�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #3: Welcome every body! Who I am
• #4: Everyone in CA is figuring this out as we go along!
• #5: What we’ll be doing today: Topics, Turn and Talk, Charting Implications.
• #6: Video. We’ll be unpacking the ideas in the video during this presenatation.
• #7: What is a standard? A statement of what a student is expected to be able to do by the end the course in a school year. Currently CA has standards for K-12 in ELA and Math, Science, Social Studies, PE/Health, VAPA, The NEW CCSS is ELA (with other subjects embedded) and Math.
• #8: Popcorn How is this different? The CCSS is a national approach to standards, not just individual states.
• #9: Notice the CCSS ’s emphasis on both college AND career – an upgrade from NCLB, which only focused on college. Also a tendency toward skills that are more cross disciplinary and require communication of content, not just the skills itself
• #10: Standards are internationally benchmarked and designed to help us be more competitive globally, in tests but in the workforce as well.
• #11: Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. Expectations clear to students, parents, teachers, and the general public. Evidence and research-based Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials. Costs to the state reduced. Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. Evidence Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student ’s zip code. Consistent expectations – not dependent on zip code
• #12: State Led Effort Parents, teachers, school administrators and experts from across the country together with state leaders are leading the effort to develop a common core of state standards. The standards were written by a team of teachers, education professors, researchers, content experts, school and district leaders, and state education officials Teachers have provided feedback on the standards – though representation from unions and professional organizations The federal government was NOT involved in the development of the standards.
• #13: Map updated as of July 2013
• #14: Pare down
• #16: Transition Plans may vary by district. Who would you talk to in your district? Curriculum and Instruction people, perhaps School administrators. There are probably point people on staff at each school.
• #20: Refer teachers to their packets. Give participants 1-2 mins to scan over the Anchor Standards, pointing out key structural features animated by arrows on the next 3 slides: - This is where the “strand” is located. With CA standards this used to be called the “domain”
• #21: - where “substrand” is located (a substrand organizes standards)
• #22: - where “standards” are located.
• #23: Standards for Mathematical Practice Expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students. Important “processes and proficiencies” in mathematics education. Example: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. Standards for Mathematical Content Organized by grade level K-8 Organized by topic 9-12
• #25: Key Implications I see for SPED: The way the standards are organized possibly has implications for the ways goals might be written in IEPs. The K-12 standards are progressive and based on the anchor standard. If the IEP goals are written aligned with the anchor standards, it is possible for the goal to be also aligned with a particular grade level. So, if you have a 5 th grade student maybe their goals would be aligned to 4th grade standards, depending on the expectations for the student. Maybe there would be more alignment between subjects on the IEP, say, if there was a common emphasis in Math and ELA, or there might be more explicit ELA goals in Social Studies Class.
• #28: Critical Thinking, Real world applications. Increase in Non-Fiction texts. Instilling skills on how to process information, not just, what is the information
• #29: Another way to look at it That you may have already heard is the idea of 21 st century skills. Means a slightly different things to different people, but according to the p21 webistes: Core Subjects: Still the subjects we had and we see now, but with a greater degree in global awareness (diversity), financial literacy (personal and business), civic literacy (rights and responsibilities as citizens), health literacy (personal health, public health), Environmental Literacy (being “green and solving environmental problems) Learning and Innovation Skills: Creativity and Innovation, coming up with and refining evaluating creative ideas, Working with others, Critical thinking and Problem Solving: reasoning, systems thinking, Communication and Collaboration: oral written, non-verbal multi media comunication for range of purposes, Listening skills, working with diverse groups of people toward a common goal. Information, Media and Literacy: how to access, evaluate, use, mange, analyze and create media information Life and Career Skills: Adapting to change, takiing initiative, having leadership, having executive functioning skills at a really high level, project management.
• #30: 21 st century skills is also a way to think about the difference between the expectations of old state standards and CCSS, in that the emphasis is on higher level communication and literacy as opposed to a higher emphasis on discrete skills. Transition: move towards increased text complexity. – may be an issue for SPED students.
• #31: Intent: Rationale for increasing text complexity. Talking points: This is animated. Have teachers call out/guess what each level ’s lexile number may be. As you click through the Lexile measures for the various text types, point out that some career texts and personal use texts are actually higher in lexile level than college texts. Note especially the entry level position readability. Point out that personal use includes things like reading a heating and air conditioning manual, bank or credit card statements, Ikea directions. These are complex everyday materials that our students must be prepared to read. The paradigm that those who are poor readers can always go into careers has shifted. 1200 is considered the minimum lexile reading level for functioning citizens. Point out that we are leaving students at about 1100, notice the gap between that and personal use, SATs, etc. *note the entry level occupations are an average of all. It may be lower or higher depending on the occupation.
• #32: Comparison of current and CCSS standards expectations for Lexile levels in grade bands. Drives home the importance of increasing text complexity spelled out in the CCSS. Add examples of types of docs that equal diff lexiles. Instruction manuals for ex. are so much higher and that is every day life
• #33: Types of Skills Goals that should be in IEPs. Expected Text complexity (should there be Lexile level goals?)
• #37: Who is the Smarter Balanced Consortum? The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is a state-led consortium working to develop a next-generation assessment system aligned to the Common Core State Standards. The goal of the Consortium is to ensure that all students—regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, economic status or background—leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or careers. The work of the Consortium is guided by the belief that a high-quality assessment system can provide resources and tools for teachers and schools to improve instruction and help students succeed. The Consortium will build upon experiences of member states to create a high-quality, balanced, multistate assessment system ensuring comparability across all states. Smarter Balanced is a federally funded initiative that is designed to develop an assessment system that can be used across states to inform important decisions about student learning and school quality. Governing States are fully committed to Smarter Balanced and have a vote in policy decisions, while Advisory States may participate in work groups and provide guidance for the development of the assessment system. Each state appoints K-12 and higher education leads to coordinate with the Consortium. State representatives direct the Executive Committee and participate in 10 Smarter Balanced�� work groups . Smarter Balanced works closely with state education chiefs and elected officials to ensure that the assessment system meets the needs of member states. State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson K-12 State Lead: Deb Sigman, Deputy Superintendent of the District, School & Innovation Branch Higher Education Leads: Monica Lin, Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions, University of California Linda Michalowski, Vice Chancellor, Student Services and Special Programs Division, California Community Colleges Beverly Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, California State University
• #38: Intent: Participants will understand the 4 claims and content specifications set by SBAC. Talking Points: The first 3 claims align with the first 3 strands: Reading, Writing, and Speaking & Listening. The 4 th claim represents the CCSS ’s emphasis on technology, multimedia, and research. All items across the assessment relate to one or more of these four claims. Obviously there is a lot to unpack when it comes to these claims, particularly what it means for each grade level, but what we want to remember is that all of the items on the assessment are grounded in one or more of these four claims.
• #39: Aligned to the 8 standards of mathematical practice
• #40: There are several terms and concepts that are key to understanding the design Smarter Balanced assessment system. These are some of concepts. Each of these terms could be an entire university course, and I mainly bring these ideas up at this point to illustrate the thinking behind the item design and also to address the concerns stated in this group about the validity and reliability of the assessements. There may not exactly be performance data on the items yet, but designing items with these critieria will lead to in increased validity and reliability. In addition, next year is planned as a pilot year so the Smarter balanced consortium will be able to get performance data before the roll out in 2014-2015 In addition, Smarter Balanced has been incredibly transparent about their thinking behind each item that has been released thus far……
• #41: Implications for SPED students, students with Special Needs.
• #42: As an untimed test, no CMA equivalent that I know of, watching out for testing environment accomodations at the site. Will students really need say, small group or 1:1 testing? Will the get headphones if the text to speech feature is availiable to them?
• #43: As we explore the items, you will come across these various types: Selected Response items, which are multiple choice items. {+} Constructed Response items, in which students will be giving short answers of a few sentences long. These items will frequently be computer graded. {+} Performance Tasks which are the longer extended tasks involving multiple stimulus and multiple responses to a unifying topic. Since performance tasks represent the biggest content shift to the assessments and likely have the greatest impact on the way we teach and We will be going over these in more detail during the rest of the day. The most analogous assessments the CST currently has are the 4th, 7 th and 11 th grade writing prompts. In addition, there are two categories of technology-rich items and tasks known as Technology-Enabled And Technology-Enhanced. Any of these items can be technology enabled and technology enhanced. Technology-enabled items use digital media as the stimulus, but do not require specialized interactions to produce response. Possible stimuli for English Language Arts technology-enabled items could include short video clips, audio recordings of lectures or speeches, or dramatic readings of prose or poetry. Despite the use of these media types, a technology enabled item requires a student to provide either a selected response or a constructed response that consists of text. Technology-enhanced items are computer delivered items that require specialized interactions students must perform to produce a response. Responses produced by a technology-enhanced item require students to do something other than write text or select from among a set of options. These items may also include digital media as the stimulus. Technology-enhanced items should conform to the same essential requirements that have already been discussed for writing quality selected response and constructed response items. The only difference is that they allow students to manipulate information in ways that are not possible with traditional selected response and constructed response items. Like selected-response items, technology-enhanced items have defined responses that can be scored in an automated manner.
• #44: 3 rd Grade – Concepts and Procedures
• #45: 6 th grade item – Problem Solving
• #46: High School – Communicating reasoning.
• #47: 4 th grade reading item
• #48: 6 th Grade Writing Constructed Response.