CASE Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CASE Meeting PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6a792e-Yjc5Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

CASE Meeting

Description:

CASE Meeting February 2, 2011 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Carrie Heath Phillips Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Carrieh_at_ccsso.org Bambi J. Lockman, Chief – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: Luann67
Learn more at: http://casecec.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CASE Meeting


1
  • CASE Meeting
  • February 2, 2011
  • 400 - 530 p.m.
  • Carrie Heath Phillips
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
  • Carrieh_at_ccsso.org
  • Bambi J. Lockman, Chief
  • Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student
    Services
  • Florida Department of Education
  • Bambi.Lockman_at_fldoe.org

2
  • Common Core State Standards Initiative Overview

3
Common Core State Standards Initiative
  • State-led and developed common core standards for
    K-12 in English/language arts and mathematics
  • Initiative led by Council of Chief State School
    Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors
    Association (NGA)

4
  • What are educational standards?
  • Why do they matter?

5
Why do we need common standards? Why now?
  • Disparate standards across states
  • Global competition
  • Todays jobs require different skills.
  • For many young people, a high school degree isnt
    preparing them for college or a good job.

6
Why is This Important for Students, Teachers,
and Parents?
  • Provides clear, focused guideposts
  • Delineates learning progressions that can help
    target instruction to the learners level
  • Offers economies of scale

7
Foundation for the Standards
  • Aligned with college and work expectations
  • Prepare students for success in entry-level,
    credit-bearing, academic college courses (2 and
    4 year postsecondary institutions)
  • Prepare students for success in careers that
    offer competitive, livable salaries above the
    poverty line, opportunities for career
    advancement , and are in growing or sustainable
    industries

8
Standards Development Process
  • College- and career-readiness standards for
    English/language arts and mathematics developed
    summer of 2009.
  • Based on the college and career readiness
    standards, K-12 standards for each grade were
    developed.
  • Continual input throughout the process from wide
    range of stakeholders.
  • Public comment period with nearly 10,000
    responses.
  • Final standards released on June 2, 2010.

9
  • As of February 1, 2011, 41 states and DC have
    fully adopted the Common Core State Standards 2
    states have provisionally adopted the standards
    and 1 state has adopted the ELA standards only.

10
www.corestandards.org
11
  • Questions?
  • Reactions?

12
  • Whats in the Standards

13
Statement on Application for Students with
Disabilities
  • Students with disabilities are a heterogeneous
    group with one common characteristic the
    presence of disabling conditions that
    significantly hinder their abilities to benefit
    from general education (IDEA 34 CFR 300.39,
    2004). Therefore, how these high standards are
    taught and assessed is of the utmost importance
    in reaching this diverse group of students.
  • Promoting a culture of high expectations for all
    students is a fundamental goal of the Common Core
    State Standards.

14
Intentional design limitations
  • 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 learners
    and students with special needs.
  • Everything needed for students to be college and
    career ready.

15
  • STANDARDS FOR
  • ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS (ELA)
  • LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND
    TECHNICAL SUBJECTS

16
Design and Organization
  • Introduction
  • Description of capacities of a literate student
    (ex., demonstrate independence, come to
    understand other perspectives and cultures)
  • Three main sections
  • K-5 (cross-disciplinary)
  • 6-12 English Language Arts
  • 6-12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
    and Technical Subjects
  • Three appendices
  • A Research and evidence glossary of key terms
  • B Reading text exemplars sample performance
    tasks
  • C Annotated student writing samples

17
"Habits of mind" fostered by the Common Core
State Standards
  • In developing knowledge and skills in
    English/language arts, learners
  • Demonstrate independence.
  • Build strong content knowledge.
  • Respond to the varying demands of audience, task,
    purpose, and discipline.
  • Comprehend as well as critique.
  • Value evidence.
  • Use technology and digital media strategically
    and capably.
  • Come to understand other perspectives and
    cultures.

18
Design and Organization
  • Four strands
  • Reading
  • Writing
  • Speaking and Listening
  • Language
  • An integrated model of literacy
  • Media requirements blended throughout

19
ELA Key Advances
  • Reading
  • Balance of literature and informational texts
  • Text complexity
  • Writing
  • Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory
    writing
  • Writing about sources
  • Standards for reading and writing in history/
  • social studies, science, and technical subjects
  • Complement rather than replace content standards
  • in those subjects
  • Responsibility of teachers in those subjects

20
  • MATHEMATICS
  • STANDARDS

21
Design and Organization
  • Standards for Mathematical Practice
  • Carry across all grade levels
  • Describe habits of mind of a mathematically
    expert student
  • Standards for Mathematical Content
  • K-8 standards presented by grade level
  • High school standards presented by conceptual
    theme
  • Appendix
  • Designing high school math courses based on the
    Common Core State Standards

22
"Habits of mind" fostered by the Common Core
State Standards
  • In developing knowledge and skills in
    mathematics, learners
  • Make sense of problems and persevere in solving
    them.
  • Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
  • Construct viable arguments and critique the
    reasoning of others.
  • Model with mathematics.
  • Use appropriate tools strategically.
  • Attend to precision.
  • Look for and make use of structure.
  • Look for and express regularity in repeated
    reasoning.

23
Fractions, Grades 36
  • 3. Develop an understanding of fractions as
    numbers.
  • 4. Extend understanding of fraction equivalence
    and ordering.
  • 4. Build fractions from unit fractions by
    applying and extending previous understandings of
    operations on whole numbers.
  • 4. Understand decimal notation for fractions, and
    compare decimal fractions.
  • 5. Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add
    and subtract fractions.
  • 5. Apply and extend previous understandings of
    multiplication and division to multiply and
    divide fractions.
  • 6. Apply and extend previous understandings of
    multiplication and division to divide fractions
    by fractions.

24
Math Key Advances
  • Focus in early grades on number (arithmetic and
    operations) to build a solid foundation in math
  • Evened out pace across the grades
  • High school math focus on using math and solving
    complex problems, similar to what would see in
    the real world
  • Problem-solving and communication emphasized

25
  • Questions?
  • Reactions?

26
  • Implementation
  • Common Assessments

27
Whats Next with Implementation?
  • States are implementing the standards now
  • Plans vary based on state context
  • Redesigning professional development and
    curriculum frameworks in 2011
  • Key challenge develop educator understanding of
    level of student performance expected in the new
    standards and pedagogy to teach the standards in
    an integrated manner.
  • Communicating with stakeholders in 2011
  • Most major changes in instructional materials,
    graduation requirements, etc., not expected until
    2013 or later
  • Teachers in most states will start teaching to
    the Common Core State Standards in 2-3 years.
  • Common assessments will be administered in
    2014-2015 school year.

28
Whats Next with Assessment?
  • New tests tied to the Common Core State Standards
    will be live in 2014-2015 school year.
  • Grades 3 high school
  • Two different consortia are developing
    assessments, so instead of every state having
    their own test, there will be only two different
    types of testing programs throughout the nation.

29
Floridas Race to the Top Funds90 of Funds
Allocated Directly to Districts and for Educator
ResourcesTotal Award 700,000,000
30
Common Core standards Assessments timeline
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
CCSS in ELA Math published
National
Approx 40 states adopt CCSS, including Florida
Florida wins 700M RTTT award
PARCC wins 184M RTTT assessment grant
Summative and formative assessment design
underway
Through-course assessments, given in stages
throughout the school year, available for pilot
use
PARCC Summative Assessments operational
Instructional Coaches hired
RTT Assessment Support Team hired
Statewide capacity-building
Florida
  • Work with all districts/schools to
  • Understand Common Core standards
  • Implement effective formative assessments aligned
    to Common Core
  • Adjust teacher pedagogy

Common Core Resources and Supports
CCSS-aligned resources available to districts
Interim Assessment Items Banks for Core Areas
Course Descriptions aligned with CCSS
Adopt Inst Materials for CCSS
Florida students take CCSS-aligned PARCC
Assessments in math and literacy, gds 3-11
30
31
Grant Year Measuring Student Growth Activity Evaluation System Re-Design Activity
Year 1 Fall November 1 Release Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) to solicit bids for development and implementation of student growth measures November 30 - Implementation committees established for Student Growth and for Assessments January 21 - timeframe for final contractor selection Jointly with FADSS, organize the district and consortium work around student assessments November Release ITN for national experts in teacher evaluation to provide face-to-face support to participating districts in re-development and implementation of their evaluation systems. December 17 Revised Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs) adopted by the State Board of Education. January 31 anticipated timeframe for final contractor selection
Year 1 Spring April - Select new statewide measure(s) for student growth in FCAT-associated courses May - Provide LEAs with 3 years of baseline data for these students and teachers explanatory/PD materials July - updated LEA data using newest FCAT results Issue grants for hard to measure subjects Ongoing - Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in adding MOU components to evaluation system documentation February - First Community of Practice meeting held on evaluation systems May 1 Initial LEA revised teacher evaluation systems due to DOE June 1 DOE provides feedback to LEAs
Year 2 2011-12 Provide LEAs with guidelines and best practices for development of growth models, with example models, using local district-wide assessments and selected standardized assessments Provide FCAT performance data using new growth measure Recommend adjustments to growth measures based on implementation committee review of LEA results and feedback on use of measures Professional development is provided on use of growth measure results for classroom instruction Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in implementing the evaluation system LEAs review system implementation results with consultant assistance and make adjustments to evaluation systems, including the addition of the next phase of MOU requirements (based on LEA schedule) DOE does initial analysis of evaluation system results and provides LEAs with baseline data All principal evaluation systems due
Year 3 2012-13 Report results of LEA uses of state and locally-selected growth measures Adjustments (after YR 2 of FCAT 2.0) made to state growth measure based on evaluation and feedback statewide communication around changes is provided Updates made (if any) to local growth measures document based on assessments developed from RTTT item banks Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in implementing the evaluation system LEAs review with consultant assistance and make adjustments to evaluation systems and add in the next level of MOU requirements DOE does Year 2 analyses of evaluation system results and provides districts with data
Year 4 2013-14 Report results of LEA uses of state and locally selected/developed growth measures Consultants assist LEAs and consortia in fully implementing the evaluation system
32
Standards Assessment Resources
Focus Area Products Focus Timeline
Common Core Standards Updated CPALMS Standards, course descriptions, and exemplary sample lessons 2013-14 completion
Common Core Tutorials Updated FCAT Explorer Revise existing student tutorials such that online tutorials are based on Common Core content standards 2011 High School Content 2012 Elementary Content 2013 Middle School Content 2014 Mini-assessments
Aligned, High-Quality Assessments Formative Assessments reading and mathematics High-quality classroom tasks for quick feedback on learning 2011-12 Math K-3 2013-14 Reading K-8
Aligned, High-Quality Assessments Interim Assessment Item Bank Platform Test items, test builder, test delivery scoring for district/school use 2012-13 Test items available 2013-14 Technology system available
Aligned, High-Quality Assessments Interim Assessments reading and mathematics Align FAIR build FAIM (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Mathematics) 2013-14
Aligned, High-Quality Assessments Summative Assessments English/language arts mathematics PARCC assessments, including EOCs 2013-14 Field Test 2014-15 Operational
Aligned, High-Quality Assessments Revised Certification Subject Area Examinations (FTCE) STEM- and Common Core-related examinations aligned to NGSSS/CCSS/FEAPs with increased rigor in content and content-specific pedagogy 2013 PK-3, Elementary (K-6), Math (5-9) and (6-12), Biology, Chemistry, Physics (6-12), General Science (5-9), Prof. Ed. 2014 English (5-9) and (6-12)
Professional Development Lesson Study Toolkits Support educators continuous improvement of instruction and student learning 2012-13 Pilot 2013-14 Statewide availability
Professional Development Reading and STEM Coaches Support for struggling schools
Professional Development Beginning Teacher Support Programs Support for new and early career teachers Districts implement according to Scope of work timelines
Professional Development PD to support teacher evaluation system results Support for educators continuous improvement of instruction and student learning Districts implement according to Scope of work timelines 2010-14 state provides assistance through consultants
Professional Development Improved methods for evaluating PD Support for districts, schools and educators in planning and selecting PD Districts implement according to Scope of work timelines 2011-14 state provides assistance through consultants
Professional Development Summer Academies
33
Consortia
  • Led by states not organized through CCSSO and
    NGA
  • 44 states participating in one or both consortia.
  • Funded by U.S. EDs Race to the Top Program
  • Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for
    College and Careers (PARCC)
  • 170M (plus 15.8M for transition) from feds
  • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
  • 160M (plus 15.8M for transition) from feds

34
PARCC Assessment Consortium
35
SMARTER Balanced (SBAC) Assessment Consortium
36
Consortia Similarities
  • Beyond multiple choice and short answer tests
    will include performance tasks
  • Focus on depth of understanding and higher-order
    thinking skills
  • Computer-based, with quick turn-around for
    scoring
  • Digital libraries of resources, including
    released items, formative assessments,
    data-management system, and professional
    development

37
Consortia Differences
  • Computer-based adaptive testing is used in
    SMARTER Balanced Consortium. PARCC has
    computer-based, but not adaptive, testing.
  • Through-course exams given at defined points
    through the school year in PARCC and are part of
    the summative assessment. SMARTER Balanced has
    optional interim assessments and their summative
    assessment will be offered twice each school
    year.
  • Teacher scoring is emphasized in SMARTER Balanced
    when evaluating performance tasks.

38
Assessments for Students with Disabilities
  • End to 2 assessments
  • Two consortia funded to develop 1 assessments

39
General Supervision Enhancement Grants
  • Alternate Assessments (1) aligned to Common Core
    Standards
  • Common Assessment by 2014-15
  • Two Assessment Consortium
  • National Center and State Collaborative
    Partnership (NCSC)
  • 19 states and approximately 41 million
  • Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System
    Consortium
  • 11 states and approximately 22 million

40
General Supervision Enhancement Grants
  • Similarity to General Assessment Grants
  • Common Assessment by 2014-15
  • Use of Computer Based Assessment where possible
  • Differences
  • Significant component related to research-based
    curriculum and instruction

41
Questions? Reactions?
About PowerShow.com