slide 1 copyright © 2010 pearson education, inc.or its affiliate(s). all rights reserved....

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Leadership and the CCCSS

Jaime Aquino, Ph.D.General Manager

North Region

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Objectives

• Participants will develop an understanding of the Common Core State Standards by relating their implementation to their past, current and future work.

• Participants will identify the implications of the CCSS assessments to instruction, assessment, leadership and professional development.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

1. Limited knowledge2. Some knowledge3. Good understanding4. Solid understanding and application

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

History in the Making

Concerning the launch of Netscape:

“We went from a world where value was created in vertical silos of command and control to one in which value is created horizontally on this platform by who you connect and collaborate with…

I would argue that shift from command-and-control to connect-and-collaborate is the mother of all inflection points. … It is the biggest event, I would argue, to change human beings and how they interact, since Guttenberg invented the printing press.”

Thomas Friedman, 2010

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Inflection Point

• The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) can become an “inflection point” for American public education - establishing a common foundation for building excellence and equity for all students.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative

8

Beginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

www.corestandards.org

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Standards Development Process

• College and career readiness standards developed in summer 2009

• Based on the college and career readiness standards, K-12 learning progressions developed

• Multiple rounds of feedback from states, teachers, researchers, higher education, and the general public

• Final Common Core State Standards released on June 2, 2010

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

What are the Common Core State Standards?

Aligned with college and work expectationsFocused and coherentInclude rigorous content and application of knowledge

through high-order skillsBuild upon strengths and lessons of current state

standardsInternationally benchmarked so that all students are

prepared to succeed in our global economy and societyBased on evidence and researchState led – coordinated by NGA Center and CCSSO

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Why is this important?

• Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards, meaning public education students in each state are learning to different levels

• All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students from around the world

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Common Core State Standards: Evidence Base

12

•Evidence was used to guide critical decisions in the following areas: – Inclusion of particular content

– Timing of when content should be introduced and the progression of that content

– Ensuring focus and coherence

– Organizing and formatting the standards

– Determining emphasis on particular topics in standards

•Evidence includes:

– Standards from high-performing countries, leading states, and nationally-regarded frameworks

– Research on adolescent literacy, text complexity, mathematics instruction, quantitative literacy

– Lists of works consulted and research base included in standards’ appendices

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Common Core State Standards: Evidence Base

•For example: Standards from individual high-performing countries and provinces were used to inform content, structure, and language. Writing teams looked for examples of rigor, coherence, and progression.

Mathematics

1.Belgium (Flemish)2.Canada (Alberta)3.China4.Chinese Taipei5.England6.Finland7.Hong Kong8.India9.Ireland10.Japan11.Korea12.Singapore

English language arts

1.Australia• New South Wales• Victoria

2.Canada• Alberta• British Columbia• Ontario

3.England4.Finland5.Hong Kong6.Ireland7.Singapore

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Key Advances: ELA

Reading• Balance of literature and informational texts• Text complexityWriting• Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing• Writing about sourcesSpeaking and Listening• Inclusion of formal and informal talkLanguage• Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Key Advances: ELA

Standards for reading and writing in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects• Complement rather than replace content standards

in those subjects• Responsibility of teachers in those subjects

Alignment with college and career readinessexpectations

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Key Advances: Mathematics

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.College and career readiness• Level is ambitious but achievable.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Why is it important for schools to engage with the CCSS now?

• Important for schools to think of integrating the Common Core State Standards as a multi-year process:– Improving organizational structures – Building teacher capacity

• Some students enrolled in our schools now will need to pass CCSS-aligned state assessments to be promoted or graduate

• Schools that develop thoughtful multi-year transition plans will be ready to be held accountable for student achievement on CCSS

18

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

What the 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

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

CCSS Assessments

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

The Proficiency Debate:

State Assessments and NAEP

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

How big is the discrepancy?Math Grade 4

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

How big is the discrepancy?Math Grade 8

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

How big is the discrepancy?Reading Grade 4

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

How big is the discrepancy?Reading Grade 8

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

NAEP & NY STATE TEST RESULTSNYC MATH PERFORMANCE

PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT

NAEP NY State Test NAEP NY State Test

2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009 2003 2009

4th Grade 8th Grade

DESPITE GAINS, ONLY 39% OF NYC 4TH GRADERS AND 26% OF 8TH GRADERS ARE PROFICIENT ON NATIONAL MATH TESTS

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

A TEST THAT IS WORTH TEACHING TO

SHOULD…

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

RTTT Assessment Requirements for Comprehensive Systems

Requirements within the RTTT Assessment Program:

• Build upon shared standards for college- and career-readiness;

• Measure individual growth as well as proficiency;

• Measure the extent to which each student is on track, at each grade level tested, toward college or career readiness by the time of high school completion and;

• Provide information that is useful in informing:

– Teaching, learning, and program improvement;

– Determinations of school effectiveness;

– Determinations of principal and teacher effectiveness for use in evaluations and the provision of support to teachers and principals; and

– Determinations of individual student college and career readiness, such as determinations made for high school exit decisions, college course placement to credit-bearing classes, or college entrance.

(US Department of Education, 2009)

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Consortia

• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, which consists of 26 states.

• SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, which includes 31 states

http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/

http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/

http://www.k12.wa.us/smarter/

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Consortium Membership: PARCC

31

13 Governing States

Arizona Arkansas District of Columbia Florida (Fiscal Agent) Georgia

Illinois Indiana Louisiana Maryland

Massachusetts (Board Chair) New York Rhode Island Tennessee

12 Participating States

Alabama * California Colorado * Delaware *

Kentucky * Mississippi New Jersey * North Dakota *

Ohio * Oklahoma * Pennsylvania * South Carolina *

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Consortium Membership: SMARTER

32

13 Governing States

Connecticut Hawaii Idaho Kansas Missouri

Montana Maine Nevada New Mexico North

Carolina

New Hampshire Oregon Michigan Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin


Alabama * South Dakota Colorado * Delaware *

Kentucky * Wyoming New Jersey * North Dakota * Iowa


Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers:

PARCC

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Consortium Membership

Governing State

Participating State

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.


35

13 Governing States

Arizona Arkansas District of Columbia Florida (Fiscal Agent) Georgia

Illinois Indiana Louisiana Maryland

Massachusetts (Board Chair) New York Rhode Island Tennessee


Alabama * California Colorado * Delaware *

Kentucky * Mississippi New Jersey * North Dakota *


Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Assessment

• Teachers will be able to focus their instruction on clear targets rather than guessing which standards the tests might cover, and those targets will represent meaningful progress toward an evidence-based standard of college and career readiness.

• The Partnership will also provide teachers with an array of training tools to use the assessment results to inform instructional planning and better understand what CCR student performance looks like.

• The Partnership will develop challenging performance tasks and innovative, computer-enhanced items that elicit complex demonstrations of learning and measure the full range of knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in college and 21st-century careers.

• The Partnership will distribute through-course assessments throughout the school year so that assessment of learning can take place closer in time to when key skills and concepts are taught and states can provide teachers with actionable information more frequently. It will also allow school and district leaders to make any adjustments to instructional strategies and resource allocations throughout the year based on students‘ progress toward readiness.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• The first three through-course components in ELA/literacy and mathematics will be administered after roughly 25 percent, 50 percent and 75 percent of instruction. The fourth through-course component in ELA/literacy, a speaking and listening assessment, will be administered after students complete the third component.

• The end-of-year components in each subject area will be administered after roughly 90 percent of instruction. Overall, the assessment system will include a mix of constructed-response items; performance tasks; and computer-enhanced, computer-scored items.

• The Partnership will aim to be transparent with the prompts for each component and with what is being measured. While we acknowledge the issues around building a set of public, widely known prompts (e.g., equating results and security), the Partnership believes this level of transparency is important for helping teachers and students understand the performance expectations of the CCSS and of the assessments. To that end, the Partnership will explore possibilities for making the prompts public.

Assessment

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• All of the through-course components will be administered in an online, computer-based mode in grades 6–11. Students will type their responses, in alignment with the CCSS, which explicitly require students to develop keyboarding skills sufficient to this task.

• For grades 3–5, prompts for the through-course component will likely be delivered to schools and/or districts online, but student responses will likely be recorded on paper until the Partnership can determine that students in these grades have sufficient computer skills to respond online within the given time limits.

• The end-of-year component for grades 3–11 will include computer-based, computer-scored items, enabling quick turnaround of results.

• The speaking and listening component is a live classroom performance task that will be administered by the student‘s teacher.

ELA Assessment: Mode of Administration

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• These through-course components are designed to measure the most fundamental capacity essential to achieving college and career readiness according to the CCSS: the ability to read increasingly complex texts, draw evidence from them, draw logical conclusions and present analysis in writing.

• These focused assessments offer opportunities early in the school year to signal whether students are on track to readiness. The prompts for these components will be modeled on the CCSS; each component will consist of one to two extended constructed-response items that require students to write in response to a text.

• These items will be enhanced with a computer-based platform that allows student to prepare an outline and capture notes as they write the essay.

ELA-1 and ELA-2. Focused Literacy Assessments: Writing from Sources

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

ELA-1 and ELA-2Focused Literacy Assessments

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• Over several sessions, students will be asked to identify or read a variety of materials and to compose a written essay based on them. For example, the assessment could require students to research independently several sources and evaluate their credibility to compose a coherent account of a subject or to take and defend a position on a controversial topic.

• These extended performance tasks will be controlled research projects that take advantage of advances in testing technologies to provide students with the materials they need, including multi-media materials.

• For example the task might be built to include a searchable environment (i.e., an online library) in which students locate, evaluate and select from a set of pre-defined sources, which are of various complexity and relevance to the task (including some that might be irrelevant).

ELA-3

Extended Research/Writing Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

ELA-3.

Extended Research/Writing Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• This component will be a computer-scored assessment that leverages advances in computer-enhanced item types.

• It will build on high-quality, authentic texts at the appropriate level of complexity; meaningful distractors for any selected-response items developed by content experts; and computer-enhanced items such as ones enabling students to view or listen to digital media.

• The assessment will draw on higher order skills such as critical thinking and analysis, measure language use and vocabulary, and use digital technologies to assess hard-to-measure skills (for example, by asking students to listen to a poem or a view scene from a play). Items will sample a range of cognitive demand and be designed to tap deeper into student depth of knowledge .

ELA-4. End-of-Year Literacy Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

ELA-4. End-of-Year Literacy Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• To measure the CCSS speaking and listening standards, students will present their work from the ELA-3 component to classmates. As part of the development process, the Partnership will determine the best way to implement this component, but students will likely be asked to report on their research, analysis and findings; include multimedia elements as appropriate; and respond to questions from the audience.

• The Partnership will develop common rubrics that teachers will use to evaluate students‘ speaking skills, including their sharing of findings and evidence, their ability to interact with their audiences by responding to questions or engaging in discussion or debate, their ability to speak clearly, and their ability to present information in a logical manner.

• This component will not contribute to the annual combined summative score in ELA/literacy, but rather can be used to generate grades for report cards at the classroom level and help parents and teachers track progress of students‘ speaking and listening.

ELA-5. Speaking and Listening Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• The through-course components in mathematics will be administered online to students in grade 6 through high school, using an equation editor-type program that allows students to enter responses to mathematical problems via the computer.

• Through-course components for grades 3–5 will be administered in paper-and-pencil format because of concerns about young students‘ lack of familiarity with pull-down menus and online mathematics tools.

• The Partnership will study the efficacy of online administration of the through-course components to students in grades 3–5 over time. Additionally, as in ELA/literacy, the end-of-year mathematics component will be delivered via computer to students in all grades.

Math Assessment: Mode of Administration

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• The first two through-course components emphasize standards or clusters of standards (i.e., one to two essential topics) from the CCSS that play a central role during the first stages of mathematics instruction over the school year.

• These include standards that are prerequisites for others at the same grade level, as well as standards or clusters of standards for fields of study that first appear during the grade in question. Thus, instead of surveying an overly broad mathematical landscape as typical ―interim assessments‖ currently do, these components will promote the coherent curricular structure embedded in the CCSS.

• This approach also will enable the through-course components to provide more useful results to teachers across the range of performance from a blend of one to two brief constructed-response items per topic and one extended constructed-response per topic.

• Over time, the Partnership will refine the selection of standards measured by the focused components based on which mathematical topics prove most predictive of success later in the school year.

Math-1 and Math-2.Focused Assessments of Essential Topics

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Math-1 and Math-2. Focused Assessments of

Essential Topics.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Math-1 and Math-2. Focused Assessments of Essential

Topics.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• This through-course component will meet the demands of the CCSS by

using performance tasks (likely multi-step) that require depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to real-world problems.

• Students will be expected to apply their conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts to derive their solutions. In later grades, consistent with the emphasis of the CCSS on modeling, these problems may not be explicitly stated as math problems but rather as problems students will need to use their math knowledge to solve.

• The performance tasks will be designed so that students can answer them at different levels of sophistication and mathematical competence, making them a useful tool to assess students at the high and low end of the performance range.

• To allow for observation of the mathematical practices, students will sometimes investigate less routine, more complex tasks involving chains of reasoning with mathematical techniques mastered in previous grades.

Math-3. Extended Mathematics Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Math-3. Extended Mathematics Assessment.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• This component will leverage technology to administer innovative, computer-enhanced items that measure the extent to which students have mastered important knowledge and skills identified in the CCSS and critical for college and career readiness, including reasoning and problem solving.

• The assessment will sample a range of important topics for the year, as well as sampling material from the previous year, and use items with an appropriate range of cognitive demand to provide a better measure of achievement for students at the very low and very high end of the performance spectrum

• . The items for this component will include next-generation selected-response items that signal not only whether students provided a correct answer but also help analyze why some students might have provided an incorrect answer (i.e., by identifying common mathematical errors that suggest common mathematics misunderstandings). The component will also include innovative item types like using drag and drop or graphing tools.

•

•

Math-4. End-of-Year Mathematics Assessment.

www.k12center.org/publications.htm

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Implementation Timeline

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• FORM-1. The Partnership Resource Center (PRC). PRC will be an online, digital resource that includes two important instructional supports: model curriculum frameworks that teachers can use to plan instruction and gain a deep understanding of the CCSS, and released items and tasks that teachers can use for ongoing formative assessment.

• FORM-2. Text Complexity Diagnostic Tool. To meet the text complexity demands of the CCSS, the Partnership will support the development of a computer-adaptive tool to identify students‘ proximate zone of development and supply suggestions for reading level and appropriate texts. This tool will be continually enhanced as member states contribute high-quality text samples.

Assessment Resources

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

• FORM-3. Options for Assessing K–2 Literacy and Mathematics. – To help states measure student knowledge and skills across the full

range of the CCSS, the Partnership will develop optional performance tasks for grades K–2. These resources will be housed within, but exist as a special part of, the PRC resource described above.

– The Partnership will develop appropriate assessment tasks that monitor students‘ development toward readiness for grade 3 in ways that conform to guidelines published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.8 The tasks will consist of developmentally appropriate measures, including observations, checklists, running records and on-demand performance events, that reflect milestones within given windows during the school year.

– The measures will produce results that identify appropriate interventions or enrichment activities and are capable of supporting measures of growth. The Partnership will explore the use of technology innovations such as computer touch screens.

•

Assessment Resources

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Through-courseASSESSMENT4

• Speaking• Listening

25%

Through-courseASSESSMENT 1• ELA• Math

50%


90%

END OF YEARCOMPREHENSIVE

ASSESSMENT

75%


PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments, model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials

Summative assessment for accountability

Required, but not used tor accountability

The PARCC System

Apr 19, 2023

English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 - 11

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

SBAC

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.


68

13 Governing States

Connecticut Hawaii Idaho Kansas Missouri

Montana Maine Nevada New Mexico North

Carolina

New Hampshire Oregon Michigan Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin


Alabama * South Dakota Colorado * Delaware *

Kentucky * Wyoming New Jersey * North Dakota * Iowa


Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

PERFORMANCE TASKS

END OF YEARADAPTIVE

ASSESSMENT

•A computer adaptive assessmentgiven during final weeks of theschool year

•Multiple item types, scored bycomputer

•Re-take option, as locallydetermined

Two Components of the Summative Assessment

• One reading task, one writing task and 2 math tasks per year• Measure the ability to integrate knowledge and skills, as required in CCSS • Computer-delivered, during final 12• weeks of the school year• Scored within 2 weeks

+

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Last 12 weeks of year*

Performance Tasks

ELA:

•Select texts on a given theme, synthesize the perspectives presented, conduct research, and write a reflective essay.

Math: •Review a financial document and read explanatory text, conduct a series of analyses, develop a conclusion, and provide evidence for it.

• Roughly half of the performance tasks for grades 9 through 11 will assess ELA or math within the context of science or social studies.

* Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.


End-of-Year Assessment

• Composed of approximately 40 to 65 questions per content area.

• Uses adaptive delivery to provide maximally accurate scores across the full spectrum of student achievement and to increase student engagement.

• Includes selected-response, technology-enhanced constructed- response, and extended constructed-response items.

• Scores from items that can be scored immediately will be reported, and then updated as scores from those requiring human scoring or artificial intelligence are completed.

• A re-take option is available.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.


Summative Components

Note: This Consortium will also investigate an alternative summative format in which the end-of-year adaptive assessment is replaced with a series of adaptive assessments, each of which assesses a smaller block of standards.

• Student scores from the performance tasks and end-of-year adaptive assessment will be combined for each student’s annual score for accountability.

• Performance tasks may begin prior to the final 12 weeks of the year, based on research studies and final implementation decisions.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Interim Assessment System

• Optional system of computer adaptive assessments

• The number, timing, and standards assessed (full grade level or smaller clusters) can be customized based on the local curriculum

• Includes multiple item types, similar to the end-of-year summative assessment, including performance tasks (delayed scoring)

• Reports of student results will link teachers to related student resources and teacher professional development resources

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.


DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative assessments, released items and tasks, model instructional units, educator training and professional development tools and resources, scoring training modules, and teacher collaboration tools.

Comprehensive Electronic Platform

The system portal for information about the CCSS, SBAC, and assessment results:• Reporting suite with differentiated tools available to students, educators, parents, and policymakers, with visualization tools• Vetted instructional units and model curricula• Research-based instructional strategies and interventions• Issue-focused chat rooms• Formative assessment items, released performance tasks, and rubrics • Professional development modules and videos• Item development/scoring training modules and tools

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Optional Interim assessment system — no stakes

Summative assessment for accountability


DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.

Scope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determined

PERFORMANCETASKS

• Reading• Writing• Math

END OF YEARADAPTIVE

ASSESSMENT

Re-take option

The SBAC System

* Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.

English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 – 8 and High School

Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks

INTERIM ASSESSMENT

Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks

INTERIM ASSESSMENT

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Implementation Timeline2011

2011

2012

2013

2014

January 2015

August 2015

Development of formative tools, processes, practices, and professional development underway

Specifications for summative and interim assessments developed

Interim item pool becomes available for use

Field testing of summative assessments

Preliminary achievement standards proposed; other policy definitions adopted

Operational summative assessments available

Final achievement standards verified and adopted

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

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.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

20

10

Pearso

n E

du

catio

n, In

c.or its a

ffilia

te(s). A

ll righ

ts rese

rved

.

Conclusion

The promise of standards

These Standards are not intended to be new names for old ways of doing business. They are a call to take the next step. It is time for states to work together to build on lessons learned from two decades of standards based reforms. It is time to recognize that standards are not just promises to our children, but promises we intend to keep.

slide 1 copyright © 2010 pearson education, inc.or its affiliate(s). all rights reserved....

Documents

pearson education

application slide

common core of state

higher education

mathematics standards

career readiness standards

american public education

common foundation