Introduction to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and PARCC Assessments

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS (CCSSO) & Created by: COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS (CCSSO) & NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION The Common Core State Standards project was not initiated, created or funded by the federal government or agency. The Common Core State Standards were state led and coordinated by the heads of each state’s board of education and the Governor’s of each state. logo taken from www.corestandards.org 2 2

Standards Development Process Summer 2009 - Develop college and career readiness standards Develop K-12 learning progressions Collect multiple rounds of feedback from states, teachers, researchers, higher education and the general public June 2, 2010 - Final Common Core State Standards released Bullet 1 – The authors started with what they wanted students to know coming out of HS in order to succeed in College or a career Bullet 2 – they backward mapped to Kindergarten. In other words they said if the student would have to know this at the end of his Senior year, then what would he have had to know at the end of his Junior year in order to succeed in the Senior year. They kept going back to Kindergarten. Bullet 3 – When they had the draft of a document saying what each grade level should learn they posted the draft on a website and asked for comments. They made changes to the document based on comments. corestandards.org 3 3

Why is this important? Previously, each state had their own academic standards. Students will now have less difficulty moving between schools and states. All students have clear expectations and skills to compete with both American and international peers. Textbooks can have more focus, coherence and rigor. States can share resources and compare data. It will make it easier for transient students who have previously had gaps or repetitions of concepts in their academic careers. Previously textbooks became so large (600-800 pages) because there was a four-year discrepancy between states as to when a concept should be taught. In order for publishers to assure customers that their standards were in the book publishers covered the same concept four years in a row. Obviously there can be so much more sharing of polished lessons across states. It was not possible for states to compare their data with each state having their own standards and assessments adapted from corestandards.org

45 States + DC Have Adopted the Math Common Core State Standards TALKING POINTS: Now 45 States and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards Most states are committed to implementing the standards by the 2014-2015 school year *Minnesota adopted the CCSS in ELA/literacy only www.corestandards.org

The Common Core State Standards: Have rigorous content and application of knowledge Use lessons learned from current state standards Are internationally benchmarked Are based on evidence and research Not only is the content more rigorous but higher order thinking and application is necessary for students to succeed and application is also required. All of the states combined brought a wealth of knowledge to the table to create this current list of standards corestandards.org 6 6

Common Core State Standards Fewer, Clearer, Higher Focus Coherence Rigor Fewer – In the past the United States curricula had, on average, about 27 different mathematical concepts taught at each grade. The rest of the world’s curricula had about 2-6 mathematical concepts taught at each grade level. U.S. curricula had so many concepts that had to be taught at each grade level none of them could be covered in depth. The Common Core now has 2-4 major areas of focus for each grade level so each can be covered in depth. Clearer – the goal of the authors of the CC were to make it clear to all audiences (teachers, parents, students, publishers, community members etc.) what should be taught and learned at each grade level. Higher – the CCSS have higher content and higher order thinking required at each grade level The slightly less than one-minute video clip at the end of this slide is Phil Daro, a lead author of the Math Common Core, talking about implementing the Common Core. Make sure the volume level is high enough for everyone to hear before showing the clip. Dr. Daro basically says you can’t keep what you are now doing and add the Common Core. Teachers are asked to drop things from rather than add things to their curriculum.

Intentional Design Limitations What the Standards do NOT define: 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 What the standards are NOT is also important. Bullet 1: there is no list of content for gifted students. That would be decided locally Bullet 2: there are no suggestions of what should be done for struggling students Bullet 3: Again there is no specific list for ELL and Special Education students. However, these special populations of students are being considered as assessments are being created. corestandards.org

Standards for Mathematical Practice These are K-12 standards that describe habits of mind of a mathematically proficient student 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. Summing up that these are the math practices.

Standards for Mathematical Content K-8 Standards presented by grade level Each grade introductions highlights critical areas Organized into domains that progress over several grades High School Standards presented by conceptual categories (Number & Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, Statistics & Probability) Illinois Mathematics Project

CCSSM Vocabulary Organization of the document Standards define what students should understand and be able to do. Clusters summarize groups of related standards. Domains are larger groups of related standards. **Standards from different domains and clusters may sometimes be closely related. Illinois Mathematics Project

K-8 Operations & Algebraic Thinking 5.OA Domain Write and interpret numerical expressions. 5.OA.1. Use parentheses, brackets, or braces in numerical expressions, and evaluate expressions with these symbols. 5.OA.2. Write simple expressions that record calculations with numbers, and interpret numerical expressions without evaluating them. For example, express the calculation “add 8 and 7, then multiply by 2” as 2 × (8 + 7). Recognize that 3 × (18932 + 921) is three times as large as 18932 + 921, without having to calculate the indicated sum or product. Standards Cluster Illinois Mathematics Project

Created by Joan Barrett ROE 41 The authors of the common core broke the prior 5 goals down into the smaller subcategories of domains to more easily show the responsibilities of each grade level. In the past every grade level taught every concept to different levels of sophistication. The big message here is one of the reasons the Common Core authors did not use the previous 5 major goals. By breaking down the major goals into domains it is easier to see that there are much fewer concepts taught at each grade level which enables the teacher to cover the fewer concepts in depth. Created by Joan Barrett ROE 41

Putting It All Together 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. If we have standards alone that is not enough to bring about change. We need a new curriculum and a new assessment that are aligned to the new standards. corestandards.org

The Assessment Proposals Prepared by the Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS 3/27/2017 The Assessment Proposals The Process: Proposals were due from multi-state consortia on June 23, 2010 Awards were made in September, 2010 New Consortia tests will replace the current state NCLB tests in 2014-2015 Because 45 states are all working from the same set of standards states decided to cooperate to create the assessments. Three Consortia proposals were submitted: PARCC with 31 states; SBAC with 26 states; and SCOBES with 11 states. The first two consortia were awarded grants to design assessments aligned to the CCSS. See next slide

Assessment Consortia PARCC – Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career, this is a 24-state consortium that is developing assessments for grades 3-11. (Illinois) Smarter Balance – This is the second major consortium developing assessments. ASSETS – English Language Proficiency Assessment System – this consortium is developing assessments for English Language Learners. (Illinois) DLM – Dynamic Learning Maps Assessment Consortium - this consortium is developing assessments for students with disabilities. NCSC – National Center and State Collaborative – this consortium is also developing assessments for students with disabilities.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) PARCC is an alliance of 24 states and the D.C. Educating nearly 25 million students Working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers. PARCC is led by 16 governing board states (and D.C.) represented in Dark Blue. CLICK: The chair of the governing board is Mitchell Chester, Education Commissioner of Massachusetts CLICK: The state of Florida is serving as its fiscal agent. CLICK: Achieve is the project manager for PARCC.

Key Advances of the CCSSM MATHEMATICS Focus, coherence and clarity: emphasis on key topics at each grade level and coherent progression across grades Balance between procedural fluency and understanding of concepts and skills Promote rigor through mathematical proficiencies that foster reasoning and understanding across discipline Focus, coherence and clarity Focus on key topics at each grade level Coherent progressions across grade levels Addresses long-heard criticism of mile-wide, inch-deep math curricula Balance between procedural fluency and understanding of concepts and skills Content standards require both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency Mathematical proficiencies Mathematical proficiencies students should develop (e.g., abstract reasoning, modeling, precision, perseverance, strategic use of tools, making arguments) Using mathematics to understand a problem – even in new or unfamiliar contexts Anchored in college and career readiness Work that is being informed by these shifts: Model Content Frameworks, Prototypes, Item Development work ANCHORED IN COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS 18 PARCC NCSM Presentation

Claims Driving Design: Mathematics Students are on-track or ready for college and careers Students solve problems involving the major content for their grade level with connections to practices Students solve problems involving the additional and supporting content for their grade level with connections to practices Students express mathematical reasoning by constructing mathematical arguments and critiques Students solve real world problems engaging particularly in the modeling practice Student demonstrate fluency in areas set forth in the Standards for Content in grades 3-6

Goals of the PARCC System Create high-quality assessments Build a pathway to college and career readiness for all students Support educators in the classroom Develop 21st century, technology-based assessments Advance accountability at all levels Build an assessment that is sustainable and affordable

Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments Priority Purposes of PARCC Assessments: Determine whether students are college- and career-ready or on track Assess the full range of the Common Core Standards, including standards that are difficult to measure Measure the full range of student performance, including high and low performing students Provide data during the academic year to inform instruction, interventions and professional development Provide data for accountability, including measures of growth Incorporate innovative approaches throughout the system Create high-quality assessments that measure the full range of the CCSS AND the full range of student achievement, including the achievement of high and low performing students. The goal is to assess even the hard to assess standards and that will require using performance types of items. To assess the full range of students the plan is to use an assessment that would respond/adapt to the individual student’s responses. If a child was responding correctly for several items then the electronic assessment would give the student a more difficult question. Conversely, if a student had multiple incorrect responses they would be given an easier question. The digital format of the test will allow such adaptive testing and will result in better data and give a better picture of where each child stands and the interventions that may need to be made for each child. taken from parcconline.org

Goal #2: Build a Pathway to College and Career Readiness for All Students Optional K-2 formative assessment being developed, aligned to the PARCC system Timely student achievement data showing students, parents and educators whether ALL students are on-track to college and career readiness College readiness score to identify who is ready for college-level coursework Targeted interventions & supports: 12th-grade bridge courses PD for educators K-2 3-8 High School SUCCESS IN FIRST-YEAR, CREDIT-BEARING, POSTSECONDARY COURSEWORK The PARCC assessment system will be aligned to the college- and career-ready, Common Core State Standards, and is being designed to challenge students, help identify when they’re not meeting the standards, and provide targeted instruction, supports and interventions to help them succeed Students who score proficient on the assessments will know they are on track for the next steps in their education, creating a more meaningful target In high school, results will send an early signal about whether students are ready for entry-level, non-remedial courses at higher education institutions in all 25 PARCC states Students who are identified as not being on track, or who do not meet the college readiness score, will receive targeted supports and interventions Higher education partners in PARCC—more than 200 institutions and systems covering nearly 1,000 campuses across the country—have committed to help develop the high school assessments and set the college-ready cut score that will be used to place incoming freshman in credit-bearing college courses ONGOING STUDENT SUPPORTS/INTERVENTIONS taken from parcconline.org

Goal #3: Support Educators in the Classroom PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODULES INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION (Content Frameworks) EDUCATOR-LED TRAINING TO SUPPORT “PEER-TO-PEER” TRAINING TIMELY STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA K-12 Educator TALKING POINTS The PARCC assessments will be built with the K-12 educator in mind around four different areas. (CLICK) INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION Content frameworks – www.parcconline.org – home page with link to content frameworks from the In the Classroom Page. Sample assessment tasks Model instructional units PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODULES Common Assessment 101-103: PD focused on the implementation the new assessments Common Assessment 201-204: PD focused on how to interpret and use the assessment results TIMELY STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA Aligned performance-based assessments given throughout year Data reports will be available, designed with teacher use in mind EDUCATOR-LED TRAINING TO SUPPORT “PEER-TO-PEER” TRAINING Training for cadres of K-12 educators around the instructional tools AND around training their peers to use the instructional tools

Goal #4: Develop 21st Century, Technology-Based Assessments PARCC’s assessment will be computer-based and leverage technology in a range of ways to: Item Development Develop innovative tasks that engage students in the assessment process Administration Reduce paperwork, increase security, reduce shipping/receiving & storage Increase access to and provision of accommodations for SWDs and ELLs Scoring Make scoring more efficient by combining human and automated approaches Reporting Produce timely reports of students performance throughout the year to inform instructional, interventions, and professional development Second bullet under administration has the abbreviation SWD = Students with Disabilities Scoring - The participating states that have already used artificial intelligence to do grading have found the artificial intelligence scoring to equal or exceed the scoring done by humans. taken from parcconline.org

Minimum Technology Guidelines

PARCC Assessment Design Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) Extended tasks Applications of concepts and skills Required Diagnostic Assessment Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD Non-summative 2 Optional Assessments/Flexible Administration Mid-Year Assessment Performance-based Emphasis on hard-to-measure standards Potentially summative End-of-Year Assessment Innovative, computer-based items Speaking And Listening Locally scored Non-summative, required To address the priority purposes, PARCC states are developing an assessment system comprised of four components. Each component will be computer-delivered and will leverage technology to incorporate innovations. Two summative, required assessment components designed to Make “college- and career-readiness” and “on-track” determinations Measure the full range of standards and full performance continuum Provide data for accountability uses, including measures of growth Two interim, optional assessment components designed to Generate timely information for informing instruction, interventions, and professional development during the school year Graphic depiction of the assessment system. TALKING POINTS The PARCC assessment system will: Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge & skills found in the English & Math CCSS Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice, longer open response, performance-based) Make significant use of technology Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers, parents and students better information about whether students are on track or need additional support in particular areas In July 2011 PARCC revised their original design which was to have 4 summative assessments that would be given quarterly to 2 summative/accountability assessments given towards the end of the year and two formative assessments given early in the year and toward the mid-year but the time line is flexible. The notes below are the new proposal for PARCC assessments that are pending USDE approval. Assessments will be developed in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics for grades 3–8 and high school that assess the full range of standards within the CCSS. The assessments are to be delivered on computer, with a paper-and-pencil format available as an accommodation and for grades 3–5*** until studies confirm that students in these grades are ready for computer-based assessments. The revised PARCC assessment system will be composed of two summative/accountability components given as close to the end of the school year as possible. ***Assessments in grades 3–5 will be delivered online with students responding via pencil and paper. Performance-Based Assessments (Component 3): These assessments will be given primarily on computers or other digital devices and utilize a mix of human and computer scoring. Multiple types of items will be used, including computer-enhanced items and performance tasks, and emphasis will be placed in this component on the hard-to-measure standards. Each assessment may require several sessions/class periods. Results are expected to be reported within two weeks of completion. The mathematics assessment will require students to apply key mathematical skills, concepts, and processes to solve complex problems of the types encountered in everyday life, work, and decision making. Focus will be placed on the math practices in the CCSS and on multistep problems that require abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools. The mathematics assessment will require students to apply key mathematical skills, concepts, and processes to solve complex problems of the types encountered in everyday life, work, and decision making. Focus will be placed on the math practices in the CCSS and on multistep problems that require abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools. The mathematics EOY assessment will assess the full range of mathematic standards. Technology will be used within items to enable students to, for example, create equations, graph functions, draw lines of symmetry, or create bar graphs. At the high school level, states will have the option of selecting assessments based on either a traditional mathematics course sequence or an integrated mathematics sequence. For performance tasks in Component 3, a combination of computer and distributed human scoring (either teacher or vendor) will be used. To monitor the quality and reliability of scoring, 10–20 percent of randomly selected items for grades 3 through high school will be scored a second time by humans. In addition, in high school (due to the higher stakes when used to determine college course placement), an additional 10–20 percent will be scored again. The EOY component will utilize 100-percent computer scoring. The Partnership plans to press for advances in automated scoring, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI). When paper forms are used for younger students or students with disabilities, responses will be scanned for electronic or human scoring. 26

PARCC Timeline Through 2012 Fall 2011 Winter 2012 Spring Summer PARCC Assessment Implementation PARCC Tools & Resources Model Content Frameworks released (Nov 2011) Educator Leader Cadres launched Item & task prototypes released Item development begins Updated Model Content Frameworks Released

PARCC Timeline through 2015 PARCC Tools & Resources College-ready tools released Partnership Resource Center launched Professional development modules released Diagnostic assessments released Pilot/field testing begins Expanded field testing of diagnostic assessment Optional Diagnostic and Midyear PARCC Assessments Spring 2013 Summer Winter 2014 Fall PARCC Assessment Implementation Expanded field testing Model Instructional Units Released K-2 Formative Tools Released 2015 Summative PARCC Assessments Standard Setting in Summer 2015

PARCC: More Than Just Another Test To support state efforts to implement and transition to the Common Core and next generation assessments, PARCC will facilitate: Strategic planning and collective problem solving for the implementation of CCSS and PARCC assessments Collaborative efforts to develop the highest priority instructional and support tools Multi-state support to build leadership cadres of educators Multi-state support to engage the postsecondary community around the design and use of the assessments Technology transition support for state and district

Discussion time What new information did I learn? Are there stakeholders in my school/district that still need this information? What questions do I have?

Content Area Specialists Heather Brown hbrown@pdaonline.org Alanna Mertens almertens@cps.edu Patricia Reisdorf preisdor@kidsroe.org