ADP Network Webinar December 1 & 2, 2011

1. ADP Network Webinar December 1 & 2, 2011

2. State Collaboration to Produce and Pool Quality Instructional Materials • Tri-State Consortium (MA, NY, RI) • April, September, and October 2011 meetings • States have very different and strong opinions of what comprises an “instructional unit”; rubrics must be constructed to show qualityregardless of how the units are arranged. • States are piloting the rubrics by evaluating previously-developed units. • Protocols for calibration will be developed. Each state has committed to bring teams of 3-4 members outside of the SEA to quarterly meetings to review samples of units developed by each state. • States will be able to pool their respective instructional units with assurances of high quality – a tremendous service to teachers. • This will also provide each state with a group of individuals who are able to certify instructional materials as quality.

3. Lessons Learned • States are on very different timelines and have differing priorities and requirements when in comes to developing instructional materials. • Quality review can be done regardless of how each state defines the components of a unit. Rather, it is done based on key priorities of quality as opposed to a checklist of various components. • It is a better use of states’ collective efforts to develop a rubric and protocols to collectively review the quality of materials developed by each individual state or their contractors.

4. Other Achieve work to Evaluate Quality of Educational Resources • To help states, districts, teachers, and other users align resources to the CCSS and determine the quality of electronic resources (e.g., applets, lessons, practice problems, units, online textbooks, support materials), Achieve created a series of evaluation rubrics.  • The rubrics can be applied across content areas; at this point the CCSS for English/Language Arts and Mathematics are available in the tool. • Achieve worked with the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME) to create an online tool that allows the rater to identify, evaluate, and sort objects based on quality. • OER Commons is now hosting the tool and its resulting evaluation data on (www.oercommons.org). ISKME is also providing technical support to other organizations who would like to use the rubrics for resources found outside of OER Commons, ensuring a rich dataset of Common Core aligned content across the Web. • More information is available at http://www.achieve.org/oer-rubrics

5. Common Core Implementation Analysis

6. Analysis of CCSS Implementation in 19 States *Race to the Top Winner

7. Two Needs Surfaced Across the 19 States

8. Monitoring of CCSS Implementation States that currently are not monitoring their districts for fidelity of CCSS implementation, or they have not yet developed plans to do so even if they want to have this feedback loop States that are relying only on surveys sent to attendees of professional development sessions States that have created or will create processes or tools to gauge how districts are executing the CCSS • States are taking various approaches to monitoring how their districts are implementing CCSS.

9. Educator Engagement • Nearly every state said teachers, principals, or content specialists are involved in some way in CCSS implementation. • The most common ways of engaging educators are: • Serving on committees or panels in English or math to conduct gap analyses, review the standards, crosswalk current standards with CCSS, etc. • Writing curriculum, model instructional units, sample lesson plans, etc. • Leading professional development sessions as master teachers • Serving on school-based leadership teams to attend professional development sessions about the CCSS, then returning to their school to train other teachers • Piloting assessment items, formative assessments, and instructional materials • Videotaping exemplary lessons modeled by teachers

10. Professional Development • All 19 states had plans or are developing plans for professional development, including training activities or materials intended to inform educators about the CCSS and how they compare to and contrast with the state’s current standards. • Most of the activities are a mix of online and face-to-face trainings, “train the trainer” sessions, or regional forums.

11. Curriculum and Instructional Materials

12. Curriculum and Instructional Materials States that are in the process of developing plans, or will rely on PARCC for materials States that currently have neither a plan nor one in development States that are changing or have developed plans to change curriculum and instructional materials • Most states have plans or are developing plans to change curriculum and instructional materials to align to the CCSS.

13. Curriculum and Instructional Materials • There are many nuances to how states are developing curriculum and instructional materials. For example: • Full curriculum • Model instructional units with or without lesson plans • Curriculum maps • Lesson study • Guidance

14. Rubrics for Instructional Materials • Seven are using state-developed rubrics or are vetting materials at the state level. • Two are using rubrics from the Council of Chief State School Officers or vendors under contract. • One is urging districts to use its CCSS-aligned curriculum frameworks as the rubric. States that do have a rubric or process States that currently do not have a rubric that schools and districts can use to determine whether instructional materials are aligned with the CCSS • States are taking mixed approaches in terms of helping districts choose instructional materials that are aligned to CCSS.

15. Partnerships

16. Partnerships • Many—but not all—states see the need for partnerships with other states as they move forward with CCSS implementation. • Overall, some trends in state partnerships emerged: • Background materials • Aligned instructional materials and rubrics to determine alignment • Implementation plan and checklist • Cross-state sharing and more multi-state convenings • Help with legislative issues

17. Challenges

18. Challenges • States identified many common challenges as they implement CCSS: • Staff capacity • Connections with other reforms • Engagement of higher education • Engagement of business/industry • Awareness and urgency

19. Cross-State Conversation

20. Laura Slover Senior Vice President PARCC lslover@achieve.org Stephen Pruitt Vice President Content, Research & Development spruitt@achieve.org Alissa Peltzman Director State Leadership & Policy Development apeltzman@achieve.org