STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY
Topic: Common Core State Standards Initiative Update
Date: June 24, 2010
Staff/Office: C. Michelle Hooper, Colleen Mileham/ Office of Educational Improvement & Innovation
Action Requested: Informational Only Adoption Later Adoption Adoption/Consent Agenda
ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: An update on the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)
BACKGROUND: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a joint effort by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in partnership with Achieve, ACT and the College Board. Oregon, along with 47 other states has committed to the adoption of a common core of state standards in English/language arts and mathematics.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI): the final version
The final version of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was released to the public on June 2, 2010 and posted on the newly revamped CCSSI website at www.corestandards.org. ODE, along with other state education agencies, received advance copies of the standards for preliminary review.
Common Core State Standards Validation Committee
As part of the standards development process, CCSSO created a validation committee to provide a final review of the standards prior to public dissemination. This 25-member committee was given the charge to:
· review the process used to develop the common core and provide input and feedback on that process
· validate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the common core
Following three meetings and evaluation of the final version of the CCSS, all but one member found the standards to be:
· Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need to be college and career ready
· Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity
· Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations
· Informed by available research or evidence
· The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development
· A solid starting point for adoption of cross-state common core standards
· A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments
The full NGA and CCSSO report Reaching Higher, describing the validation committee process and findings, begins on page four of this docket item.
Oregon’s Preliminary Review of Final Common Core Mathematics Standards
Grades K-8:
The CCSS writing team reduced the number of standards throughout the document and removed several “examples” statements and other confusing details from the standards. “Fewer” and “clearer” however can be competing constructs in the standards development process. While there are fewer standards, some clarity issues remain that will require intentional professional development for successful implementation. A specific example is the use of the word “fluently” throughout the standards. This term will need to be carefully defined for instructional and assessment purposes.
Some standards were moved to more appropriate grade levels, and learning progressions were smoothed out in several areas. Additional statistical concepts were added to the lower grades, but Oregon might want to consider employing its 15% flexibility option to increase simple probability concepts in the earlier grades as well.
The collection of eighth grade standards resembles an integrated mathematics course, including linear equations, geometry, algebra, and probability and statistics. The final draft includes far less “trigonometric” concepts than previous versions and no longer appears as a full-blown algebra course.
Grades 9-12:
The high school standards have also been reduced in number, down to 122 “regular” standards and 32 “advanced” standards. Like K-8, many extraneous statements and lengthy narratives have been removed from the document. For Oregon students, given the state’s three-year mathematics graduation requirement, this translates into about 40 standards per year that must be covered.
An outstanding question for the HS standards has been, “Where will the CCSSI draw the college and career readiness line?” In other words, what standards will be intended for all students, and which ones will be designated as “advanced.” To this end, the “Geometry” and “Statistics” standards have been much improved. The geometry concepts seem more applicable to a wider audience and more standards appropriately categorized as “advanced.” Some trigonometric concepts have been removed entirely. The statistics standards have an increased focus and appear appropriately balanced.
The most evident imbalance remains among the Algebra (also referenced as “Functions”) standards. Although there is approximately half the number of algebra standards than in previous drafts, roughly 70% of the CCSS content intended for all students is contained in Oregon’s “advanced knowledge and skills.”
Like in previous versions, the CCSS fail to fully demonstrate the utility of the “Mathematical Practices” included in the beginning pages of the standards document. These practices are intended to provide the “how” of mathematics: problem-solving, communications, reasoning, etc. but are never integrated into the CCSS in a meaningful way. Oregon’s “process standards” are based on the work of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and intended to provide the instructional context for the K-12 math standards. Additional work has been done on Oregon’s process standards framework to connect it to the essential skills and the math problem solving scoring guide. If the Board chooses to adopt the CCSS, ODE staff recommend careful consideration be given to preserving Oregon’s process standards framework.
Oregon’s Preliminary Review of Final Common Core English Language Arts Standards
The final version of the CCSS has been renamed “English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects” to be more inclusive of college and career readiness. In response to feedback from the national review, the writing team also adjusted several kindergarten standards to begin with the phrase, “With prompting and support.” Oregon will need to evaluate the impact this modification will have on the implementation of the Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework, which promotes more independence in reading at these levels than the common core now does.
Validity Study of the Common Core State Standards
The Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) has been awarded a Gates grant to conduct a validity study of the final common core standards. EPIC’s CEO Dave Conley, author of College & Career Ready and College Knowledge co-chaired the CCSSI validation committee and was among the members who signed off on the standards. According to the EPIC website:
The Validity Study is designed to collect information on entry-level postsecondary courses to determine the degree to which the College- and Career-Readiness Standards represent the knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary readiness. The study explores the relationship between the College- and Career-Readiness Standards and the content, expectations, and practices commonly found in postsecondary courses. The study examines readiness for college by analyzing courses at two- and four-year degree-granting institutions, and considers career-readiness by analyzing courses required for a set of two-year certificates that are representative of the type necessary to enter into a career pathway. To accomplish the goals of the study, data will be collected from instructors teaching entry-level college courses across the country. The data will be collected by means of an online tool developed by EPIC that instructors will use to provide specific information about their respective courses in relation to the Standards.
Target completion date for the study is November or December 2010. NGA and CCSSO will determine how the study’s results will be disseminated and the findings might prompt additional changes to standards. The project’s results could also have implications for the design of the common assessment.
Oregon’s next steps: analyzing the Common Core Standards
To date, ODE staff and field reviewers have conducted visual comparisons of the national Common Standards to Oregon’s current math and English/language arts standards. Now that the Common Standards are finalized, staff will conduct more precise match-gap analyses between the sets of standards.
Achieve’s Standards Comparison Tool
Achieve has developed a set of free on-line tools that will help Oregon answer the following questions for each
content area:
(1) What percentage of our state’s standards appear in the Common Core? For what percentage was there no match between our state’s standards and the Common Core?
(2) How did we rate our state’s degree of match with the Common Core? What percentage of the Common Core standards has no match to our state’s standards?
(3) How do our state standards compare to the Common Core at the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade bands?
(4) Where are there grade-level differences between our state standards and the Common Core?
Achieve conducted a special orientation/tutorial webinar for ODE staff on June 9th to demonstrate how to use the tools and determine match and strength of match (rating) between Oregon’s standards and the common core. For each content area, ODE plans to convene a small group in mid-July to conduct an initial standards analysis and alignment exercise. A second, larger group will be convened in August to serve as a validation committee regarding this work.
CCSSO’s Surveys of Enacted Curriculum Content Analysis of Common Core State Standards
CCSSO is holding a workshop this summer to conduct an analysis of the common core using the SEC
frameworks and coding methodology. Oregon is a member of the CCSSO SEC collaborative and Oregon’s state standards are already coded in the SEC database. The resulting product from the workshop will provide states with data to compare their own standards to the Common Core. ODE’s math and English/language arts specialists will attend the workshop in Washington, D.C. with CCSSO covering all travel and lodging expenses.
Information to be brought before the Board in October and December
1. Results of gap analysis and validation work
2. Preliminary information (if available) on EPIC’s validity study
3. Recommendations for how to apply Oregon’s mathematical process standards
4. Recommendations for 15% standards flexibility option (if applicable)
Attachments:
NGA and CCSSO report Reaching Higher
Reaching Higher
The Common Core State Standards Validation Committee
A REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES &
THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS
June 2010
Co-Chairs
David Conley—Professor and Director of the Center for Educational Policy Research, Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership at the University of Oregon’s College of Education.
Brian Gong—Executive Director of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
Members
Bryan Albrecht—President of Gateway Technical College, Kenosha, Wis.
Arthur Applebee—Distinguished Professor of Education and Director of the Center on English Learning & Achievement at the University at Albany–State University of New York.
Sarah Baird—Mathematics Specialist/Teacher, Kyrene Elementary School District, Tempe, Ariz.
Jere Confrey—Senior Research Fellow and Joseph D. Moore Distinguished Professor at The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University’s College of Education.
Kristin Buckstad Hamilton—Nationally Board Certified Teacher, Battlefield Senior High School, National Education Association
Linda Darling-Hammond—Charles Ducommon Professor of Education and Co-Director of the School Redesign Network at Stanford University’s School of Education.
Alfinio Flores—Hollowell Professor of Mathematics Education in the Department of Mathematical Sciences and School of Education at the University of Delaware’s College of Education & Public Policy.
Kenji Hakuta—Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education at Stanford University’s School of Education.
Feng-Jui Hsieh—Associate Professor in the Mathematics Department at the National Taiwan Normal University.
Mary Ann Jordan—Teacher, New York City Dept. of Education, American Federation of Teachers
Jeremy Kilpatrick—Regents Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of Georgia.
Dr. Jill Martin—Principal, Pine Creek High School
Barry McGaw—Professorial Fellow and Executive Director of the Assessment &Teaching of 21st Century Skills Project at the University of Melbourne, Australia.
R. James Milgram—Emeritus Professor at Stanford University’s Department of Mathematics.
David Pearson—Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California–Berkeley.
Steve Pophal—Principal, D.C. Everest Junior High
Stanley Rabinowitz—Director, Assessment & Standards Development Services at WestEd in San Francisco.
Lauren Resnick—Professor and Director of the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh.
Andreas Schleicher—Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Directorate for Education.
William Schmidt—University Distinguished Professor and Co-Director of Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center.
Catherine Snow—Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Christopher Steinhauser—Superintendent of Schools, Long Beach Unified School District, California.
Sandra Stotsky—Endowed Chair in Teacher Quality at the University of Arkansas’s Department of Education Reform and Chair of the Sadlier Mathematics Advisory Board.
Dorothy Strickland—Distinguished Research Fellow at the National Institute for Early Education Research and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Chair in Education at Rutgers University.
Martha Thurlow—Director, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Norman L. Webb—Senior Research Scientist with the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and the National Institute for Science Education, both based at the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s School of Education.
Dylan William—Director, Learning and Teaching Research Center at the Educational Testing Service.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation Committee
INTRODUCTION
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) commissioned this report to chronicle the work of the Common Core State Standards Validation Committee, a key element of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI).
BACKGROUND
The CCSSI is a historic effort designed to advance nationwide education reform. Coordinated by the NGA Center and CCSSO, 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have voluntarily come together to create shared common core standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. The ultimate goal is for all American children to graduate from high school ready for college, career pathways, and success in a global economy.
Work groups comprised of representatives from higher education, K-12 education, teachers, and researchers drafted the Common Core State Standards. The work groups consulted educators, administrators, community and parent organizations, higher education representatives, the business community, researchers, civil rights groups, and states for feedback on each of the drafts. A list of work groups and expert members is available at www.corestandards.org.