIGNED and CONNECTED SYSTEMS:• “Common standards” is a common thread among current and

evolving national initiatives and opportunities• Standards – Instruction – Assessment


| Slide 6

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Common Core State Standards Design

Building on the strength of current standards across many states, the CCSS are designed to be:

Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous

Internationally benchmarked

Anchored in college and career readiness*

Evidence and research based

*Ready for first-year credit-bearing, postsecondary coursework in mathematics and English without the need for remediation.


| Slide 7

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Intentional Design Limitations

What the Standards do NOT define:

How teachers should teach All that can or should be taught The nature of advanced work beyond the core The interventions needed for students well below grade level The full range of support for English language learners and

students with special needs Everything needed to be college and career ready

Citation: www.corestandards.org/


OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NNationwide Feedback and Review for ELA and Mathematics Standards

External and State Feedback teams included:K-12 teachersHigher ed. facultyState curriculum and assessments expertsResearchersNational organizations (including, but not limited, to):


American Council on Education (ACE) American Federation of Teachers

(AFT) Campaign for High School Equity

(CHSE) Conference Board of the Mathematical

Sciences (CBMS) Modern Language Association (MLA)

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)

National Writing Project (NWP) National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM) National Education Association

(NEA)

Adapted from Understanding the Common Core, Achieve, June 2010

OFF

ICE O

F S

UPE

RIN

TEN

DEN

T O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

8

| Slide 9

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

National Process and Timeline

K-12 Common Standards: Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics (See

www.corestandards.org for list of team members) drafted standards

External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process

Draft K-12 standards were released for public comment on March 10, 2010; 9,600 comments received nationwide (~ 900 from WA)

Validation Committee of leading experts reviewed standards

Final standards were released June 2, 2010

As of September 8, 2010, 36 states have formally adopted the common core state standards.



OVERVIEW:K-12 English Language Arts

& Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,

and Technical Subjects

JUNE 2010

| Slide 11

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Current WA Standards (GLEs) – Grades K-10

Common Core ELA Standards – Grades K-12

ReadingWriting

Communication(includes

Speaking and Listening)

Language

Media &

Tech


| Slide 12

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Common Core Standards for English Language Arts

College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards • Overarching standards for each strand that are further defined by grade-

specific standards

Grade-Level Standards in English Language Arts • K-8, grade-by-grade

• 9-10 and 11-12 grade bands for high school

• Four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language

Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects• Standards are embedded at grades K-5

• Content-specific literacy standards are provided for grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12

Media and Technology are integrated throughout the standards.


OFF

ICE O

F S

UPE

RIN

TEN

DEN

T O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

| Slide 13

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Design and Organization

Three main sections• K−5 (cross-disciplinary)• 6−12 English Language Arts• 6−12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical

Subjects (Shared responsibility for students’ literacy development)

Three appendices• Appendix A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms,

overview of each strand• Appendix B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance

tasks• Appendix C: Annotated student writing samples


| Slide 14

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Key Advances

Reading• Balance of literature and informational texts• Text complexity

Writing• Emphasis on writing argumentative, informative/explanatory, and

narrative texts• Emphasis on research

Speaking and Listening• Inclusion of formal and informal talk

Language• Value of general academic and domain-specific vocabulary• Emphasis on the conventions of English and the effective use of

language



OVERVIEW:K-12 Common Core State Standards for

Mathematics

June 2010

| Slide 16

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Common Core Standards for Mathematics

Grade-Level Standards K-8 grade-by-grade standards organized by domain 9-12 high school standards organized by conceptual categories

(Number & Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, Statistics & Probability) Course progressions included in Appendices

Some standards go beyond “career and college readiness level” (e.g., STEM concepts, denoted by “+”) are a thread throughout but go beyond what all students will need to know and at high school may lead to a 4th year of math

Standards for Mathematical Practice Describe mathematical “habits of mind” Standards for mathematical proficiency: reasoning, problem

solving, modeling, decision making, and engagement Carry across grade levels and connect with content standards in

each grade


| Slide 17

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Design and Organization


Grade Level Overviews (Example)

| Slide 18

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Key Advances

Focus and coherence• Focus on key topics at each grade level.• Coherent progressions across grade levels.

Balance of concepts and skills• Content standards require both conceptual understanding and

procedural fluency.

Mathematical practices• Foster reasoning and sense-making in mathematics.

College and career readiness• Level is ambitious but achievable.


| Slide 19

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NThe Washington Context for Considering Adoption of CCSS

Involvement since November 2009 Review and input on drafts of English language arts and

mathematics standards

2010 legislation (E2SSB 6696, Section 601) provides for: “Provisional adoption” by the Superintendent by Aug. 2, 2010 Detailed report due to Legislature in Jan. 2011

o To include: detailed comparison, timeline and costs, recommendations for possible additions

Formal adoption and implementation will begin following 2011 session unless otherwise directed by the Legislature


| Slide 20

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

The Washington Context, cont.

Now is the time to begin revision of WA Reading and Writing standards (originally developed in 2005)

WA participation in SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium…


Overview of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

Joe Willhoft, Asst. Supt.Assessment and Student Information

21OSPI Common Core Information Sessions Sept. & Oct. 2010

| Slide 22

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Background US Department of Education has awarded grants to two

multi-state consortia for the Race-to-the-Top Assessment Program SMARTER Balanced (WA is one of 31 states involved) PARCC

$160 million 4-year grant, starting October 1, 2010

| Slide 23

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

The Purpose of the ConsortiumTo develop a set of comprehensive and innovative assessments

for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

The assessments shall be operational across Consortium states in the 2014-15 school year.

Note: States must have formally adopted the Common Core State Standards by January 2012 in order to remain in the Consortium.


SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium -- Member States --


| Slide 25

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

A 31-State Consortium

Fiscal Agent: Washington State

17 Governing States 14 Advisory StatesCT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, NM, NV, OR, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV

AL, CO, DE, GA, IA, KY, ND, NH, NJ, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD

Total Number of States = 31


| Slide 26

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Consortium Governance

Governing Co-leads Tony Alpert (OR)Judy Park (UT)

Governing Executive Committee

Dan Hupp (ME); Joseph Martineau (MI); Carissa Miller (ID); Lynette Russell (WI); Joe Willhoft (WA);Higher Ed. Rep. (tbd)

Project Management Partner WestEd

Policy AdvisorContent Advisor

Sue GendronLinda Darling-Hammond


| Slide 27

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

The Goal of the Consortium

To ensure that all students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching.


| Slide 28

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

The ChallengeHow do we get from

here......to here?

All students leave high

school college and career

ready

Common Core State Standards

specify K-12 expectations for

college and career readiness


...and, how does an assessment system contribute to this effort?

29 OSPI Common Core Information Sessions Sept. & Oct. 2010

The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

A theory of action

•A model of verifiable accomplishments/milestones, leading to the desired outcome

•Accomplishments/milestones are inter-dependent

•The theory of action is closely linked to the validation argument for the assessment system


The SMARTER Balanced Theory of Action



ready

Summative adaptive assessments are benchmarked to college & career

readiness

Technology supports

innovative & comprehensive assessments

Technology provides increased access to learning

State policies and practices

support increased

expectations

Common Core State

Standards specify K-12 expectations

for college and career

readiness

Clear communication of

expectations to stakeholders

Professional capacity-building

PD and other supports for teachers to

instruct on the CCSS

Teachers design and

score assessment

items & tasks

Teachers use formative tools and

practices to improve

instruction

Interim/Benchmark assessments are used as progress

checks


The SMARTER Balanced Theory of Action



ready

Summative adaptive assessments are benchmarked to college & career

readiness

Technology supports

innovative & comprehensive assessments

Technology provides increased access to learning

State policies and practices

support increased

expectations

Common Core State

Standards specify K-12 expectations

for college and career

readiness

Clear communication of

expectations to stakeholders

Professional capacity-building

PD and other supports for teachers to

instruct on the CCSS

Teachers design and

score assessment

items & tasks

Interim/Benchmark assessments are used as progress

checks

Teachers use formative tools and

practices to improve

instruction

| Slide 32

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

System Highlights

Summative assessments using online computer adaptive technologies• Efficiently provide accurate measurement of all students, across the

spectrum of knowledge and skills• Incorporate adaptive precision into performance tasks and events• Will assess full range of CCSS in English language arts and

mathematics• Describe both current achievement and growth across time,

showing progress toward college- and career-readiness• Scores can be reliably used for state-to-state comparability, with

standards set against research-based benchmarks • The option of giving the summative tests twice a year.


| Slide 33

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Optional interim/benchmark and formative assessments • Are aligned to and reported on the same scale as the summative

assessments• Help identify specific needs of each student, so teachers can provide

appropriate, targeted instructional assistance• Incorporate significant involvement of teachers in item and task

design and scoring• Are non-secure and fully accessible for use in instruction and

professional development activities • Provide students and teachers with clear examples of the expected

performance on common standards.

System Highlights


| Slide 34

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Online, tailored reporting system • Supports educator access to information about student progress

toward college- and career-readiness• Allows for exchange of student performance history across districts

and states • Uses a Consortium-supported backbone, while individual states

retain jurisdiction over access permissions and front-end “look” of online reports.

System Highlights


| Slide 35

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Benefits and efficiencies from “economies of scale” due to a multi-state consortium • Cost savings: SMARTER English language arts/mathematics estimated

at ~$21 per student (below current for almost all SBAC states) [Interim/benchmark & formative an additional ~$7 per student]

• Shared interoperable open source software platforms: Item generation, item banking, and adaptive testing no longer exclusive property of vendors

• Common, agreed-upon protocols for accommodations for students with disabilities and ELL students.

System Highlights


| Slide 36

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

The Deliverables and the Future

SMARTER Balanced Consortium Deliverables: A set of comprehensive and innovative assessments for grades 3-

8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards to be used in the 2014-15 school year.

The future… Support for special education students (1% assessment

consortium) – assessments to be based on current Common Core State Standards


| Slide 37

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N ...the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium can be found online at

www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER

To find out more...


| Slide 38

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Questions



Washington’s Next Steps

| Slide 40

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NWhat does this mean for Washington State’s Learning Goals?

The four State Learning Goals from the 1993 Basic Education Act remain intact.

1. Read with comprehension, write effectively, and communicate successfully in a variety of ways and settings and with a variety of audiences;

2. Know and apply the core concepts and principles of mathematics; social, physical, and life sciences; civics and history, including different cultures and participation in representative government; geography; arts; and health and fitness;

3. Think analytically, logically, and creatively, and to integrate different experiences and knowledge to form reasoned judgments and solve problems; and

4. Understand the importance of work and finance and how performance, effort, and decisions directly affect future career and educational opportunities.


| Slide 41

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NWhat does this mean for Washington’s existing Learning Standards?

Washington’s current Learning Standards in all subjects should continue to be implemented in classrooms. Current state assessments will align with these standards through

the 2013-14 school year.

If the Common Core State English language arts and mathematics standards are formally adopted in WA, They would be phased in over 2 years to replace WA’s current

reading, writing, and mathematics standards by the 2014-15 year.


| Slide 42

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Washington’s Timeline

July 2010 Provisional adoption announced July 19th

August – December 2010 Complete and share comparisons between WA standards and

Common Core External educator and stakeholder input / involvement

Conduct statewide information sessions in collaboration with stakeholders

Solicit input on additions and other implementation considerations (including what resources (materials, professional development, etc.) would be needed for implementation) ***

Complete legislative report (due January 2011)


| Slide 43

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Washington’s Timeline, cont.

January – April 2011 2011 Legislative Session underway Formal adoption and implementation will begin following 2011 session

unless otherwise directed by the Legislature Continue collaboration within SMARTER Balanced Assessment

consortium

April 2011 – and beyond (assuming formal adoption) Develop Resources, Train Staff, Phase-in and Implement Common

Core Standards Develop comprehensive assessment system with full implementation

in 2014-15 school year.



Summer 2010 ― Summer

2011

School Year 2011-2012




Phase 1Adopt, Align & Plan1. Provisional adoption (E2SSB 6696)2. Gather input on strategy for implementation

Phase 2Communicate, Develop Process, Resources for Transition &Implementation Phase 3

Transition to Common Core Standards

Phase 4Implementation 1. Spring 2014—pilot the assessment system 2. September 2014-June 2015—full implementation with state-wide assessment system.

Draft Implementation TimelineSummer 2010 to the 2014-2015 School Year

This is the time to consider and plan for transitioning, while continuing to implement our current standards.

It is not the time to stop strong, standards-based instruction…

| Slide 45

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NPhase 1: Questions for School District Input…

1. What are the benefits and challenges these initiatives bring to WA school districts?

2. What key information and/or messages do your districts need regarding:

Common Core State Standards Initiative SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

3. When is this information needed? What are the best methods of communication?


| Slide 46

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

4. For your districts, what would be needed during each Phase to support transitioning to the standards?o Support / Communication materialso Professional Developmento Other?

5. What would be effective approach/es for supporting districts in transitioning to the standards?

6. What are some specific examples of “costs” to implement standards?

Phase 1: Questions for School District Input…


Common Core State Standards Compared with Washington

Standards

| Slide 48

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Comparison Overview

Two state-level comparisons External Analysis – Hanover Research (final drafts completed) Washington-led Comparison (work done in late August; currently

being compiled)

Multiple purposes Snapshot of “how well” WA standards match to the CCS Snapshot of “how well” CCS match to WA standards

So that… WA educators can have a clear understanding of CCS in relation to

current standards We can determine what areas may need augmentation in which

grades for subsequent support


| Slide 49

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NWhat does it look like? Examples from Reading and WritingCommon Core Standards Washington Standards

cc.r.1 (Kindergarten standard)With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about details and events in a text.

WA.R.GLE 2.1.1 (Kindergarten standard)Ask and answer question before, during, and after read aloud and/or shared reading

cc.w.5 (First grade standard)With guidance and support from adults, focus on a topic, respond to questions and suggestions from peers, and add details to strengthen writing as needed

WA.W.GLE.1.3.1 (First grade standard)WA asks students to demonstrate understanding that writing can be changed through discussion and self-reflection

cc.w.4 (Third grade standard)With guidance and support from adults, produce writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task and purpose.

WA.W.GLE.2.2.1 (Third grade standard)Demonstrates understanding of different purposes for writing.

Common Core and Washington State Standards (K-10)Alignment Breakdown by Number and Percentage

CC Subcategor

y

Total CC K-10 ELA

Standards

Simple and Composite WA Match

Partial and Composite partial WA

Match

Total % of WA GLEs that Align to Some Extent

No Match

Reading: Literature

90 35 (38.9%) 38 (42.2%)73

(81.1%)17 (18.9%)

Reading: Information

al Text99 35 (35.4%) 44 (44.4%)

79 (79.8%)

20 (20.2%)

Reading: Foundation

al Skills16 4 (25.0%) 10 (62.5%)

14 (87.5%)

2 (12.5%)

Subtotal: All

Reading205

74 (36.1%)

92 (44.9%)

166 (81.0%)

39 (19.0%)

Writing 90 31 (34.4%) 46 (51.1%)77

(85.6%)13 (14.4%)

Speaking and

Listening60 29 (48.3%) 23 (38.3%)

52 (86.7%)

8 (13.3%)

Language 58 22 (37.9%) 33 (56.9%)55

(94.8%)3 (5.2%)

Total: All Subcatego

ries413

156 (37.8%)

194 (47.0%)

350 (84.7%)

63 (15.3%)

Hanover ELA Analysis

50

| Slide 51

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

NWhat does it look like?Examples from Mathematics

Common Core Standards Washington Standards

cc.1.oa.5 (first grade standard)Add and subtract within 20. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).

WA.1.2.f (first grade standard)Apply and explain strategies to compute addition facts and related subtraction facts for sums to 10.

cc.3.md.7a (3rd grade) Find the area of a rectangle with whole-number side lengths by tiling it, and show that the area is the same as would be found by multiplying the side lengths.

wa.4.3.c (4th grade) Determine the perimeter and area of a rectangle using formulas and explain why the formulas work

Hanover Mathematics Analysis

- Another look…Of 558 unique PEs, 71 standards that were classified as “true” non-matches, 87.3% of Washington Performance Expectations can be matched to the Common Core. Only 12.7% of eligible WPEs could not be closely aligned to common core standards.

Grade LevelTotal # of

CCSS

Simple and

Composite WA Match

Partial and

Partial Composit

e WA Match

Total Percent Matched to Some Extent

No Matc

h

Percent Late,

Partially Late, or

Unmatched

Percent Early,

Partially Early, or

On Schedule

Kindergarten 25 18 7 100% 0 44% 56%1st 21 17 3 95% 1 29% 71%2nd 26 18 6 92% 2 16% 84%3rd 35 23 8 89% 4 49% 51%4th 35 23 8 89% 4 60% 40%5th 36 20 10 83% 6 56% 44%

K-5 Band 178 119 42 90% 17 44% 56%6th 43 28 10 88% 5 53% 47%7th 44 26 12 86% 6 43% 57%8th 33 25 4 88% 4 45% 55%

6-8 Band 120 79 26 88% 15 48% 52%9-12 STEM 55 7 12 35% 36 65% 35%

9-12 All 189 76 45 64% 68 36% 64%9-12 No STEM

134 69 33 76% 32 24% 76%

TOTAL(No STEM)

432 267 101 85% 64 39% 61%

52

| Slide 53

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

How to access the comparisons?

Both available online – early October at

http://www.k12.wa.us/Corestandards/default.aspx



Washington’s Considerations for Adoption and Implementation

| Slide 55

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Adoption ≠ Implementation

State Superintendent has authority to adopt –

• Following collaboration, input, and buy-in from key partners and stakeholder groups (State Board, Legislature, state curriculum advisors, content experts, etc.)

When considering adoption, States must adopt 100% of the CCSS, but may adopt additional standards (“up to” 15%)

• States responsible for setting the criteria and assessing the additions

Once adopted, implementation would be phased in over several school years; assessment would follow in 2014-15 school year


| Slide 56

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

What does “adding to the standards” mean?

Up to states to define: Is there key content that is present in existing state standards that

does not exist in the Common Core?o Is the missing content required by state laws/regulations to include in

the standards? Are there other compelling reasons to add content? What are the implications of adding content?

How will this affect assessment? How much will this affect commonality with other states? Does it dilute the standards? Impact on the classroom?

“Common-sense guideline” to meet specific state needs Key factor in CCS development: “clear and focused” standards Literal interpretation by states would undermine the purpose of the

initiative


| Slide 57

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

What are other states doing?

Adopting “as-is”

Considering required content for their states

Considering adding narrative to frame documents for the state, not adding content


| Slide 58

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

We want your input!

Please share with us your input on whether or not Washington should add to the standards by completing

an online survey accessible through a link at:

http://www.k12.wa.us/Corestandards/default.aspx

Available for completion through October 30th.


| Slide 59

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

How can I learn more and/or provide input?

Join a statewide Webinar September 28, 3:30 – 5:00pm October 28, 3:30 – 5:00pm

Attend a public forum (all held from 6:00pm – 7:30pm) October 13, Yakima, ESD 105 Office, Ahtanum Room October 14, Spokane, ESD 101 Office, Classroom 1 October 21, Vancouver, Evergreen School District October 25, Westside, Shoreline Center, Mt. Rainier Room

Complete the online survey about whether or not WA should add to the Common Core Standards (Iink to survey available at www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/ late September)

Note: OSPI will compile all input and include with recommendations in the report to the Legislature due in January 2011.


| Slide 60

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Resources

Washington State’s Core Standards Informational Web Site:

www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/

Email: [email protected]

CCSSO/NGA Common Core Standards Initiative Web Site:www.corestandards.org/

www.corestandards.org/Standards/index.htm

Achieve resources:http://www.achieve.org/achievingcommoncore_implementation


| Slide 61

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Final Notes… The promise of the Common Core State Standards

These Standards are not intended to be new names for old ways of doing business.

They are a call to take the next step. It is time for states to work together to build on lessons learned from two decades of standards based reforms.

It is time to recognize that standards are not just promises to our children, but promises we intend to keep.

Citation: www.corestandards.org/


| Slide 62

OFF

ICE O

F SU

PE

RIN

TEN

DE

NT O

F PU

BLI

C IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

Questions


Thank you.

Email: [email protected]

Documents

OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Common Core State Standards and Assessment Initiative Informational Webinars September and October 2010