Implementing Indiana

1
Implementing Indianas Common Core Standards
Zach Foughty Director of College and Career
Readiness Indiana Department of Education
2
Agenda

• Why common College and Career Readiness
  standards? Didnt we have great standards before?
• What are Indianas Common Core (INCC)?
• How will we assess INCC?

3
Do we need common standards?

• Disparate standards across states
• Global competition
• Todays jobs require different skills
• For many young people, a high school degree isnt
  preparing them for college or a good job

4
College readiness

• College means much more than just pursuing a
  four- year degree at a university.
• Includes any postsecondary education or training
  experience (two- and four-year, certifications)
• College ready possess the English and
  mathematics knowledge and skills necessary to
  qualify for and succeed in entry-level,
  credit-bearing college courses without remedial
  coursework.

5
Career readiness

• A career is not just a job, but provides a
  family-sustaining wage and pathways to
  advancement
• A job may be obtained with a high school diploma,
  but offers no guarantee of advancement or
  mobility
• Career ready possess the English and
  mathematics knowledge and skills necessary to
  qualify for and succeed in the postsecondary job
  training and/or education necessary for their
  chosen career

6
What about our standards (IAS)?

• In Indiana, we must update standards at least
  every 6 years (by statute)
• IAS A mile wide and an inch deep
• CCSS represents a different type of rigor
• INCC and IAS rated similarly in 2010 Fordham
  analysis
• Equally rigorous, IAS had more supports
• Gap closed? http//doe.in.gov/commoncore

7
Indiana Common Core Standards

• Standards for College and Career Readiness

8
What are the INCC?

• Common Core Standards 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.
• (NGA CCSSO, 2010)

9
So what are the INCC exactly?

• INCC for English language arts and Literacy in
  History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical
  Subjects
• K-5 INCC for ELA
• 6-12 INCC for ELA Literacy standards for
  virtually every other area
• Not content standards for H/SS, Sci, TS
• INCC for Mathematics
• K-Algebra II Content Standards
• K-12 (16?) Math Practices (applicable in many
  subjects)

10
Criteria for development

1. Fewer, clearer, higher
2. Aligned with college and work expectations
3. Include rigorous content and application of
   knowledge through higher-order skills
4. Build on strengths and lessons of current
   standards
5. Informed by top-performing countries
6. Evidence and/or research based
7. Realistic and practical for the classroom
8. Consistent across all states

11
How were they developed?

• Led by Council of Chief State School Officers and
  National Governors Association
• Started with College and Career Ready Graduation
  Standards (September 2009)
• CCSS writing teams (math and ELA) drafted first
  public version (March 2010)
• 10,000 public comments were considered in
  finalizing the current version (June 2010)

12
46 States DC, DoDEA
Minnesota adopted ELA only
13
Key advances of the INCC
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction
Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational
Regular practice with complex text and its academic language
NEW Literacy standards for history, science and technical subjects
MATHEMATICS
Focus Focus strongly where the standards focus
Coherence Think across grades, and link to major topics
Rigor In major topics, pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application
NEW Standards for Mathematical Practice
ANCHORED IN COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS
14
Indiana Common Core Standards

• Mathematics Key Advances

15
Focus

• Significantly narrow the scope of content and
  deepen how time and energy is spent
• Focus deeply only on what is emphasized in the
  standards, so that students gain strong
  foundations
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

16
Coherence

• Carefully connect learning within and across
  grades so that students can build new
  understanding on foundations
• Each standard is an extension of previous
  learning, not a disconnected topic build on the
  conceptual understanding from previous grades
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

17
Coherence

• Example Data representation
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

18
Coherence

• Example Geometric measurement
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

19
Rigor

• Students must have a balance of
• Solid conceptual understanding
• Procedural skill and fluency
• Application of skills in problem solving
  situations
• Requires equal intensity in time, activities, and
  resources in pursuit of all three
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

20
Mathematical Practices
21
Priorities in Mathematics
Grade Priorities in Support of Rich Instruction and Expectations of Fluency/Conceptual Understanding
K-2 Addition and subtraction, measurement using whole number quantities
3-5 Multiplication and division of whole numbers
6 Ratios and proportional reasoning early expressions and equations
7 Ratios and proportional reasoning arithmetic of rational numbers
8 Linear algebra
22
Indiana Common Core Standards

• ELA/Literacy Key Advances

23
Content-rich Nonfiction

• Informational text makes up vast majority of
  required reading in college/workplace (80)
• Informational text is harder for students to
  comprehend than narrative text
• INCC moves percentages to
• 5050 at elementary level
• 7525 at secondary level (includes ELA, science,
  social studies)
• (Student Achievement Partners, 2012)

24
Text-based Evidence

• Rigorous, text-dependent questions require
  students to demonstrate that they can follow the
  details of what is explicitly stated and make
  valid claims and inferences that square with the
  evidence in the text.
• (PARCC Model Content Framework, 2012)

25
Overview of Text Complexity

• Qualitative measures levels of meaning,
  structure, language conventionality and clarity,
  and knowledge demands
• Quantitative measures word length or frequency,
  sentence length, and text cohesion
• Reader and task considerations motivation,
  knowledge, and experiences

26
Grade Bands and Lexile Ranges
Text Complexity Grade Band in INCC Old Lexile Ranges Lexile Ranges Aligned to CCR Expectations
K-1 N/A N/A
2-3 450-725 450-790
4-5 645-845 770-980
6-8 860-1010 955-1155
9-10 960-1115 1080-1305
11-12 1070-1220 1215-1355
Currently, less than 50 of students meet the
old Lexile ranges by graduation
27
Assessing INCC

• PARCC Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
  for College and Careers
• www.PARCConline.org

28
Whats Next?

• Common Standards are critical, but it is just the
  first step
• Common assessments aligned to Indianas Common
  Core will help ensure the new standards truly
  reach every classroom

29
PARCC States
30
K-12 and Postsecondary Roles

• K-12 Educators Education Leaders
• Educators will be involved throughout the
  development of the PARCC assessments and related
  instructional and reporting tools
• Postsecondary Faculty Leaders
• Nearly 750 institutions and systems covering
  hundreds of campuses across PARCC states have
  committed to help develop the high school
  assessments and set the college-ready cut score
  that will indicate a student is ready for
  credit-bearing courses

31
PARCC Goals

• Create high-quality assessments
• Build a pathway to college and career readiness
  for all students
• Support educators in the classroom
• Develop 21st century, technology-based
  assessments
• Advance accountability at all levels
• Build an assessment that is sustainable and
  affordable

32
Goal 1 High Quality Assessments

• Priority Purposes of PARCC
• Determine whether students are college- and
  career-ready or on track
• Assess the full range of the Common Core
  Standards, including standards that are difficult
  to measure
• Measure the full range of student performance,
  including the performance high and low performing
  students
• Provide data during the academic year to inform
  instruction, interventions and professional
  development
• Provide data for accountability, including
  measures of growth
• Incorporate innovative approaches throughout the
  system

33
Goal 1 Summative Components

• Performance-Based Assessment
• Administered as close to the end of the school
  year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will
  focus on writing effectively when analyzing text.
  The math PBA will focus on applying skills,
  concepts, and understandings to solve multi-step
  problems requiring math practices.
• End-of-Year Assessment
• Administered after approx. 90 of the school
  year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading
  comprehension. The math EOY will be comprised of
  innovative, machine-scorable items.

34
Goal 1 Non-Summative Components

• Diagnostic Assessment
• Designed to be an indicator of student knowledge
  and skills so that instruction, supports and
  professional development can be tailored to meet
  student needs.
• Mid-Year Assessment
• Comprised of performance-based items and tasks,
  with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards.
  After study, individual states may consider
  including as a summative component.

35
Goal 1 Claims about Students

• In ELA/Literacy, whether students
• Can read and comprehend complex literary and
  informational text
• Can write effectively when analyzing text
• Have attained overall proficiency in ELA/Literacy
• In Mathematics, whether students
• Have mastered knowledge and skills in highlighted
  domains (e.g. domain of highest importance for a
  particular grade level number/ fractions in
  grade 4 proportional reasoning and ratios in
  grade 6)
• Have attained overall proficiency in mathematics

36
(No Transcript)
37
Goal 2 CCR for All Students
K-2 formative assessment being developed, aligned
to the PARCC system
Timely student achievement data showing students,
parents and educators whether ALL students are
on-track to college and career readiness
College readiness score to identify who is ready
for college-level coursework

• Targeted interventions supports
• 12th-grade bridge courses
• PD for educators

SUCCESS IN FIRST-YEAR, CREDIT-BEARING,
POSTSECONDARY COURSEWORK
ONGOING STUDENT SUPPORTS/INTERVENTIONS
38
Goal 4 Technology-Based

• PARCC assessment will be computer-based and
  leverage technology in a range of ways
• Item development Develop innovative tasks that
  engage students in the assessment process
• Administration reduce paperwork, increase
  security, reduce shipping/receiving storage
  increase access to and provision of
  accommodations for SWDs and ELLs
• Scoring Make scoring more efficient by combining
  human and automated approaches
• Reporting Produce timely reports of students
  performance throughout the year to inform
  instructional, interventions, and professional
  development

39
PARCC Timeline
PARCC Tools Resources
Educator Leader Cadres launched
Item and task prototypes released
Model Content Frameworks released (Nov 2011)
Fall 2012
Updated Model Content Frameworks Released
Item development begins
PARCC Assessment Implementation
40
PARCC Timeline
PARCC Tools Resources
College-ready tools released
Partnership Resource Center launched
Professional development modules released
Diagnostic assessments released
K-2 Formative Tools Released
Summative PARCC Assessments (2014-15 SY)
Winter 2015
Spring 2015
Pilot/field testing begins
Expanded field testing of diagnostic assessment
Optional Diagnostic and Midyear PARCC Assessments
Expanded field testing
Standard Setting in Summer 2015
PARCC Assessment Implementation
41
When will we get there?
Year Instruction Assessment
2011-12 Indiana Standards Essential CCSS Indiana Standards
2012-13 Indiana Standards Essential CCSS Indiana Standards
2013-14 CCSS and Essential Indiana Standards Indiana Standards
2014-15 CCSS CCSS
42
(No Transcript)