Common Core GPS and the AKS

1. Common Core GPS and the AKS Developing Awareness and Building Confidence as Literacy Leaders I am so excited about the possibilities with CC! And the truth of it is that long before CC was developed, we were a CC district. Our instructional practices are build on the same principles as CC, so it is a natural fit with our teaching and learning. I am so excited about the possibilities with CC! And the truth of it is that long before CC was developed, we were a CC district. Our instructional practices are build on the same principles as CC, so it is a natural fit with our teaching and learning.

2. History Common Core State Standards commissioned by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Not a �national curriculum� Final draft released June 2, 2010 at Peachtree Ridge HS Purpose- to ensure students are college/ career ready upon high school graduation. Will allow benchmarking of student achievement against other nations

3. RIGOR Goes deeper than current standards More critical reading/writing skills Comparing multiple texts Analyzing longer texts Short texts vs. extended texts Higher expectations for all students Apply, compare, contrast, demonstrate, cite, produce, evaluate Noticeable absence of �identify� Intent of the standards- fewer (mentor) texts, but with deeper analysis �Project-based learning� Comparing multiple texts, analyzing longer texts, short texts vs. extended texts: These are noted in the CC documents as well as in the PARCC model content frameworks. The assessments will include all of these pieces, as well, because we know that over the past few decades, we have essentially lowered the expectations for our students with regard to readability levels and ability to manipulate/analyze/compare-contrast multiple texts. We know that our students need more practice with informational texts and writing. Think about what you read and writing during the day: Is it mainly fiction or nonfiction? It�s nonfiction, of course; this is why our students need more time working with informational pieces- at appropriately rigorous reading levels. CC does not explicitly use the term �project-based learning�, but if you look at the strands of standards, you notice there is a very defined focus on the use of technology to support writing and the presentation of ideas. And while we, as teachers, may not be entirely comfortable with those �innovative uses of technology� as defined in our Q+ strategies, we need to provide such opportunities for our students. If our kids are going to be college OR career ready (whatever they choose), we have an obligation to equip them with what they�ll need to be successful at the next level.Comparing multiple texts, analyzing longer texts, short texts vs. extended texts: These are noted in the CC documents as well as in the PARCC model content frameworks. The assessments will include all of these pieces, as well, because we know that over the past few decades, we have essentially lowered the expectations for our students with regard to readability levels and ability to manipulate/analyze/compare-contrast multiple texts. We know that our students need more practice with informational texts and writing. Think about what you read and writing during the day: Is it mainly fiction or nonfiction? It�s nonfiction, of course; this is why our students need more time working with informational pieces- at appropriately rigorous reading levels. CC does not explicitly use the term �project-based learning�, but if you look at the strands of standards, you notice there is a very defined focus on the use of technology to support writing and the presentation of ideas. And while we, as teachers, may not be entirely comfortable with those �innovative uses of technology� as defined in our Q+ strategies, we need to provide such opportunities for our students. If our kids are going to be college OR career ready (whatever they choose), we have an obligation to equip them with what they�ll need to be successful at the next level.

4. Relevance Heavier focus on informational text- more of what our students need Performance-based tasks and assessments Innovative uses of technology (Q+ strategy) Distinction between short- and long-term research What skills do our students need to be college/career ready?

5. (Based on most recent naep frameworks (Common Core, p.5) This chart represents yet another paradigm shift for many of us: We must begin teaching with a heavier focus on nonfiction texts and writing. We know that, when kids are given a choice, they will usually select nonfiction texts for reading, so engagement is typically not an issue for kids at all levels. I think that the guidelines represented on this chart will effect the most change at the middle and high school levels, where language arts teachers typically teach literature most of the time. Now, of course, this will no longer be acceptable, if we are going to have our kids ready for college and/or career. This chart represents yet another paradigm shift for many of us: We must begin teaching with a heavier focus on nonfiction texts and writing. We know that, when kids are given a choice, they will usually select nonfiction texts for reading, so engagement is typically not an issue for kids at all levels. I think that the guidelines represented on this chart will effect the most change at the middle and high school levels, where language arts teachers typically teach literature most of the time. Now, of course, this will no longer be acceptable, if we are going to have our kids ready for college and/or career.

6. Vertical alignment is clearly evident; we will have a document similar to the CC document that illustrates this alignment. Standards aligned to 21st century skill needs Reading Range of reading and level of text complexity Writing Opinion and informational writing; narrative writing as a genre, but no longer a focus One thing I love about the CC is the vertical alignment across the grade levels (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12). The way the document is formatted makes it so easy to see this alignment, too. (We will provide a similar format for our AKS once it has been Board-approved.) For example, if you look at the very first standards in K-5 (one of the comprehension standards), you can clearly see how the demands increase from grade to grade: Kindergarten provides �prompting and support�, first grade does not provide that feature, and second grade sets even higher expectations for what students should be able to do by that time in their elementary experience. Note: In K-5, �opinion� replaces �persuasion� as a genre (same writing, just a different word). In middle and high school, �argumentation� replaces �persuasion� as a genre. And this change is more than just a word. Check out the gray-shaded box in Appendix A, page 24 (www.corestandards.org). There is a distinct difference between argument and persuasion: Argument requires the author to present the case based on known �experts� in the field; opinion requires the author to rely on his/her own credibility to make the case in the paper. CC includes what I call �substrands� (groups of standards grouped within the strands). Our AKS will not include this separate category (and of course, our AKS will be numbered consecutively), but these standards are, indeed, there and we need to make sure our kids become proficient with them. You will also notice that there are some changes to the way we think about literacy learning in the 21st century: In reading, there are standards for the range of reading and text complexity (being able to read increasingly complex texts independently and proficiently). Over the last few decades, it appears that we have lowered many of our expectations for what we expect students to be able to do at any grade level. For example, how many times have you heard someone (or maybe yourself) say: �That�s too hard; my kids could never read that.� Hmmm�.we�ve all been guilty of thinking within that paradigm. By having these low expectations, we do our kids a disservice, because society is certainly not going to lower its expectations so our kids can catch up. ? Also of note: The research standards make a distinction between �short-term research� and �long-term research�. This still includes the traditional �research paper� that many of our middle and high school teachers use, but now, it will be necessary to guide our students in the ways of short-term research (e.g., research when writing an informational article, technical report, etc.). In my opinion, this type of research is much more practical and common than the longer research we now do almost exclusively. And yes, it is true that our students are not allowed to use sources on the state writing assessment, but they still need to be proficient with both types of research.One thing I love about the CC is the vertical alignment across the grade levels (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12). The way the document is formatted makes it so easy to see this alignment, too. (We will provide a similar format for our AKS once it has been Board-approved.) For example, if you look at the very first standards in K-5 (one of the comprehension standards), you can clearly see how the demands increase from grade to grade: Kindergarten provides �prompting and support�, first grade does not provide that feature, and second grade sets even higher expectations for what students should be able to do by that time in their elementary experience. Note: In K-5, �opinion� replaces �persuasion� as a genre (same writing, just a different word). In middle and high school, �argumentation� replaces �persuasion� as a genre. And this change is more than just a word. Check out the gray-shaded box in Appendix A, page 24 (www.corestandards.org). There is a distinct difference between argument and persuasion: Argument requires the author to present the case based on known �experts� in the field; opinion requires the author to rely on his/her own credibility to make the case in the paper. CC includes what I call �substrands� (groups of standards grouped within the strands). Our AKS will not include this separate category (and of course, our AKS will be numbered consecutively), but these standards are, indeed, there and we need to make sure our kids become proficient with them. You will also notice that there are some changes to the way we think about literacy learning in the 21st century: In reading, there are standards for the range of reading and text complexity (being able to read increasingly complex texts independently and proficiently). Over the last few decades, it appears that we have lowered many of our expectations for what we expect students to be able to do at any grade level. For example, how many times have you heard someone (or maybe yourself) say: �That�s too hard; my kids could never read that.� Hmmm�.we�ve all been guilty of thinking within that paradigm. By having these low expectations, we do our kids a disservice, because society is certainly not going to lower its expectations so our kids can catch up. ? Also of note: The research standards make a distinction between �short-term research� and �long-term research�. This still includes the traditional �research paper� that many of our middle and high school teachers use, but now, it will be necessary to guide our students in the ways of short-term research (e.g., research when writing an informational article, technical report, etc.). In my opinion, this type of research is much more practical and common than the longer research we now do almost exclusively. And yes, it is true that our students are not allowed to use sources on the state writing assessment, but they still need to be proficient with both types of research.

7. Distinction between short- and long-term research; research that is purposeful and deliberate- and �research� used as a verb to answer questions and solve problems.Distinction between short- and long-term research; research that is purposeful and deliberate- and �research� used as a verb to answer questions and solve problems.

9. RELEVANT WEBSITES Go to www.corestandards.org and www.commoncore.org for more information and related resources (standards documents, unit frameworks, charts, and skills progressions). In addition to the standards themselves, be sure to peruse the appendices. Click on the �resources� tab to download several relevant documents (e.g., Myth vs. Fact; FAQ) Go to www.parcconline.org for information on the assessments currently under development. www.corestandards.org: Click on the tab, �The Standards� for the documents; click on the tab, �Resources� for lots of information regarding the philosophy behind CC (myth vs. fact) and an FAQ. www.commoncore.org: This companion site (not developed by the same people as corestandards.org) offers instructional units for all grades. These �first edition� units are free to download. The site also offers �second edition� units that are available for download ($10.00 each). Some folks have purchased these, and they say that the units are quite good, so depending on your inclination, it might be something you want to look at. www.parcconline.org: This website is absolutely invaluable and a great piece to articulate the instructional side of the Curriculum and Instruction coin. So, just as CC is the curriculum (the �what� we teach), the PARCC frameworks are the instruction (the �how� we teach). Of course, these are recommendations- not requirements- for instruction, but they are based explicitly on the CC and form the foundation for the assessments currently being developed. We have based our instructional calendars/pacing guides on these frameworks- as has the state- and encourage you to visit the website, click on the tab for �In the Classroom� to view the �ELA Model Content Frameworks�. www.corestandards.org: Click on the tab, �The Standards� for the documents; click on the tab, �Resources� for lots of information regarding the philosophy behind CC (myth vs. fact) and an FAQ. www.commoncore.org: This companion site (not developed by the same people as corestandards.org) offers instructional units for all grades. These �first edition� units are free to download. The site also offers �second edition� units that are available for download ($10.00 each). Some folks have purchased these, and they say that the units are quite good, so depending on your inclination, it might be something you want to look at. www.parcconline.org: This website is absolutely invaluable and a great piece to articulate the instructional side of the Curriculum and Instruction coin. So, just as CC is the curriculum (the �what� we teach), the PARCC frameworks are the instruction (the �how� we teach). Of course, these are recommendations- not requirements- for instruction, but they are based explicitly on the CC and form the foundation for the assessments currently being developed. We have based our instructional calendars/pacing guides on these frameworks- as has the state- and encourage you to visit the website, click on the tab for �In the Classroom� to view the �ELA Model Content Frameworks�.

10. Building capacity Summer Literacy Institute Breakout sessions will include two CC sessions for everyone; participants select four additional sessions Vision sessions- Cohort 4 begins in September HS Department Chair meetings Admin meetings (updates as they develop) Creating/securing resources for schools CCGPS/AKS alignment in preparation for GEMS New instructional plans New instructional calendars Instructional materials needs are being identified Assessment development process already in motion We are sharing this information with as many audiences as possible and as many times as needed. We want to make sure our teachers begin to develop that appreciation for what CC will do for our students- and that it is definitely something we�ve talked about for years- again, even before �CC� was developed. Common Core will essentially bring our curriculum up to the level of our instructional practices, as presented in our staff development events. We have aligned CC with our curriculum; revisions have been posted for survey (window was November to December), and are awaiting the GEMS Oversight Committee meeting on March 1. As you saw if you went online to view the proposed AKS, we have a very tight alignment with the CC (which of course for us is the CCGPS). In some instances, we added some indicators to take us �above and beyond� the state expectations. These indicators were not added haphazardly, but with purpose and deliberation to make sure our students have what they need. For example, we beefed up the CC indicator for correct use of apostrophes by going deeper with this skill in subsequent grade levels in K-5 to make sure our kids are masters in the use of this skill. We also added a document-based writing indicator in the writing strand for informational writing (grades 4-12). Also, we are currently working on instructional calendars, new lesson plans, and are identifying specific needs in terms of instructional materials. We are sharing this information with as many audiences as possible and as many times as needed. We want to make sure our teachers begin to develop that appreciation for what CC will do for our students- and that it is definitely something we�ve talked about for years- again, even before �CC� was developed. Common Core will essentially bring our curriculum up to the level of our instructional practices, as presented in our staff development events. We have aligned CC with our curriculum; revisions have been posted for survey (window was November to December), and are awaiting the GEMS Oversight Committee meeting on March 1. As you saw if you went online to view the proposed AKS, we have a very tight alignment with the CC (which of course for us is the CCGPS). In some instances, we added some indicators to take us �above and beyond� the state expectations. These indicators were not added haphazardly, but with purpose and deliberation to make sure our students have what they need. For example, we beefed up the CC indicator for correct use of apostrophes by going deeper with this skill in subsequent grade levels in K-5 to make sure our kids are masters in the use of this skill. We also added a document-based writing indicator in the writing strand for informational writing (grades 4-12). Also, we are currently working on instructional calendars, new lesson plans, and are identifying specific needs in terms of instructional materials.

11. Assessment- aligned to CCGPS Field testing of new items in SY 2011-12 and SY 2012-13 Longer, more complex texts; comparing multiple texts Reading/LA will be combined into one test (MS) Writing will be embedded in tests; will get separate writing score for each student Formative item bank will be available through OAS Vast majority of items will be performance-based Coming in Fall 2012 (tentative) Sample items and rubrics will be developed. Digital resources will be made available as part of eCLASS; other materials needs also being evaluated. We are closely monitoring assessment news from the state; Georgia is fortunate to be on the governing board for the PARCC consortium, the agency that is developing the assessment that will be used by us and approximately 25 other states. Our state assessment experts are heavily involved in this process, so I am confident we are in a good place with that. One question we often get is about how our assessments will change. Beginning with this spring�s CRCT, we will see some field test items, and the existing CRCT items are currently being re-aligned to match the new standards. Like our work here in Gwinnett, I anticipate that we will actually not lose very many of our current items in the bank. But new items will be more rigorous in keeping with the precepts of CC. In these new items, you will see evidence of the rigor articulated in the CC: longer reading passages at higher (text complexity) levels; comparing multiple texts, and writing embedded in the test as constructed response items. Our latest word about the writing piece is that our current state writing assessments will continue through school year 2013-14. Once the new assessments become operational, writing will be scored as part of the assessments (one assessment per grade level instead of the separate Reading and ELA forms). We will receive a separate writing score for each student, even though the writing is part of that one assessment. Field testing of new items (to capture the rigor of CC) will continue both as part of the CRCT and separately over the next two years. And sample items will be developed and loaded to the OAS website. The new, fully-operational assessments will begin in school year 2014-15. About our resources: Our proposal includes both print and digital formats, because there will always be a need for both- at least for the next several decades. And for now, not all valid and exemplary products are available digitally. Sometimes the nature of the product just does not lend itself to a digital format. But for all that we can acquire digitally, we will have loaded into our new eCLASS platform. We are closely monitoring assessment news from the state; Georgia is fortunate to be on the governing board for the PARCC consortium, the agency that is developing the assessment that will be used by us and approximately 25 other states. Our state assessment experts are heavily involved in this process, so I am confident we are in a good place with that. One question we often get is about how our assessments will change. Beginning with this spring�s CRCT, we will see some field test items, and the existing CRCT items are currently being re-aligned to match the new standards. Like our work here in Gwinnett, I anticipate that we will actually not lose very many of our current items in the bank. But new items will be more rigorous in keeping with the precepts of CC. In these new items, you will see evidence of the rigor articulated in the CC: longer reading passages at higher (text complexity) levels; comparing multiple texts, and writing embedded in the test as constructed response items. Our latest word about the writing piece is that our current state writing assessments will continue through school year 2013-14. Once the new assessments become operational, writing will be scored as part of the assessments (one assessment per grade level instead of the separate Reading and ELA forms). We will receive a separate writing score for each student, even though the writing is part of that one assessment. Field testing of new items (to capture the rigor of CC) will continue both as part of the CRCT and separately over the next two years. And sample items will be developed and loaded to the OAS website. The new, fully-operational assessments will begin in school year 2014-15. About our resources: Our proposal includes both print and digital formats, because there will always be a need for both- at least for the next several decades. And for now, not all valid and exemplary products are available digitally. Sometimes the nature of the product just does not lend itself to a digital format. But for all that we can acquire digitally, we will have loaded into our new eCLASS platform.

13. School year 2012-13 Implementation in 2012-13 to include New �above and beyond� standards Will retain some of our AKS Reading Georgia authors (indicators in grade 8) Indicator in grades 4-12 (DBW) Indicators for World, American, British literature Other standards will be retained through iterations on calendars as they are best delivered as instructional components (e.g., figurative language) A few of our standards- a very few- are moving down a grade level with our changes next year. The state defines these standards as �transition standards�. But I think we�re in really good shape for these, because not only are they all in first and second grade (highlighted yellow in the curriculum documents), but they are things our teachers routinely do as a part of their instructional plans: Handwriting: There is a very strong and explicit correlation between legible cursive handwriting and word study skill. Most of our poor spellers also have illegible handwriting. Even with all the technology today, handwriting still matters- it may not be �pretty�, but it can certainly be legible. A lot of our high school kids cannot read or writing in cursive- and the SAT requires that they write something similar to an honor pledge in cursive. (Many of them freak out with this piece.) Handwriting should be taught and then maintained in elementary school and then USED in middle and high school. While kids don�t necessarily need to write exclusively in cursive, certainly it is appropriate to expect at least some of their written work be done in cursive. DBW: �document-based writing�; this is an important piece to teach because of all the types of writing we do, this type is likely the most rigorous of all and is the basis for our HS Gateway Assessment and the AP exams. Examples of pieces to be articulated on the instructional calendars (rather than as part of the actual curriculum) are: specific types of figurative language to be addressed within the year and each quarter (K-12) and specific Georgia authors to focus on in eighth grade. (The state elected not to keep these indicators; we are keeping them to provide for a rich connection to Georgia History.) A few of our standards- a very few- are moving down a grade level with our changes next year. The state defines these standards as �transition standards�. But I think we�re in really good shape for these, because not only are they all in first and second grade (highlighted yellow in the curriculum documents), but they are things our teachers routinely do as a part of their instructional plans: Handwriting: There is a very strong and explicit correlation between legible cursive handwriting and word study skill. Most of our poor spellers also have illegible handwriting. Even with all the technology today, handwriting still matters- it may not be �pretty�, but it can certainly be legible. A lot of our high school kids cannot read or writing in cursive- and the SAT requires that they write something similar to an honor pledge in cursive. (Many of them freak out with this piece.) Handwriting should be taught and then maintained in elementary school and then USED in middle and high school. While kids don�t necessarily need to write exclusively in cursive, certainly it is appropriate to expect at least some of their written work be done in cursive. DBW: �document-based writing�; this is an important piece to teach because of all the types of writing we do, this type is likely the most rigorous of all and is the basis for our HS Gateway Assessment and the AP exams. Examples of pieces to be articulated on the instructional calendars (rather than as part of the actual curriculum) are: specific types of figurative language to be addressed within the year and each quarter (K-12) and specific Georgia authors to focus on in eighth grade. (The state elected not to keep these indicators; we are keeping them to provide for a rich connection to Georgia History.)

14. questions?