1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 ). The new assessments will be ready for use by the school year. Given during the last 12 weeks of school.
MEAP & MME remain the same
MEAP minimally modified (begin to remove items that are not present in the CCSS)
CCSS assessment item pilots & some initial release of items
MEAAP minimally modified again
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.

16. 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.

17. 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)

18. 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.

19. 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

20. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

21. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

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

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