LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS 1 1

Design and Organization Major design goals Align with best evidence on college and career readiness expectations Build on the best standards work of the states Maintain focus on what matters most for readiness 2

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 A: Research and evidence; glossary of key terms B: Reading text exemplars; sample performance tasks C: Annotated student writing samples 3 3

Design and Organization Four strands Reading (including Reading Foundational Skills) Writing Speaking and Listening Language An integrated model of literacy across subjects Media requirements blended throughout

Design and Organization College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards Broad expectations consistent across grades and content areas Based on evidence about college and workforce training expectations Range and content 5 5

Design and Organization K−12 standards Grade-specific end-of-year expectations Developmentally appropriate, cumulative progression of skills and understandings One-to-one correspondence with CCR standards 6 6

Reading Comprehension (standards 1−9) Standards for reading literature and informational texts Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on students’ ability to read and comprehend informational texts Aligned with NAEP Reading framework Range of reading and level of text complexity (standard 10, Appendices A and B) “Staircase” of growing text complexity across grades High-quality literature and informational texts in a range of genres and subgenres 7 7

Writing K-5 Forms of Writing – Text Types and Purposes 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. 2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. 3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences. 8 8

Writing 6-12 Forms of Writing – Text Types and Purposes 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. 2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. 3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences. 9 9

Key Advances Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Text complexity Writing Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing Writing about sources Speaking and Listening Inclusion of formal and informal talk Language Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary 11

Key Advances 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 Alignment with college and career readiness expectations 12

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 13

Conclusion Standards: Important but insufficient To be effective in improving education and getting all students ready for college, workforce training, and life, the Standards must be partnered with a content-rich curriculum and robust assessments, both aligned to the Standards. Activity: Amy and Carmella 14

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know What we don’t know yet The MEAP tests will stay in place for at least four more years (Fall 2010-13). The new assessments will be ready for use by the 2014-15 school year. Given during the last 12 weeks of school. 2011-12 MEAP & MME remain the same 2012-13 MEAP minimally modified (begin to remove items that are not present in the CCSS) 2012-13 CCSS assessment item pilots & some initial release of items 2013-14- MEAAP minimally modified again 2014-15 Full implementation – Instruction & Assessment based on CCSS We don’t know what will happen with MME We don’t know how or if new assessment items will be phased in.

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… 2. The new assessment will be designed to be done online, but pencil & paper versions will be available for three years. The state is currently considering a 20% year roll in to get to 100% online delivery. This timeline may be extended to ensure that all districts have the necessary technology to participate. 3. There will be a 10% teacher read behind of all AI (TE constructed response and Performance Events) Items to ensure validity.

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet 4. Consortia of U.S. states are drafting assessment frameworks and assessments for the new Common Core. A single set of Standards for Proficiency will be set and used across the nation. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (26 states) series of assessments throughout the year that will be averaged into one score for accountability purposes The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (31 states) http://smarter.k12partners.org

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… The SBAC will test students using computer adaptive technology that will ask students tailored questions based on their previous answers. SBAC will continue to use one test at the end of the year for accountability purposes, but will create a series of interim tests used to inform students, parents and teachers about whether students are on track SBAC will include a substantial % of performance & constructed response items (78%) intended to assess understanding, skills & processes. “Tailored questions” somewhat new assessment and technology – will be interested to see how this works. We don’t know how much grade level content will be tested each year – but emphasis on: problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, critical thinking.

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortia – this group is creating alternate assessments based on the CCSS. (11 states). Other participants include: University of Kansas, AbleLink Technologies, The ARC, The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of N.C. Chapel Hill, Edvantia The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment will include features such as: learning maps, dynamic assessment, inclusion of instructionally relevant tasks, growth modeling feedback, technology platform, Universal Design, cognitive labs, scaffolding, over 14,000 tasks/items, professional development

SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… 5. The SBAC proposal suggests there will be a constellation of assessments & assessment resources: Grade 3-8 Adaptive Comprehensive Summative – items types: 22% selected response, 41% technology enhanced constructed response, 14% traditional constructed response, and 23% performance (1-2 class periods) Grade 3-8 Adaptive interim/benchmark based on learning progressions and or CCSS content clusters that call for performance event bank and non-secure pool of items. Grade 3-8 formative tools, processes and practices that call for a variety of lesson embedded tools for different purposes

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… d) High School (grades 9-12) adaptive comprehensive summative to include: 22% selected response, 41% technology enhanced constructed-response, 14% traditional constructed response and 23% performance (up to 6 items each subject area, with half of the items written to test the math content in the context of science or social studies, 1-2 class periods per task) Students may take the test up to two times. e) Grades 9-12 adaptive interim /benchmarks f) Grades 9-12 formative assessment tools, processes and practices.

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… 6. The proposal works to define what we mean by “understand” this means efforts will be made to assess understanding. For example… Students who understand a concept can: Use it to make sense of and explain quantitative situations. Incorporate it into their own arguments and use it to evaluate the arguments of others. Bring it to bear on the solutions to problems. Make connections between it and related concepts. Source: Phil Darco, CC writing team NCSM

Assessing the Common Core What we think we know… What we don’t know yet… There will be an alternative assessment based on alternative achievement standards. There is a competitive grant to develop that assessment. There will be a competitive grant to develop an assessment for English Language Learners (next fiscal year). Other than a promise these will be developed, we have little information at this time.

Timeline for Transition 2010-2011 Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work 2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same State focus will be on technical assistance 2011-2012 Implementation of CCSS in classrooms 2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same State focus will be on instruction/professional development 26 26

Timeline for Transition 2012-2013 2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the CCSS 2013 MME remains the same State focus will be on student learning 2013-2014 2013 MEAP based on 2012 model 2014 MME remains the same State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from SMARTER Consortium 2014-2015 Full implementation - Instruction and assessment based on CCSS 27 27