History & Development of the Common Core Standards

Nation at Risk (Reagan 1983):

· 4 major areas of concern & recommendations:

Contentà 5 new basics: four courses in English, three in mathematics, three in science, three in social studies, and one-half credit in computer science. Two credits in a foreign language were also recommended for students planning to attend college.
Expectationsà suggestions to both K-12 and higher education, adopt more "rigorous and measurable standards," and have higher expectations for student performance and conduct. Institutions of higher education were also encouraged to raise admissions standards to push students to do their best during their elementary and secondary years.
Timeà suggestions were made to devote more time to teaching the new basics, which could take the form of longer, seven-hour school days, a school year with 200 to 220 days, or a more efficient use of the existing school day.
Teachingà 7 recommendations for improving teacher quality: including higher standards for teacher-preparation programs, teacher salaries that were professionally competitive and based on performance, 11-month contracts for teachers allowing more time for curriculum and professional development, career ladders that differentiated teachers based on experience and skill, more resources devoted to teacher-shortage areas, incentives for drawing highly qualified applicants into the profession, and mentoring programs for novice teachers that were designed by experienced teachers.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB, Bush 2001):

· 4 major areas of concern:

Increased Accountabilityà requiring states to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students which would be based on challenging state standards in reading and math, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Results would be divided among race, ethnicity, poverty, disability, and limited English proficiency. Those who do not meet “Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)” would be subject to corrective action and restructuring measures. Those who exceed AYP would be given State Academic Achievement Awards.
More Choices for Parents & Studentsà those attending Title I schools that fail to meet State standards would be given the opportunity to attend a better public school, which may include a public charter school, within the school district. The district is responsible for providing transportation to the new school and use at least 5% of its Title I funds for this purpose.
Greater Flexibility for States, School Districts, and Schoolsà Authority for States and LEAs to transfer up to 50% of the funding they receive under 4 major State grant programs to any one of the programs including Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools, or to Title I. State Flexibility Demonstration Program allowing up to 7 states to consolidate the State share of nearly all Federal State grant programs. Local Flexibility Demonstration Program allowing up to 80 LEAs, in addition to the 70 LEAs under the State Flexibility Demonstration Program, to consolidate funds received under the Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs.
Putting Reading Firstà ensures that every child can read by the end of third grade. Significantly increase the Federal investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades.

Race to the Top (RTTT, Obama 2010):

· $4.35 billion dollar contest awarding schools for academic achievement based on 500-point system scale where schools are evaluated on great teachers and leaders, state success factors, standards and assessments, general selection criteria, turning around the lowest-achieving schools, data systems to support instruction, and the priority of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) which are awarded

National Governors Association & The Council of Chief State School Officers

Development of the Common Core Standards

· The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort, launched more than a year ago by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

· The process used to write the standards ensured they were informed by:

The best state standards;
The experience of teachers, content experts, states and leading thinkers; and
Feedback from the general public.

· To write the standards, the NGA Center and CCSSO brought together content experts, teachers, researchers and others. Information about individuals involved in writing the standards through the Work and Feedback Groups is available here, and a list of Validation Committee members is available here.

· During the development process the standards had been divided into two categories:

College and career readiness standards, which address what students are expected to learn when they have graduated from high school; and
K-12 standards, which address expectations for elementary through high school.

· The college and career readiness standards were incorporated into the K-12 standards during the standards development process. The NGA Center and CCSSO received nearly 10,000 comments on the standards during two public comment periods. Comments, many of which helped shape the final version of the standards, came from teachers, parents, school administrators and other citizens concerned with education policy.

The draft college and career ready graduation standards were released for public comment in September 2009. A summary of the public comments on the college and career ready standards is available at http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CorePublicFeedback.pdf
The draft K-12 standards were released for public comment in March 2010. A summary of the public comments on the K-12 standards is available at http://www.corestandards.org/assets/k-12-feedback-summary.pdf
The final standards were released in June 2010.

· An advisory group has provided advice and guidance to shape the initiative. Members of this group included experts from Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.

Borrowed from: http://www.corestandards.org/resources/process

Implementation:

Standards:

· Are aligned with college and work expectations;

· Are clear, understandable and consistent;

· Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills;

· Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards;

· Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and

· Are evidence-based.

· Mathematical Standardsà

CCSS.Math.Practice.MP1 Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP2 Reason abstractly and quantitatively
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP3 Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP4 Model with mathematics
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP5 Use appropriate tools strategically
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP6 Attend to precision
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP7 Look for and make use of structure
CCSS.Math.Practice.MP8 Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

· English Language Arts Standardsà

Reading: Text complexity and the growth of comprehension
Writing: Text types, responding to reading, and research
Speaking and Listening: Flexible communication and collaboration
Language: Conventions, effective use, and vocabulary

· 2012-13 Implementing the Common Core State Standards (ICCS) Program

The ICCS collaborative meets three times annually, with frequent interaction between meetings

The 2012-2013 ICCS program runs from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013, and offers state Common Core implementation teams access to coaching and mentorship from former state leaders, access to an online network to share resources with all states, attendance at an annual summit as a cross-agency team, attendance at a series of focused topical meetings, and input into CCSSO's ongoing webinar series and tool development to support Common Core implementation.
The members for the current program year are: American Samoa, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the Department of Defense Education Activity (a U.S. civilian agency that oversees schools that serve the children of U.S. service men and women around the world), Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin. All other states will join in the 2014-2015 school year.
http://www.parcconline.org/print/CommonCoreImplementationWorkbook
Communication and Engagement tools: engaging through social media, linking sources from validators, and displaying myths/facts and other resources prominently on the state’s website provide easy public access to communication tools, System Alignment and System Change: accountability systems, teacher and principal preparation, educator licensure, professional development, and educator evaluation policies and practices must be aligned to and consistent with the Common Core State Standards in order to avoid conflicting messages to educators, Educator Supports: Educators need the tools, guidance, and professional learning experiences that help them understand the standards deeply; develop curricula, lessons and units, and aligned assessments; and locate and evaluate if instructional materials are aligned to the Common Core, all especially because the Common Core does not dictate how teachers should teach.

(http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/CCSSO%20State%20Spotlight%20Document%20May%202013.pdf)

www.corestandards.org

NYS Implementation Update as of March 2013

Background:

Ensuring College-And-Career-Readiness for All

· Despite NYS having an increase in graduation rates and having some of the most successful individual districts and individual schools in the country, there are still too many students who do not graduate and too many who do graduate take remedial courses in college.

· Increased Rigor: students who entered 9th grade in 2005, had a greater number of exams increased each year in which they had to earn at least a 65. Students in 2008 or later must now score at least a 65 on all required regents exams. The regents diploma with advanced designation is available for students who completed additional credits and course sequences and score at least a 65 on up to nine regents exams.

· In 2010, more accurate measures of student progress were developed for Grades 3-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and math cut scores, and as a result, NYS proficiency rates moved closer to the State’s proficiency rates on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Only 53% of ELA and 61% of Math met the State’s 2005 ELA and math standards, down from 77% and 86% the year prior based on old cut scores which was still not a completely accurate picture of student performance against college and career readiness.

· Currently, there are modifications being made on designing Grades 3-8 ELA and math assessments to measure the knowledge and skills students need at each grade level to achieve college and career readiness. New tests were eliminated this spring.

· In June 2011, SED released “aspirational performance measures,” or NYS graduation rates based on college-and-career readiness performance standards: 30.9% of the 2006 cohort graduated with a Regents diploma with Advanced Designation and 36.7% of the graduates in the cohort scored at least 75 (English) and 80(math) on regents exams.

Rigorous Curriculum and Instruction

· In January 2010, NYS Board of Regents committed to CCSS and formally adopted the CCSS for ELA & Literacy and Mathematics in July 2010.

· In December 2010, the Board of Regents announced student progress will be measured Grades 3-8 through State Assessments beginning 2012-2013 school year. Student progress in high school will be measured beginning in June 2014 (hence why newly certified NYS teachers are expected to be ready for this change).

· In January 2011, NYSED offered explicit guidance regarding the changes that should occur in each district, school, and classroom in order to ensure the preparation for teachers and students.

· Network Teams Institutes-a statewide professional development initiative for NYS educators began in the summer 2011 along with the launce of EngageNY.org (professional development website).

· Summer & Fall 2012-NYSED released Grades 3-8 Common Core Sample Questions and Test Guides to help teachers adjust to the standards. Statewide ELA and Math Common Core assessment rubric and scoring training sessions began in winter 2013.

· Common Core Shifts: ELA/Literacy- Balancing Informational & Literary Text, Knowledge in the Disciplines, Staircase of Complexity, Text-Based Answers, Writing from Sources, Academic Vocabulary, Math- Focus, Coherence, Fluency, Deep Understanding, Application, Dual Intensity (See attached for detailed explanation).

· NYSED uses federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funds to support local efforts such as tools, modules, maps, scaffolds (engageny.org).

Assessing What Students Know and Can Do

· Student progress is assessed each day by teachers, every few weeks/months by districts, once a year by State, and every few years nationally through sampling.

· Statewide assessments identify achievement gaps and identify local, regional, and statewide policies that could be expanded, replicated, or adjusted to help ensure a school is effective as possible and achieving its potential.

· It has been proven that students perform best when they have great teachers who deliver high quality instruction aligned with rigorous standards.

· Redesign of Grades 3-8 ELA and math test: increases in rigor, focus on text, depth in math.

Accountability

· The first NYS tests to measure student progress were administered April 2013 for Grades 3-8 ELA and Math. It is expected that fewer students will perform at or above grade-level Common Core expectations than was the case with prior-year State tests.

· In other words, for the first time NYS will be reporting student grade-level expectations against a trajectory of college-and-career-readiness as measured by tests fully reflective of Common Core.

· The results does not necessarily indicate a decline in student learning or a decline in educator performanceàwe need to be more honest and realistic of where students are on their path to being well prepared for the world that awaits them after they graduate from high school.

Institutional Accountability

· Common Core proficiency rates posted publicly (statewide results, by student subgroup, and by school/district), but also seeking approval from the U.S. Ed. Dept. to make statistical adjustments that approximate the previous definition of “proficiency” when making Adequate Yearly Progress determinations and other accountability decisions, such as the identification of Local Assistance Plan and Reward Schools.

· No new districts will be identified as Focus Districts and no new schools will be identified as Priority Schools based on 2012-2013 assessment results.

Teacher/Principal Accountability

· Teachers whose students take the Grades 4-8 ELA and math state assessments and the principals of these teachers will receive state-provided growth scores (based on students’ scores on the 2012-2013 State assessments compared to similar scores on the 2011-2012 State tests and up to two prior years of tests, taking into consideration certain student demographic characteristics).