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

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.

Common Core News The State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on July 12, 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.

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 % K7294% % % % % % % % %

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 % K2596% % % % % % % % % %

Strand Standard #StandardGradeMatchMatched StandardStrand Standard #Diff NS7c 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 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalitiesSEI.AI2.4-3 to -6 NS7c 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 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalitiesSEI.AI2.4-3 to -6 NS7d 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 AR.9-12.SEI.AI.2.4 (SEI.2.AI.4) Solve and graph simple absolute value equations and inequalitiesSEI.AI2.4-3 to -6

Strand Standard #StandardGradeMatchMatched StandardStrand Standard #Diff SP6 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 AR.9-12.DIP.AI.5.8 (DIP.5.AI.8) Compute simple probability with and without replacement DIP.A I to -5 SP6 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 AR.9-12.DIP.AI.5.10 (DIP.5.AI.10) Communicate real world problems graphically, algebraically, numerically and verbally DIP.A I to -5

Strand Standard #StandardGradeMatchMatched StandardStrand Standard #Diff NS2 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., π^2). For example, by truncating the decimal expansion of √2 (square root of 2), show that √2 is between 1 and 2, then between 1.4 and 1.5, and explain how to continue on to get better approximations AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.1 (LA.1.AI.1) Evaluate algebraic expressions, including radicals, by applying the order of operationsLA.AI1.1-1 to -4 EE1 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, 3^2 × 3^(–5) = 3^(–3) = 1/(3^3) = 1/ AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.3 (LA.1.AI.3) Apply the laws of (integral) exponents and roots.LA.AI1.3-1 to -4 EE2 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 x^2 = p and x^3 = p, where p is a positive rational number. Evaluate square roots of small perfect squares and cube roots of small perfect cubes. Know that √2 is irrational AR.9-12.LA.AI.1.3 (LA.1.AI.3) Apply the laws of (integral) exponents and roots.LA.AI1.3-1 to -4

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).

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

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.

Overview of the Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC) October 2010

Source: 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

Source: PARCC States 22 Governing State Participating State

Source: PARCC States Participating 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  Alabama  California  Colorado  Delaware  Kentucky  Mississippi  New Jersey  North Dakota  Ohio  Oklahoma  Pennsylvania  South Carolina

Source: PARCC selected Achieve as its Project Management Partner – to play a key role in coordinating the work of the Partnership, leveraging the organization’s 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 nation’s governors and business leaders in 1996 following the first National Education Summit. Achieve’s Board is co-chaired by Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and consists of Democratic governors, Republican governors and CEOs. PARCC Project Management Partner 24

PARCC Theory of Action

Source: PARCC’s Fundamental Goal 26 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.

Source: More Meaningful Standards: The Partnership’s 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. Theory of Action: Assessment System Design 27

Source:28 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 shouldn’t 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. Theory of Action: Intended Outcomes

Source:29 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 Partnership’s 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. Theory of Action: Key Stakeholders

PARCC Assessment System Design Elements

Source: Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment 31 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25%50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 90% End- Of-Year Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management ( Key components: Three through-course components distributed throughout the year in ELA and mathematics, grades 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

Source: Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment 32 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25% 50% 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). Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

Source:33 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. START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 25% Through- Course 2 50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

Source:34 START OF SCHOOL YEAR END OF SCHOOL YEAR Through- Course 1 Through- Course 2 25%50% Through- Course 3 75% Through- Course 4 90% End- Of-Year 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 student’s summative score—used for accountability purposes—will include his/her performance on Through-Courses 1, 2, and 3 as well as the End-of- Year assessment. Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment Source: Graphic adapted from a representation prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management (

Source:35 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. Assessment System Design: Distributed Summative Assessment

Source:36 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 Assessment System Design: Formative Assessment

Source:37 The Partnership’s 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 Professional Capacity-Building

Source: 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

Higher Education Engagement

Source: Higher Education: Key PARCC Partner 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.

Source: 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

Source: Higher Education Engagement College-Ready Advisory Committee:  Include system and institution chancellors/presidents 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

Source: 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

Timeline

Source: PARCC Timeline 45 Sept Development phase begins Sept First year field testing and related research and data collection begins Sept Second year field testing begins and related research and data collection continues Sept Full administration of PARCC assessments begins Oct Launch and design phase begins Summer 2015 Set achievement levels, including college-ready performance levels

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers