1. What about Instructional Materials? Sandra Alberti Student Achievement Partners

2. PAGE 2 To Start Off: Please reflect on what you will be able to observe (see, hear) when you have successfully implemented Iowa Core Standards in your schools and districts. Teacher Practices? Student Work? Instructional Materials?

3. PAGE 3 Tools for Evaluation of Alignment - History 1.Common Core State Standards 2.Publishers’ Criteria for ELA/Literacy Publishers’ Criteria for ELA/Literacy K-2 Publishers’ Criteria for ELA/Literacy 3-12 Publishers’ Criteria for Mathematics K-8 Publishers’ Criteria for Mathematics K-HS 3.Tri-State Rubric  EQuIP Rubric 4.Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET)

4. PAGE 4 Publishers’ Criteria: Possible Uses Informing purchases and adoptions Working with previously purchased materials Reviewing teacher- developed materials and guiding their development As a tool for professional development What States, Districts and Teachers Can Do Ensure that instructional resource purchasing criteria and decisions are aligned to the Standards. Use the Publishers’ Criteria to review existing materials and adjust to improve alignment (remove or supplement). Use the Publishers’ Criteria to support teachers in developing materials and ensure that teacher- developed resources are aligned. Share the Publishers’ Criteria with teachers and use it to support teacher understanding of the standards. Use Cases

5. PAGE 5 What is the Toolkit? An Overview Purpose: To catalyze the impact that the CCSS can have on student achievement by building and applying a common vision of CCSS aligned, high quality instructional and assessment materials What it is: Collaboration between Achieve, CCSSO and Student Achievement Partners A resource that brings together a set of interrelated, freely available tools for evaluating instructional and assessment materials for alignment to CCSS Support for the evaluation of comprehensive textbook or textbook series, units, lessons, grade or course-level assessments, item banks, and individual assessment items and can be applied to both print and digital materials

6. PAGE 6 Key Design Features The Publishers’ Criteria were developed from the perspective that publishers and purchasers are equally responsible for ensuring high quality instructional materials. They do not define, endorse or prescribe curriculum; those decisions are, and should be, local within each state or district. All tools provided directly support the expectations of the CCSS and are derived from or closely aligned with the guidelines provided in the Publishers’ Criteria for mathematics and English language arts/literacy Included tools do not address all factors that may be important in determining whether instructional materials and assessments are appropriate in a given local or state context but instead aim to clearly articulate the criteria for alignment to the CCSS

7. PAGE 7 Instructional and Assessment Materials

8. PAGE 8 Types of Tools in the Toolkit Type of ToolUsed for Evaluating Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET) Comprehensive mathematics and English language arts or reading curricula in print and digital format. EQuIP Rubric for Lessons and Units Lesson plans and units of instruction in mathematics and English language arts/literacy. Equip Student Work Protocols Assessment Evaluation Tool (AET) Assessments or sets of assessments and item banks for mathematics and English language arts/literacy, including interim/benchmark assessments, and classroom assessments designed to address a grade or course. Assessment Passage and Item Quality Criteria Checklist Assessment passages and assessment items or tasks.

9. PAGE 9 An Important Distinction Non-negotiable criteria Alignment criteria and indicators of quality

10. PAGE 10 Evaluators must be well versed in the Shifts ELA/Literacy 1.Regular practice with complex text and its academic language 2.Reading, writing and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational 3.Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction Mathematics 1.Focus strongly where the Standards focus 2.Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades 3.Rigor: In major topics, pursue with equal intensity: conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application

11. PAGE 11 Mathematics Non-negotiable criteria in the Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET) – Non-Negotiable 1: Freedom from Obstacles to Focus – Non-Negotiable 2: Focus and Coherence Meets/Does Not Meet Criteria These criteria must be met for the materials to be aligned to the CCSS.

12. PAGE 12 Non-Negotiable 1: Freedom from Obstacles to Focus Non-Negotiable 1: Materials must reflect the content architecture of the Standards by not assessing the topics named* before the grade level where they first appear in the Standards. Notes: Cluster level designation Focus by Grade Level Math Focus Activity PD Module: Deep Dive Into the Math ShiftsDeep Dive Into the Math Shifts

13. PAGE 13 Non-Negotiable 1 There is a difference between introducing/exploring additional topics and separately assessing them. Probability7 Statistical distributions6 Similarity, congruence, geometric transformations 8 Symmetry4

14. PAGE 14 Non-Negotiable 2: Focus and Coherence Materials must focus coherently on the Major Work of the grade in a way that is consistent with the progressions in the Standards. A.In each grade K–8, students and teachers using the materials as designed devote the large majority of time to the Major Work of the grade. B.Supporting Work, where present, enhances focus and coherence simultaneously by also engaging students in the Major Work of the grade. C.Materials base content progressions on the grade-by- grade progressions in the Standards. Content from previous or future grades does not unduly interfere with or displace on-grade-level content

15. PAGE 15 Non-Negotiable 2: Focus and Coherence D.Materials give all students extensive work with on-grade-level problems. E.Materials relate on-grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades. F.Review of material from previous grades is clearly identified as such to the teacher, and teacher and students can see what their specific responsibility is for the current year. G.Review of material from previous grades is clearly identified as such to the teacher, and teacher and students can see what their specific responsibility is for the current year. H.Materials include problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain, or two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important.

16. PAGE 16 Mathematics – Additional Alignment Criteria 1.Rigor and Balance 2.Standards for Mathematical Practice 3.Access to Standards for All Learners Each one has multiple indicators Score 2, 1, 0

17. PAGE 17 ELA/Literacy – Non Negotiable Criteria Texts are worthy of student time and attention; they have the appropriate level of complexity for the grade, according to both quantitative and qualitative analyses of text complexity.

18. PAGE 18 ELA/Literacy – Non Negotiable Criteria Non-Negotiable 1: ELA/literacy texts have the appropriate level of complexity for the grade, according to both quantitative measures and qualitative analysis of text complexity—texts are worthy of student time and attention. A.100% of texts must be accompanied by specific evidence that they have been analyzed with at least one research-based quantitative measure for grade band placement. B.100% of texts must be accompanied by specific evidence that they have been analyzed for their qualitative features indicating a specific grade level placement.

19. PAGE 19 Resources for Non Negotiable 1 Text Complexity Collection Appendix A Why Text Complexity Matters Why Text Complexity Matters (PDF)

20. PAGE 20 ELA/Literacy – Non Negotiable Criteria Non-Negotiable 2: At least 80% of all questions in the submission are high- quality text-dependent and text-specific questions. The overwhelming majority of these questions are text-specific and draw student attention to the text. A.At least eighty percent of all questions and tasks should be text dependent to reflect the requirements of Reading Standard 1 (by requiring use of textual evidence to support valid inferences from the text). B.Questions and tasks accurately address the analytical thinking required by the Standards at each grade level. NOTE: while multiple Standards will be addressed with every text, not every standard must be addressed with every text.

21. PAGE 21 Resources for Non Negotiable 2 Text Dependent Question Resources PD Module: Understanding TDQ

22. PAGE 22 SCASS Rubric

23. PAGE 23 ELA/Literacy – Additional Alignment Criteria 1.Range and Quality of Texts 2.Questions and Tasks 3.Writing to Sources and Research 4.Foundational Skills 5.Language 6.Speaking and Listening Each one has multiple indicators Score 2, 1, 0

24. PAGE 24 Instructional Materials Taskforce Understanding the criteria Understanding the process for review Understanding communication around selection

25. PAGE 25 Aligned blog achievethecore.org/aligned

26. Thank You! Sandra Alberti salberti@studentsachieve.net www.achievethecore.org Twitter: @salberti