Facing History and Ourselves, the Common Core, and Writing Assessments AGENDA Overview of the Common Core Standards Where do we think we see intersection between the CCSI and Facing History? The Boston Public Schools’ Common Writing Assignment Looking at pilot work, talking through next steps

K-W-L minus the L What do you know or already think you know about the standards? What do you want to learn?

An Introduction to Understanding the Common Core State Standards Adapted from

The Common Core State Standards Initiative 4 Beginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

Why Common Core State Standards? 5 Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code. Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

Criteria for the standards Fewer, clearer, and higher Aligned with college and work expectations Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Internationally benchmarked, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Based on evidence and research

Common Core State Standards Evidence Base 7 For example: Standards from individual high-performing countries and provinces were used to inform content, structure, and language. Writing teams looked for examples of rigor, coherence, and progression. Mathematics 1. Belgium (Flemish) 2. Canada (Alberta) 3. China 4. Chinese Taipei 5. England 6. Finland 7. Hong Kong 8. India 9. Ireland 10. Japan 11. Korea 12. Singapore English language arts 1. Australia New South Wales Victoria 2. Canada Alberta British Columbia Ontario 3. England 4. Finland 5. Hong Kong 6. Ireland 7. Singapore

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/ Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

9 Overview of Text Complexity Reading Standards include over exemplar texts (stories and literature, poetry, and informational texts) that illustrate appropriate level of complexity by grade Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative 1.Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands Quantitative 2.Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity Reader and Task 3.Reader and Task – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned

Anchor Standards v. Grade Specific Standards -Anchor Standards are overarching -Grade-specific tailors to the standard for that particular grade context

11 Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading CCR Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. Reading Standards for LiteratureReading Standards for Informational Text Grade 3: Describe characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings) and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events. Grade 3: Describe the relationships between a series of historical events, scientific ideas of concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect. Grade 7: Analyze how particular elements of a story or drama interact (e.g., how setting shapes the characters or plot) Grade 7: Analyze the interactions between individuals, events, and ideas in a text (e.g., how ideas influence individuals or events, or how individuals influence ideas or events). Grades 11-12: Evaluate various explanations for characters’ actions or for events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain. Grades 11-12: Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over the course of the text.

12 Grade-Level Progression Format highlights progression of standards across grades

Breakdown of Writing Standards Writing Standards have three main parts: 1-3 Writing Types 4-6 Production and Distribution 7-9 Engaging in research and writing about sources 10- Writing routinely in several formats

Speaking and Listening Breakdown Standards 1-3: Comprehension and Collaboration “day to day, purposeful, academic talk in one to one, small group and large group settings” Standards 4-6: Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas “formal, often using technology”

Language Breakdown Standards 1-3: Knowledge of Language Standards 4-6: Vocabulary Development -General Academic and Domain specific -brick and mortar words

16 Overview of Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Reading Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Knowledge of domain-specific vocabulary Analyze, evaluate, and differentiate primary and secondary sources Synthesize quantitative and technical information, including facts presented in maps, timelines, flowcharts, or diagrams Writing Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Write arguments on discipline-specific content and informative/explanatory texts Use of data, evidence, and reason to support arguments and claims Use of domain-specific vocabulary

A note from our sponsors Standards are essential, but inadequate. Along with standards, Educators must be given resources, tools, and time to adjust classroom practice. Instructional materials needed that align to the standards. Assessments must be developed to measure student progress. Federal, state, and district policies will need to be reexamined to ensure they support alignment of the common core state standards with student achievement.

From a FH viewpoint… The standards are missing many skills that we deem important, such as: -Where is civic education in the discussion? They talk about college and career readiness---what about civic engagement? Education to create an informed citizenry? -Reflective writing as an important writing type -Moral philosophy

Sources Information gathered from: -Achieve -Common Core Webinar (from link on

Revisiting Facing History and the Common Core Think back to the four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language. Now that you know a bit more about each strand, where do you predict that Facing History is already meeting some of these standards? Where do you expect there to be gaps between Facing History and the standards?

BPS Common Writing Assignment (CWA) Argumentative question Could be answered using only historical evidence from the investigations Elicits multiple “right” answers Covers a range of material from the unit Engaging for students Accessible (How easy/difficult is it for me to answer this prompt?)

Looking at Prompts

Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” The events in Little Rock support Margaret Mead’s statement.

Thesis brainstorm Write three possible thesis statements based on this prompt Aim to write one of each: – Weak – doesn’t address prompt, can’t be defended with evidence from the unit – Good – addresses prompt, can be defended – Excellent – more complex, sophisticated than a good thesis

Thesis sorting activity Organize slips into these categories: – Weak – doesn’t address prompt, can’t be defended with evidence from the unit – Good – addresses prompt, can be defended – Excellent – more complex and sophisticated than a good thesis

Reflect What do you take away from doing this activity? For those of you who prefer a more specific prompt: How is thesis-statement-writing relevant to Facing History’s mission and your work with teachers, if at all? Would you rewrite your original “good” or “excellent” thesis statements now? How have your ideas about what makes a good thesis changed as a result of this activity, if at all?

Exit cards What questions are most on your mind now: 1) Project-specific questions (about the CWA and work with BPS) 2) Organizational (about Facing History’s work with Common Core, etc.)