RETHINKING INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT

Developing and Assessing Teaching

for the Common Core

Changes in Societies are Creating Pressures for School Change

1900 1950 20000%

20%40%60%80%

100%

Low skill jobs Knowledge work jobs

Routine CognitiveNon-routine Manual

- 10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

1960 1970 1980 1990 1998

Perc

entil

e Ch

ange

from

196

0

Source: Murnane & Levy

Routine Manual

Expert Thinking

Complex CommunicationsDEMAND FOR SKILLS IS CHANGING

The dilemma of schools:The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitize, automate, and outsource

Teamwork

Problem Solving

Interpersonal Skills

Computational Skills

Reading Skills

Organizational Effectiveness

Goal Setting/Motivation

Listening Skills

Personal Career Development

Creative Thinking

Leadership

Oral Communications

WritingWriting 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Teamwork

Problem Solving

Interpersonal Skills

Computational Skills

Reading Skills

Organizational Effectiveness

Goal Setting/Motivation

Listening Skills

Personal Career Development

Creative Thinking

Leadership

Oral Communications

1970 1999

FORTUNE 500 MOST VALUED SKILLS

THINK critically & solve

complex problems

COMMUNICATE effectively

WORK collaboratively

LEARN how to learn…

…through mastery of rigorous academic content

DEEPER LEARNING

Measuring College- and Career- Readiness

Students are not entering a multiple choice world.

Genuine readiness for college and 21st century careers require abilities:

To find, evaluate, synthesize and use knowledge

To frame and solve non-routine problems

To design and produce new products

To communicate in many ways

20th Century Teaching will not Meet 21st Century Demands

x

US Outcomes in International Perspective

Reading Korea Finland Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia

US is #14

Mathematics Singapore Korea Finland Lichtenstein Switzerland Japan Canada

US is #27

ScienceFinlandSingapore JapanKoreaNew ZealandCanadaEstonia

US is #21

What are the Highest-Achieving Nations Doing?

Universal health care, housing, preschool for children

Equitable & adequate resources for schools

Equitable access to a thinking curriculum supported by rich performance assessments

Substantial investments in initial teacher education and ongoing support

A well-paid and well-supported profession

Schools designed to support teacher and student learning

What are these Nations Not Doing?

Cutting funds to schoolsPrivatizing education Ranking and labeling schools and teachers

Allocating rewards or sanctions based on test scores

De-professionalizing teaching

Changes Pending in California

Adoption of Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards

Changes in the Assessment System -- Shift to Smarter Balanced Assessment

Consortium-- Elimination of other CSTs-- Reconceptualization of Assessment System

A New Concept of Accountability

Changes in the API-- Less Emphasis on Standardized Tests-- More Emphasis on Graduation, College and

Career Readiness, and Healthy School Functioning

Commitment to Multiple Measures

Investment in Improvement, Not Punishment

Development of Stronger Professional Accountability

Goal of Common Core State Standards

FewerHigher Deeper

Key Aspects of the CCSS

Reading increasingly complex texts closelyCommunicating effectively in multiple media and

across content areasUsing evidence; interpreting with justificationEngaging in inquiry and research-------------------------------------------------------------Engaging in mathematical practices that use

mathematical reasoning in applicationUsing mathematical skills across content areas and

contexts ----------------------------------------------------------------Applying literacy and numeracy across content areas

Depth of Knowledge

MATH ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS

DOK3 DOK4 DOK3 DOK4

Current state assessments <2% 0% 20% 2%

New state tests under development (SBAC)

49% 21% 43% 25%

DOK = Depth of Knowledge Source: Yuan & Le (2012); Herman & Linn (2013)

PERCENTAGE OF DEEPER LEARNING TEST ITEMS / TARGETS IN STATE TESTS

Depth of Knowledge in Action

How Must Schools Change to Develop these Abilities?

Common Core Standards - Math

Students should be able “understand,” “describe,” “explain,” “justify,” “prove,” “derive,” “assess,” “illustrate,” and “analyze.”

They also need to be able to “model,” “construct,” “compare,” “investigate,” “build,” “interpret,” “estimate,” “summarize,” “represent,” “evaluate,” “extend,” and “apply” their learning to a wide range of real world problems – including uses in science, engineering, and technology problems

CST Math Item Testing Standard 25.1

Math Depth of Knowledge Level 1 (Grade 7)Roberto paid $43.08 for three CDs. All three were the same price.

How much did each CD cost?

A. $11.36 B. $14.36 C. $40.08 D. $46.08

Math Depth of Knowledge Level 4 (Grade 7) Max bought two items that were on sale. One item was 10% off One item was 20% off Max says he saved 15% all together. A. Could Max be right? B. Could Max be wrong? Justify your answers.

TESTING DEEPER LEARNING

Sample High School Task: Speeding Tickets Across States

Stimulus/Information Source for Task

Massachusetts (http://www.sudbury.ma.us/services/individual_faq.asp?id=69 )

The initial 10MPH over the speed limit is assessed a $50 fine. In other words, there is a flat fee for the first 10MPH. Each MPH above the initial 10MPH is then calculated at $10 per MPH thereafter. In addition to the fines established relative to the speed traveled, there is a $50 assessment applied to the fine schedule which goes to a Head Injury Fund established by the state.

Example: 46MPH in a 30MPH zone = 16MPH over the speed limitFine = $50 Head Injury Fund assessment + $50 (first 10MPH over the speed limit) + $60 (next 6MPH) = $160

Sample Task Stimulus (cont.)

Tasks that ask students to determine which information is relevant to

problem solving and which is extraneous support the goals of Claim

4.

CCSS – ELA Reading

Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.

CST ELA Item Testing Standard 9RC2.8

CCSS-ELA

Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience.

Common Core Standards - ELA

Conduct short and sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.

Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning, alternative or opposing perspectives are addressed, and the organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose and audience.

Research Task: Nuclear Power

You are chief-of-staff for your local congresswoman in the U.S. House of Representatives. She has called you into her office to outline an urgent project.

“I have received advance warning,” she says as you sit down, “that a power company is proposing to build a nuclear plant in the southeastern corner of our state. The plan will be announced to the public tomorrow morning, and citizens and journalists will want to know what my position is on this controversial issue. To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about it. We currently don’t have any nuclear power plants in this state, so I haven’t taken time to consider the issue deeply.

“I need you,” she continues, “to conduct a brief survey of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Summarize what you have learned and report back to me this afternoon.”

Back in your office, you enter “nuclear power pros and cons” into a Google search engine, and it returns what looks like a promising mix of articles, videos, and data charts. You must review and evaluate these sources and summarize their arguments—both pro and con—before reporting back to the congresswoman.

Organize Arguments

From the sources you have reviewed, summarize 3 major arguments that support, and 3 major arguments that oppose, the use of nuclear power for generating electricity. For each of the arguments, cite at least one source that supports this fact or point of view.Argument / Fact in Favor of Nuclear Power

Source Supporting this Argument

1. 2. 3. Argument / Fact in Opposition to Nuclear Power

Source Supporting This Argument

1. 2. 3.

Evaluate Sources

Evaluate the credibility of the arguments and evidence presented by these sources. Which of the sources are more trustworthy and why? Which of the sources warrant some skepticism because of bias or insufficient evidence?

Write and Revise an Evidence-Based Essay

Back in the congresswoman’s office, you start to hand her your notes on the pros and cons of nuclear energy, but she waves away your papers.

“Some emergency meetings have come up and I don’t have time to review your research notes,” she says. “Instead, go ahead and make a recommendation for our position on this nuclear power plant. Should we support the building of this nuclear plant in our state, or should we oppose the power company’s plan? Be sure that your recommendation acknowledges both sides of the issue so that people know that we have considered the issue carefully. I’ll review your memo tonight and use it for the press conference tomorrow morning.”

Write an argumentative essay that recommends the position that your congresswoman should take on the plan to build a nuclear power plant in your state. Support your claim with evidence from the Internet sources you have read and viewed. You do not need to use all the sources, only the ones that most effectively and credibly support your position and your consideration of the opposing point of view.

How Can We Develop This New Teaching?

,

Professional Learning Opportunities that

Impact Practice:

Focused on specific curriculum content Organized around real problems of practice Linked to analysis of teaching and student

learning Intensive, sustained and continuous over time

Supported by coaching, modeling, observation, and feedback

Connected to teachers’ collaborative work in professional learning communities

Integrated into school and classroom planning around curriculum, instruction, and assessment

Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation

Combine Evidence of Practice and Outcomes in an Integrated Evaluation System that looks at

21st Century teaching practice in relation to standards, curriculum goals, and student needs

Contributions to colleagues and the school,

Student learning in relation to teaching practices, curriculum goals, and student needs, and

Accomplishment of individual and group goals

Approach Test-Based Evaluation with Caution

VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness … should not used to make operational decisions because such estimates are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable.

– National Research CouncilBoard on Testing and Assessment,2009

Many teachers indicated as effective or ineffective in one year are not for

others

Value-added estimates are highly unstable.

Consider classification of teachers into 5 categories (A-F) in two consecutive years.

36

Grade in first year:

A

F

Grade in second year:

FDCBA

FDCBA

Grades A-F correspond to quintiles 1-5. Source: Tim Sass (2008).

A Teacher’s Measured “Effectiveness” Can Vary Widely

02468

10

Decile Rank Y1 Decile Rank Y2

020406080

% ELL % Low-income

%Hispanic

Y1Y2

Same high school Same course

(English I)Not a beginning

teacherModel controls for:

Prior achievement Demographics School fixed

effects

1

10YEAR 1 YEAR 2

Recent findings from TX, LA, NY, CA, FL

The same teachers receive lower value-added ratings when:-- they have large numbers of new English Learners-- they have larger numbers of special education students -- they have larger numbers of highly at-risk students (with poor attendance, sickly, abused, homeless) -- they are teaching high-achieving students who have already reached the highest score levels on the tests

38

Create an Integrated System

Link the implementation of common core standards to educator support and evaluation

Train and assess prospective and current principals for teacher evaluation and support

Link professional development policies to the assessment standards and practices

Involve senior teachers, mentors, principals as assessors and policy advisors

Use every opportunity to enable sharing of expertise

Equalize access to high-quality curriculum & teaching

21st Century Learning for All

“What the best and wisest parent wants for his or her child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other goal is narrow and unlovely. Acted upon, it destroys our democracy.”

-- John Dewey