1. Common Core State Standards Introduction Presenters: Kristi Hanby Sandy White Tovah Sheldon  DRAFT 2-11-11

2. Agenda Introduction to Common Core State Standards (1 hour) General info. – www.corestandards.orgwww.corestandards.org Misconception & Timeline Assessment Preview (Led by Tovah Sheldon) 15 Minute Break Breakout Content Sessions (1.5 hours) Math Session (Led by Kristi Hanby) – DLC Room #119 ELA Session (Led by Sandy White) – PD Room #220

3. What is “Common Core”? A set of K-12 Math and ELA standards that individual states across the nation can adopt which define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12 education careers, so that they will graduate high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs. (adapted from core standards website) Flanagan’s Common Core State Standards Address (http://www.mistreamnet.com/vidflv.php?who=mde102510(http://www.mistreamnet.com/vidflv.php?who=mde102510) Websites: www.corestandards.org MDE Common Core Website and Resources

4. Fact vs. Myth

21. Assessment Overview Presenter: Tovah Sheldon 2-11-11

22. Race to the Top Assessment Competition Assessment Consortia – Development of an infrastructure and content for a common assessment in measuring CCSS in English Language Arts and Mathematics Two consortia – SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/default.aspx - Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)

23. Race to the Top Assessment Competition U.S. Education Department Requirements – Measure the full breadth of the Common Core State Standards – Extend the range of high quality measurement in both directions – Assessments operational by 2014-15 – Consortia must offer an online version – Must take advantage of technology for reporting speed and be instructionally relevant

24. Race to the Top Assessment Competition The consortia: – SMARTER/Balanced 31 states 17 governing states CAT beginning in 2014-2015 – PARCC 26 states 11 governing states CBT beginning in 2014-15

25. Introduction to the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC): The History Smarter Computer Adaptive Mosaic Formative Capacity Balanced Integrated System

27. Theory of Action SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium shaped by the following principles: 1. Integrated system 2. Evidence of student performance 3. Teachers integrally involved 4. State-led, transparent and inclusive governance structure 5. Continuously improve teaching and learning 6. Useful information on multiple measures 7. Design and implementation adhere to established professional standards

28. Theory of Action Creating a policy environment that supports: a. innovation systems, b. high expectations and c. increased opportunities for students Aligned to the Common Core Standards: a. clearly defined college and career expectations, b. learning progressions c. content/curricular frameworks, d. test maps, and e. instructional processes

29. SBAC Specific Priorities Ensure all students have access to the technology needed to participate in each component (summative, interim/benchmark, formative) Support research on how to use technology to increase access for all students, in particular those needing accommodations

30. SBAC Specific Priorities Use technology to efficiently deliver training, resources, reports and data; social networks for teachers to develop and disseminate effective CCSS curriculum and instructional tools Create innovative item types that utilize technology and represent real-world contexts

31. SBAC Specific Priorities Use Computer Adaptive Testing engine to maximize accuracy for individual students across the CCSS Standardized accommodations policy and administration practices across states to ensure comparability

32. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal

33. Summative Assessment – Measure full range of CCSS – Computer Adaptive Testing for precision – Timely results – Engage Institutions of Higher Education to ensure achievement standards reflect college and career readiness – Scale scores help inform growth model

34. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Interim Benchmark Assessment – Allow for finer grain of measurement (e.g., end of unit) – Inform teachers if students on track to be proficient on summative assessments – Multiple opportunities for students to participate – Scale scores help inform growth model

35. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Formative Assessment – Repository of tools available to teachers to support quick adjustment and differentiated instruction – Help define student performance along the CCSS learning progressions – Concrete strategies for immediate feedback loops

36. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Teacher Engagement – Integral role in developing test maps for each grade and content area – Item writing, specifications, reviewing, and range- finding for all test types – Teacher-moderated scoring of performance events to inform professional development

38. Technology Enhanced Item Prototype items courtesy of the Minnesota and Utah Departments of Education

41. Technology Enhanced Item Minnesota Science Item

42. SBAC Assessment Design Proposal Assessment window vs. single day administration Multiple opportunities to assess Quick results available to support instruction Emphasis on problem-solving and critical thinking

43. Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium Alternate Assessments Based on the Common Core State Standards

44. State Participants Iowa Kansas Michigan Mississippi Missouri New Jersey North Carolina Oklahoma Utah West Virginia Wisconsin

45. Other Participants AbleLink Technologies The ARC The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Edvantia University of Kansas – Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation – Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis – Center for Research on Learning – Special Education Department

46. Feature Overview Learning maps Dynamic assessment Inclusion of instructionally relevant tasks Instructionally embedded and stand-alone versions Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including growth modeling) Technology platform Universal design Evidence centered design including cognitive labs Scaffolding Development of over 14,000 tasks/items Professional development

47. Major Changes Include – Moving Online – Scoring – Reporting

48. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.) – 41 responses – 5 of 41 states have no CBT initiatives – 36 of 41 states have current CBT initiatives, including: Operational online assessment Pilot online assessment Plans for moving online

49. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.) – Of 36 states with some initiative 21 states currently administer large-scale general populations assessments online 9 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of large-scale general populations assessments 8 states currently administer special populations assessments online 2 states have plans to begin (or expand) online administration of special populations assessments

50. Moving to Online Assessment Survey of state testing directors (+D.C.) – Of 36 states with some initiative 5 states currently use Artificial Intelligence (AI) scoring of constructed response items 4 states currently use Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) technology for general populations assessment 0 states currently use CAT technology for special populations assessment 7 states offer online interim/benchmark assessments 7 states offer online item banks accessible to teachers for creating “formative”/interim/benchmark assessments tailored to unique curricular units

51. Online Assessment -The Michigan Stage Michigan’s online initiatives – Pilot in 2006 – Pilot in 2011 (English Language Proficiency) – Pilot in 2012 (Alternate Assessments) – Pilots leading up to operational adoption of SMARTER/Balanced Assessment Consortium products in 2014/15 – Constitutional amendment barring unfunded mandates

52. Scoring Maximize objective scoring by – Automated scoring of objective items – AI scoring of extended written response items, technology enhanced items, and performance tasks wherever possible – Distributed hand-scoring of tasks not scorable using AI

53. Scoring as Professional Development Human scorers taken from ranks of teachers – Online training on hand-scoring – Online certification as a hand-scorer – Online monitoring of rater performance – Validation hand-scoring of samples of AI-scored tasks Our experience with teacher-led scoring and rangefinding indicates that it is some of the best professional development that we provide to educators

54. Reporting Current reports can be difficult to read and poorly used Need online reporting of all scores for all stakeholders, including: – Policymakers (aggregate) – Administrators (aggregate and individual) – Teachers (aggregate and individual) – Parents (aggregate and individual) – Students (individual)

55. Reporting Portal Reporting portal needs to be able to integrate reports from classroom metrics all the way to large-scale secure assessment metrics

56. Challenges LEA capacity for online assessment Bandwidth issues, especially in rural areas – Minnesota challenge – Utah example – USED working with FCC on National Broadband Initiative

57. Challenges Item development for computer-adaptive testing Field-testing – Item types – Demographic coverage AI (Artificial Intelligence) Scoring validation

58. Challenges Psychometrics – Comparability across years and student populations – Equating from year to year Accommodated versions for SWD and ELL – Contrast, read aloud, enlarged print – Braille All challenges will be resolved by 2014-15 All challenges will be resolved by 2014-15

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

60. Timeline for Transition 2012-2013  2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the CCSS  2013 MME remains the same  State focus will be on student learning 2013-2014  2013 MEAP based on 2012 model  2014 MME remains the same  State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from SMARTER Consortium 2014-2015  Full implementation - Instruction and assessment based on CCSS

61. Contact Information Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability – www.michigan.gov/oeaa www.michigan.gov/oeaa SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium – http://smarter.k12partners.org/ http://smarter.k12partners.org/  DRAFT  611

62. Common Core State Standards Mathematics Presenter: Kristi Hanby  DRAFT 2-11-11

63. Things to Consider  DRAFT  631  Unpacking  Alignment  Math Practice Standards

64. Unpacking the Content Standards  DRAFT  641  Nouns – the content  Verbs – expectations of students when engaging in the content  Instructional Match – considering how the lesson is structured to meet the intent of the nouns and verbs  Assessment Match - writing quality assessment items that inform of the students’ understanding

65. Alignment  DRAFT  651  One-to-one  What would it mean to have a one-to-one alignment from Michigan Merit Curriculum to Common Core State Standards?  Alignment Documents

66. Math Practice Standards  DRAFT  661  Describe actions of students, and by extension, teachers within a rich learning environment for mathematics  Not directly related to any particular content, but repeated behaviors of students who engage in mathematics meaningfully  e.g. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

67. Things to Consider  DRAFT  671  Q & A  What questions do you have as we move forward in this process?  What will need to be made available to you to be successful in implementation of the curriculum?