Download
common core state standards n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

165 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS The next step in preparing Michigan’s students for career and college

  2. Point of Reference A principal has funds to purchase 80 ft of fence to surround a play area. What is the largest area she can fence?

  3. Agenda Background Alignment and transition Implications for instruction and assessment

  4. Background Why are we here? Development of CCSS What they are and what they are not

  5. Why are we here? 1965 First Title 1 as part of Johnson's War on Poverty 1970 1983 Nation at Risk report First MEAP administered

  6. Why are we here? 1980s-1990s voluntary standards developed state and national: 1980 1988 1989 NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation Standards 1990 Federal monies to national ELA and History groups for National Standards 1991 National Education Goals Panel/Goals 2000 1992 1994 ESEA states required to align rigorous state standards & assessments MI Essential Goals and Objectives MI Minimal Performance Objectives for Education MI Early Childhood Standards of Quality

  7. Why are we here? 1996 National Education Summit: National standards not feasible Michigan 1998 ACHIEVE formed as nongovernmental agency to review state standards 2000 Michigan NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics Curriculum Framework developed MEAP tests based on MCF

  8. Why are we here? 2001 NCLB requires state testing for grades 3-8 and AYP for all subgroups with 100% proficient by 2014; 2004 2005 2006 Michigan NCTM Curricular Focal Points 2009 NGA/CCSSO begin development of Common Core State Standards – states could choose to sign on to the effort 2010 NGA/CCSSO Common Core State Standards: adopted by ~ 25 states MI Math and ELA GLCE developed Grade level testing begins based on GLCE Merit Curriculum

  9. The Common Core State Standards are: State led – coordinated by NGA and CCSSO Aligned with college and work expectations Based on evidence and research Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Internationally benchmarked so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Robust and relevant to the real world Focused and coherent

  10. State-led development • The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards. • Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia agreed to be a part of the development of these standards. 10

  11. Process • Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics begin work in Spring, 2009 • External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process • Draft College- and Career-Ready standards released for public comment October 2009 • Draft K-12 standards released for public comment in March, 2010 • Validation Committee of leading experts reviews standards • Revisions made in response to feedback • Final standards released June 2010 11

  12. Advantages • The common core state standards will enable participating states to work together to: • Make expectations for students clear to parents, teachers, and the general public • Encourage the development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials aligned to the standards • Develop and implement comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance against the common core state standards • Evaluate policy changes needed to help students and educators meet the standards • Collaborate, innovate and reach economies of scale 12

  13. Added Value • “In conclusion, it is worth remembering that the CCSSI was built on the following foundations: • While the states are autonomous, when they work together on matters such as education, the collective knowledge can yield significant improvements. • When the states voluntarily move in the same direction, they demonstrate their ability to achieve national goals.” • Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation Committee 13

  14. The Common Core State Standards are: State led – coordinated by NGA and CCSSO Aligned with college and work expectations Internationally benchmarked so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Based on evidence and research Robust and relevant to the real world Focused and coherent

  15. Defining College & Career Readiness • College includes any education beyond high school leading to a postsecondary credential • Careers of interest provide a family-sustaining wage and pathways to advancement….and typically require education or training beyond high school • College-ready means prepared to enter and succeed in entry-level credit-bearing courses without remediation • Research by conducted by ADP and independently by ACT found preparation for college or workforce training programs required comparable levels of skills in reading and mathematics

  16. Types of evidence used to define college ready knowledge and skills • Relationship between performance on skills measured by ACT and SAT, and success in first year courses • Analysis of syllabi in first year credit bearing math courses (college algebra) • Curriculum Surveys – what is taught in first year courses • Surveys of college faculty – what skills they think are most essential for success in the first year course they teach • Focus groups with college and high school faculty • Examination of college level work

  17. The Common Core State Standards are: State led – coordinated by NGA and CCSSO Aligned with college and work expectations Internationally benchmarked so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Based on evidence and research Robust and relevant to the real world Focused and coherent

  18. The Common Core State Standards are: State led – coordinated by NGA and CCSSO Aligned with college and work expectations Internationally benchmarked so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards Based on evidence and research Robust and relevant to the real world Focused and coherent

  19. Key Characteristics of Mathematics Common Core State Standards: Focus and coherence Focus on key topics at each grade level Coherent progressions across grade levels Balance of concepts and skills Content standards require both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency Mathematical practices Foster reasoning and sense-making in mathematics

  20. The Common Core State Standards do NOT define: How teachers should teach All that can or should be taught The nature of advanced work beyond the core The interventions needed for students well below grade level The full range of support for English language learners and students with special needs Everything needed to be college and career ready The assessment framework

  21. Conclusion Standards: Important but insufficient To be effective in improving education and getting all students ready for college, workforce training, and life, the Standards must be partnered with a content-rich curriculum and robust assessments, both aligned to the Standards.

  22. COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS Mathematics Standards

  23. Point of Reference A principal has funds to purchase 80 ft of fence to surround a play area. What is the largest area she can fence? CCSS Statement on understanding mathematics

  24. Alignment and Transition • Design and organization of the CCSS • Alignment to current Michigan expectations • Timeline for transition

  25. Overview Toward greater focus and coherence • Move away from “mile wide and an inch deep” • Aim for clarity and specificity • The K-12 standards stress conceptual knowledge and understanding in addition to procedural skills • Grades 9-12 require the application of mathematics to real world situations and issues Mastery of Knowledge and Skills • Students who master the K-5 standards will have a strong foundation in whole numbers, fractions, decimals, and the basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) and be prepared for the work with proportion and geometry in middle school.

  26. Mathematical Practices Mathematical practices are what students “do” with the content standards Go across all grades Describe expertise or proficiencies expected for all students Evolved from NCTM Process Standards and Adding it Up (NRC)

  27. Mathematical Practices Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them Reason abstractly and quantitatively Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others Model with mathematics Use appropriate tools strategically Attend to precision Look for and make structure Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

  28. Mathematical Practices and Understanding Mathematics Students who understand a concept can: Use it to make sense of and explain quantitative situations (see “Model with Mathematics” in Practices) Incorporate it into their own arguments and use it to evaluate the arguments of others (see "Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others” in Practices) Bring it to bear on the solutions to problems (see “Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them”) Make connections between it and related concepts

  29. Point of Reference A principal has funds to purchase 80 ft of fence to surround a play area. What is the largest area she can fence?

  30. Design and Organization • Content standards define what students should understand and be able to do • Clusters are groups of related standards • Domains are larger groups that progress across grades

  31. Design and Organization Cluster • Content standards define what students should understand and be able to do • Clusters are groups of related standards • Domains are larger groups that progress across grades Domain Standard

  32. Design and Organization Grade Level Overviews

  33. Design and Organization Critical areas at each grade level

  34. Design and Organization Critical areas at each grade level

  35. Michigan GLCE vs. CCSS

  36. Design and Organization The high school standards are organized by conceptual categories: number and quantity, algebra, functions, modeling, geometry, statistics and probability. Standards with a (+) symbol are above the benchmark for students to be college and career ready. Students who plan on entering the STEM field may require mastery of these skills. Modeling is a requirement under the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Modeling standards are indicated by a (*) symbol. Require the application of mathematics to real world situations and issues.

  37. Design and Organization High School Overviews

  38. Design and Organization Narrative for each conceptual category

  39. Modeling The high school standards emphasize mathematical modeling, the use of mathematics and statistics to analyzes empirical situations, understand them better, and improve decisions.

  40. High School Specific Issues • Michigan Merit Curriculum • Course/Credit Requirements • CTE and Algebra II • PA 80

  41. Point of Reference A principal has funds to purchase 80 ft of fence to surround a play area. What is the largest area she can fence?

  42. Assessment Update It is too early to say how the MEAP will respond to the transition from GLCE to CCSS since we have not had a chance to analyze the alignments The 2010 and 2011 tests will be based on the current core and extended designations The MME will continue as usual

  43. Assessment Update A new assessment system will be implemented in 2014-2015 and will be based on the work of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium This will be a ‘system of formative and summative assessments, organized around Common Core standards, that • support high-quality learning and the demands of accountability • balance concerns for innovative assessment with the need for a fiscally sustainable system that is feasible to implement’

  44. Timeline for transitioning 2010-2011 Getting to know the CCSS/Alignment work 2010 MEAP/2011MME remain the same State focus will be on technical assistance 2011-2012 Implementation of CCSS in classrooms 2011 MEAP/2012 MME remain the same State focus will be on instruction/professional development 2012-2013 2012 MEAP minimally modified as necessary to reflect the CCSS 2013 MME remains the same State focus will be on student learning 2013-2014 2013 MEAP based on 2012 model 2014 MME remains the same State focus will be on preparing for new assessments from SMARTER Consortium 2014-2015 Full implementation: Instruction and assessment based on CCSS

  45. The Common Core and Special Ed The fundamental, long-standing, purpose of special education programs and services for students with disabilities is to provide: Access to the curriculum Support and enable progress in the curriculum The entire structure and infrastructure of special education requires services and supports, not changes to or replacement of the full curriculum: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The federal implementing regulations for the IDEA The Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education

  46. Did you know? CTE programs are rigorous and require students academically proficient with the content of the MMC MDE will soon be launching an instructional framework and accompanying website

  47. Professional development EMATHS – provides professional development across the state for HS math teachers to improve their understanding of the importance of content coherence and good instruction organized around our course descriptions DELTA - professional development for HS teachers in Oakland County that includes understanding curricular coherence through learning trajectories Algebra for All – year 2 is supporting high school teachers across the state as they change their instruction to support the mathematics learning of all students using a lesson study model Kalamazoo Algebra Project – professional development for HS teachers to improve content understanding and instruction of Algebra in Kalamazoo area