Common Core State Standards and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Overview

1
Common Core State Standards and Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC) Overview

• Dr. Gayle Potter, Director
• Curriculum and Assessment
• Arkansas Department of Education

2
Main Principles of Common Core State Standards

• The Common Core State Standards for English
  Language Arts and Mathematics are designed to
  prepare students for college and career
  readiness.
• The Standards are research-based and
  internationally benchmarked.
• Content at each grade level is based on learning
  progressions.

3
Common Core News

• The State Board of Education adopted the Common
  Core State Standards (CCSS) on July 12, 2010.
• Statewide ELA and Mathematics committees are
  currently working on an analysis between the CCSS
  and Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks.
• Professional development recommendations will be
  generated as one of the products of the committee
  work.

4
Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core ELA standards)
Common Core grade level Total of CC standards at grade level of CC matched of 3 ratings EXCELLENT of 2 ratings GOOD of 1 ratings WEAK of non-matched standards
K-12 1019 96 608 258 95 40
K 72 94 45 18 5 4
1 81 90 58 9 6 8
2 71 97 36 22 8 2
3 90 94 43 25 16 5
4 87 99 79 7 0 1
5 85 100 46 28 11 0
6-8 273 99 192 71 5 2
9-10 115 90 31 36 31 10
11-12 113 95 55 37 12 5
5
Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards) Grade Level Summary Data Sheet (by Common Core Math standards)
Common Core grade level Total of CC standards at grade level of CC matched of 3 ratings EXCELLENT of 2 ratings GOOD of 1 ratings WEAK of non-matched standards
K-12 495 95 185 210 73 16
K 25 96 10 14 0 1
1 21 100 2 15 4 0
2 26 92 6 13 5 2
3 35 94 11 16 6 2
4 35 100 5 22 7 0
5 36 97 10 13 12 1
6 43 100 31 12 0 0
7 43 100 29 12 1 0
8 33 100 21 9 2 0
9-12 190 95 60 83 36 10
6
(No Transcript)
7
Strand Standard Standard Grade Match Matched Standard Strand Standard Diff
NS 7c CC.6.NS.7c Understand the absolute value of a rational number as its distance from 0 on the number line interpret absolute value as magnitude for a positive or negative quantity in a real-world situation. For example, for an account balance of 30 dollars, write 30 30 to describe the size of the debt in dollars. 6 9-12 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalities SEI.AI 2.4 -3 to -6
NS 7c CC.6.NS.7c Understand the absolute value of a rational number as its distance from 0 on the number line interpret absolute value as magnitude for a positive or negative quantity in a real-world situation. For example, for an account balance of 30 dollars, write 30 30 to describe the size of the debt in dollars. 6 9-12 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalities SEI.AI 2.4 -3 to -6
NS 7d CC.6.NS.7d Distinguish comparisons of absolute value from statements about order. For example, recognize that an account balance less than 30 dollars represents a debt greater than 30 dollars. 6 9-12 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalities SEI.AI 2.4 -3 to -6
8
(No Transcript)
9
Strand Standard Standard Grade Match Matched Standard Strand Standard Diff
SP 6 CC.7.SP.6 Investigate chance processes and develop, use, and evaluate probability models. Approximate the probability of a chance event by collecting data on the chance process that produces it and observing its long-run relative frequency, and predict the approximate relative frequency given the probability. For example, when rolling a number cube 600 times, predict that a 3 or 6 would be rolled roughly 200 times, but probably not exactly 200 times. 7 9-12 AR.9-12.DIP.AI.5.8 (DIP.5.AI.8) Compute simple probability with and without replacement DIP.AI 5.8 -2 to -5
SP 6 CC.7.SP.6 Investigate chance processes and develop, use, and evaluate probability models. Approximate the probability of a chance event by collecting data on the chance process that produces it and observing its long-run relative frequency, and predict the approximate relative frequency given the probability. For example, when rolling a number cube 600 times, predict that a 3 or 6 would be rolled roughly 200 times, but probably not exactly 200 times. 7 9-12 AR.9-12.DIP.AI.5.10 (DIP.5.AI.10) Communicate real world problems graphically, algebraically, numerically and verbally DIP.AI 5.10 -2 to -5
10
Strand Standard Standard Grade Match Matched Standard Strand Standard Diff
NS 2 CC.8.NS.2 Know that there are numbers that are not rational, and approximate them by rational numbers. Use rational approximations of irrational numbers to compare the size of irrational numbers, locate them approximately on a number line diagram, and estimate the value of expressions (e.g., p2). For example, by truncating the decimal expansion of v2 (square root of 2), show that v2 is between 1 and 2, then between 1.4 and 1.5, and explain how to continue on to get better approximations. 8 9-12 AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.1 (LA.1.AI.1) Evaluate algebraic expressions, including radicals, by applying the order of operations LA.AI 1.1 -1 to -4
EE 1 CC.8.EE.1 Work with radicals and integer exponents. Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 32 3(5) 3(3) 1/(33) 1/27. 8 9-12 AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.3 (LA.1.AI.3) Apply the laws of (integral) exponents and roots. LA.AI 1.3 -1 to -4
EE 2 CC.8.EE.2 Work with radicals and integer exponents. Use square root and cube root symbols to represent solutions to equations of the form x2 p and x3 p, where p is a positive rational number. Evaluate square roots of small perfect squares and cube roots of small perfect cubes. Know that v2 is irrational. 8 9-12 AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.3 (LA.1.AI.3) Apply the laws of (integral) exponents and roots. LA.AI 1.3 -1 to -4
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Surveys of Enacted Curriculum

• Surveys of Enacted Curriculum is part of a state
  collaborative sponsored by the Council of Chief
  State School Officers (CCSSO).
• The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) code
  state standards and CCSS using a common content
  framework (taxonomy).
• The results of the coding provide a model
  to compare content and cognitive demand both at
  the coarse grain size (content topics) and fine
  grain size (sub-topics).

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
What happens after states adopt Common Core
Standards?

• The Common Core state standards are the first
  step in transforming our education system. For
  systemic change to occur
• Educators must be given resources, tools, and
  time to adjust classroom practice.
• Instructional materials need to be developed that
  align to the standards.
• Assessments will be developed to measure student
  progress.
• Federal, state, and district policies will need
  to be re-examined to ensure they support
  alignment of the common core -- throughout the
  system -- with student achievement.

18
19
Textbook Adoption Update

• Questions from the Department were sent to the
  Arkansas Publishers Association, who distributed
  the questions.
• Responses were due on Friday, November 6.
• We anticipate moving forward with recommendation
  to State Board in December.

20
Overview of the Partnership for Assessment of
College and Career Readiness (PARCC) October 2010
21
Race to the Top Assessment Program Competition

• 350 million of Race to the Top Fund set aside
  for awards to consortia of states to design and
  develop common K-12 assessment systems aligned to
  common, college- and career-ready standards.
• Competition asked consortia to design assessment
  systems that meet dual needs of
• Accountability
• Instructional improvement
• In September 2010, the U.S. Department of
  Education awarded two grants
• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
  College and Careers (PARCC)
• Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
• The winning consortia have four years to develop
  assessments systems, and participating states
  will administer new assessments statewide by
  2014-2015.

21
22
PARCC States
Governing State
Participating State
22
23
PARCC States
13 Governing States

• Arizona
• Arkansas
• District of Columbia
• Florida (Fiscal Agent)

• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maryland

• Massachusetts (Board Chair)
• New York
• Rhode Island
• Tennessee

12 Participating States

• Alabama
• California
• Colorado
• Delaware

• Kentucky
• Mississippi
• New Jersey
• North Dakota

• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina

23
24
PARCC Project Management Partner

• PARCC selected Achieve as its Project Management
  Partner to play a key role in coordinating the
  work of the Partnership, leveraging the
  organizations deep experience in developing
  educational standards, including helping develop
  the Common Core State Standards, and its
  experience leading multi-state assessment
  development efforts anchored in college- and
  career-ready goals.
• Achieve is a bipartisan, non-profit organization
  that helps states raise academic standards,
  improve assessments, and strengthen
  accountability to prepare all young people for
  postsecondary education, work, and citizenship.
  It was created by the nations governors and
  business leaders in 1996 following the first
  National Education Summit.
• Achieves Board is co-chaired by Gov. Phil
  Bredesen (D-TN) and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett
  and consists of Democratic governors, Republican
  governors and CEOs.

24
25
PARCC Theory of Action
26
PARCCs Fundamental Goal

• States in the Partnership are committed to
  building their collective capacity to increase
  the rates at which students graduate from high
  school prepared for success in college and the
  workplace.

26
27
Theory of Action Assessment System Design

• More Meaningful Standards The Partnerships
  assessment system will be anchored in the Common
  Core State Standards which are consistent across
  states, clear to the public, and provide an
  on-ramp to college and careers.
• Higher Quality Tests PARCC assessments will
  include sophisticated items and performance tasks
  to measure critical thinking, strategic problem
  solving, research and writing.
• Through-Course Testing Students will take parts
  of the assessment at key times during the school
  year, closer to when they learn the material.
• Maximize Technology PARCC assessments in most
  grades will be computer based.
• Cross-State Comparability States in PARCC will
  adopt common assessments and common performance
  standards.

27
28
Theory of Action Intended Outcomes

• States in PARCC will use the common assessments
  to
• Report achievement results based on a clear
  definition of college and career readiness, so
  students will know if they are on track early
  enough to make adjustments.
• Compare results against a common high standard
  because readiness shouldnt differ across states
  or income levels.
• Help make accountability policies better drivers
  of improvement by basing them on more
  sophisticated and meaningful assessments.
• Promote good instruction by providing teachers
  useful, meaningful and timely information, which
  will help them adjust instruction, individualize
  interventions, and fine-tune lessons throughout
  the school year.

28
29
Theory of Action Key Stakeholders

• Teachers, School Leaders, District
  Administrators, and State Officials
• Stakeholders will regularly and quickly have a
  wider variety of useful performance data.
• Higher Education
• Assessments will identify whether students are
  ready for and prepared to succeed in entry-level,
  credit bearing postsecondary courses by the time
  they graduate from high school.
• Parents, Students, and the Public
• The Partnerships assessments will, for the first
  time, give information about student performance
  relative to children in other states and against
  achievement standards anchored in college- and
  career-ready knowledge and skills.

29
30
PARCC Assessment System Design Elements
31
Assessment System Design Distributed Summative
Assessment

• Key components
• Three through-course components distributed
  throughout the year in ELA and mathematics,
  grades 3-11.
• One Speaking/Listening assessment administered
  after students complete the third through course
  component in ELA required but not part of
  summative score could be used for course
  grades.
• One end-of-year assessment

31

Source Graphic adapted from a representation
prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment
Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
32
Assessment System Design Distributed Summative
Assessment

• Through-Course 1 and 2
• ELA-1 and ELA-2 One or two tasks involving
  reading texts, drawing conclusions, and
  presenting analysis in writing.
• Math-1 and Math-2 One to three tasks that assess
  one or two essential topics in mathematics
  (standards or clusters of standards).

32
Source Graphic adapted from a representation
prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment
Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
33
Assessment System Design Distributed Summative
Assessment

• Through-Course 3 and Through-Course 4 (ELA only)
• ELA-3 Performance task(s) that require
  evaluating information from within a set of
  digital resources, evaluating their quality,
  selecting sources, and composing an essay or
  research paper.
• ELA-4 (speaking and listening) Students will
  present their work from ELA-3 to classmates and
  respond to questions. Teachers will score, using
  a standardized rubric, and can use results in
  determining students class grades.
• Math-3 Performance task(s) that require
  conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and
  application of mathematical tools and reasoning.

33

Source Graphic adapted from a representation
prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment
Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
34
Assessment System Design Distributed Summative
Assessment

• End-of-Year
• EOY Comprehensive, computer-scored assessment
  that includes a range of item types, including
  innovative, technology-enhanced items. Enables
  quick turnaround of student scores.
• A students summative scoreused for
  accountability purposeswill include his/her
  performance on Through-Courses 1, 2, and 3 as
  well as the End-of-Year assessment.

34

Source Graphic adapted from a representation
prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment
Performance Management (www.k12center.org)
35
Assessment System Design Distributed Summative
Assessment

• Administration and Scoring
• Overall assessment system will include a mix of
  constructed response items, performance tasks,
  and computer-enhanced, computer-scored items.
• Assessments for grades 6-12 will be administered
  via computer while 3-5 will be administered via
  paper and pencil (in the short term).
• Combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and
  human scoring will be employed states will
  individually determine the extent to which
  teachers will be involved in scoring.

35
36
Assessment System DesignFormative Assessment

• Formative Tools
• Partnership Resource Center (PRC) an online,
  digital resource that includes instructional
  supports
• Released items with item data, student work,
  rubrics.
• Model curriculum frameworks.
• Scope and Sequence.
• Text Complexity Diagnostic Tool a
  computer-adaptive tool to identify students
  proximate zone of development and supply
  suggestions for appropriate texts for students to
  read.
• K-2 Assessments in ELA/Literacy and Mathematics
  including observations, checklists, running
  records, on-demand performance events
• Individual state developed formative assessment
  tools shared across PARCC

36
37
Professional Capacity-Building

• The Partnerships Professional Capacity-Building
  Plan
• A leadership cadre of content experts (Higher Ed
  and K-12)
• Training tools for implementation of assessment
  system
• Training tools for interpreting and using
  assessment results
• Additional tools related to the CCSS and the
  common assessments
• Curriculum frameworks
• Sample tasks and items

37
38
Communications and Engagement

• Partnership-Wide and State-Level Communications
  Mechanisms
• Public outreach beginning in Fall 2010
• Targeted coalition-building within each state
• College-ready outreach strategy for students and
  families
• K-12 educator engagement strategy
• Higher education engagement strategy

38
39
Higher Education Engagement
40
Higher EducationKey PARCC Partner

• 200 postsecondary systems and institutions across
  all 26 PARCC states representing nearly 1,000
  campuses committed as partners.
• Role of Higher Education
• Partner with K-12 to develop college-ready high
  school assessments in English and mathematics.
• Guide long-term strategy to engage all colleges
  and universities in PARCC states.
• Lay groundwork for implementation of
  college-ready high school assessments as valid
  placement instruments for credit-bearing courses.
• Ultimately, PARCC college-ready assessments will
  help many more students enter colleges better
  prepared and much more likely to persist in and
  complete degree and certificate programs.

40
41
Setting College-Ready Performance Standards

• To set college-ready performance standards on the
  high school assessments, PARCC will used evidence
  from research such as
• Concurrent validity studies that compare
  performance on PARCC assessments with SAT, ACT,
  Compass, Accuplacer and other similar
  assessments.
• Predictive validity studies that document the
  relationship between performance on PARCC
  assessments and subsequent performance in first
  year courses.
• Judgment studies by postsecondary faculty rating
  the importance of specific standards and test
  items for success in first year courses they
  teach.
• Alignment studies that examine the relationship
  between content and student work in first year
  courses and what PARCC assessments measure.

41
42
Higher Education Engagement

• College-Ready Advisory Committee
• Include system and institution chancellors/preside
  nts from partnership states.
• Engage institutions and faculty on the use of
  college-ready assessments as an indicator of
  students readiness.
• College-Ready Working Groups
• Include faculty from mathematics, English,
  composition, and other relevant disciplines.
• Participate in all aspects of test development,
  including developing test specification and
  participating on test development committees.
• Participate in a robust, research-based process
  to set the college-ready achievement levels.

42
43
Expected Outcomes of Higher Education Involvement

• Better alignment of high school curricula with
  first-year college courses.
• Development of bridge courses and exploration
  of dual enrollment policies.
• Targeted college readiness supports to help
  students make the transition.
• Alignment of exit standards in high school with
  placement expectations of postsecondary systems.

43
44
Timeline
45
PARCC Timeline
45
46
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers http//www.fldoe.org/parcc/