Wisconsin Mathematics and  English Language Arts  Common Core Standards  for All Teachers and All Students  Every Child

Wisconsin Mathematics and English Language Arts Common Core Standards for All Teachers and All Students Every Child PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 68 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

There are TWO CCSS presentations happening simultaneously. Feel free to attend the one that best meets your needs!. In Ballroom B right now, the presentation isCrafted more for administratorsFocuses more on the SMARTER/Balanced assessment consortiumIncludes a local CCSS implementation planni

Download Presentation

Wisconsin Mathematics and English Language Arts Common Core Standards for All Teachers and All Students Every Child

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. Wisconsin Mathematics and English Language Arts Common Core Standards for All Teachers and All Students Every Child a Graduate Conference January 13, 2011

2. There are TWO CCSS presentations happening simultaneously. Feel free to attend the one that best meets your needs! In Ballroom B right now, the presentation is… Crafted more for administrators Focuses more on the SMARTER/Balanced assessment consortium Includes a local CCSS implementation planning discussion This presentation is… Crafted more for educators Focuses more on the CONTENT of the standards Includes discussion to build understanding of the content of the standards

3. Wisconsin Common Core Standards 3

4. Wisconsin’s Vision for RtI 4 The idea here is to make connections to help sch/dist systematize varying initiatives for student success. Graphic depicts curr/inst, assess, collab as overlapping and interacting; supporting each other, not operating in isolation Culturally responsive practices are in the center, and are infused and evident within each element The key here is that there is a systematizing framework through a multi-level system of support This is our state’s graphic for Response to Intervention Graphic depicts a systems-level view where the intensity of each element increases as a student’s needs increase. This flexible/fluid systems approach ensures that ALL students receive the supports necessary to achieve the next level of success. This includes students who are meeting, not meeting, or exceeding benchmarks. The idea here is to make connections to help sch/dist systematize varying initiatives for student success. Graphic depicts curr/inst, assess, collab as overlapping and interacting; supporting each other, not operating in isolation Culturally responsive practices are in the center, and are infused and evident within each element The key here is that there is a systematizing framework through a multi-level system of support This is our state’s graphic for Response to Intervention Graphic depicts a systems-level view where the intensity of each element increases as a student’s needs increase. This flexible/fluid systems approach ensures that ALL students receive the supports necessary to achieve the next level of success. This includes students who are meeting, not meeting, or exceeding benchmarks.

5. High Quality Instruction Curriculum, instruction, assessment Engaging Standards-based (CCSS and WMAS) Data-driven Research-based Differentiated Culturally Responsive 5

6. 6 Overview of the Common Core

7. History of Standards-Led Education 1994: Reauthorization of ESEA “Improving America’s Schools Act” (required states to adopt, adapt, or create standards and assessments) 1998: Wisconsin adopted Model Academic Standards (18 subject areas) 2001: NCLB brought accountability for standards-based education to the forefront 2007: Wisconsin begins a deep look at standards revision with partners ADP and P21 2008: Wisconsin joins the Common Core Initiative 2010: Wisconsin adopts Common Core State Standards on 6/2/10 7 The Common Core State Standards were developed by teachers, administrators, and content experts across the country. Wisconsin provided input on the draft standards throughout the development process. We were well-poised to do this because of the work conducted over the last 3 years.The Common Core State Standards were developed by teachers, administrators, and content experts across the country. Wisconsin provided input on the draft standards throughout the development process. We were well-poised to do this because of the work conducted over the last 3 years.

8. Impetus for the Common Core State Standards Currently, every state has its own set of academic standards, meaning public educated students are learning different content at different rates All students must be prepared to compete with not only their American peers in the next state, but with students around the world This initiative will potentially affect 43.5 million students which is about 87% of the student population 8

9. Development of Common Core State Standards Joint initiative of: Supported by: -Achieve -ACT -College Board -48 States and 3 Territories 9 From CCSS: “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.” 39 states have now adopted CCSS From CCSS: “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.” 39 states have now adopted CCSS

10. Common Core State Standards Think-Pair-Share: What would be helpful in state standards to support educators in planning their instruction? 10

11. What is different with Common Core State Standards? Consistency: Provide expectations that are not dependent on a student’s ZIP code, helping students make transitions between districts and between states Student Ownership: Students know what is expected of them Equity: Provide equal expectations for all teachers and equal opportunity to learn for all students Accountability: Students will be tested and instructional effectiveness will be measured based on Common Core 11

12. What is different with Common Core State Standards? Vertical Connection: The link from early learning through postsecondary is made explicit Pre-Kindergarten Connection: The Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards provide a logical link with ELA and mathematics Common Core State Standards Clarity: Student learning outcomes are specified for every grade level College & Career Focus: Prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed 12

13. Common Core State Standards and Educators Common Core State Standards provide focus for: Preparing teachers Aligning what is taught with assessments Designing curriculum and teaching methods Building deep understanding for all students Providing equal expectations for all teachers and equal opportunity to learn for all students 13

14. Content of the Common Core State Standards Mathematics English Language Arts Literacy

15. Overview of Mathematics Standards Understanding the standards: Format Focus

16. Overview of Mathematics Standards Standards for Mathematical Practice Standards for Mathematical Content

18. Standards for Mathematical Practice Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them Reason abstractly and quantitatively Construct viable arguments & critique the reasoning of others Model with mathematics Use appropriate tools strategically Attend to precision Look for and make use of structure Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning 18

19. Overview of Standards for Mathematical Content K-8 grade level standards Algebraic thinking standards indicated in K-5 Grade level overviews: K-8 3-4 Critical Areas Mathematical Standards for High School Conceptual categories Additional standards for preparation for advanced courses 19 Identify the threshold so students will enter colleges and universities not in a remedial course, but in college credit-bearing coursework. Identify the threshold so students will enter colleges and universities not in a remedial course, but in college credit-bearing coursework.

20. Standards for Mathematical Content K-8 Grade Levels/9-12 Conceptual Categories Domains Clusters Standards 20

21. K-8 Mathematics Content Domains

22. K-5 Domains Grades Counting and Cardinality K Operations and Algebraic Thinking K-5 Number and Operations in Base Ten K-5 Number Operations – Fractions 3-5 Measurement and Data K-5 Geometry K-5

23. Middle Grades Domains Grades Ratio-Proportional Relationships 6-7 The Number System 6-8 Expressions & Equations 6-8 Functions 8 Geometry 6-8 Statistics & Probability 6-8

24. Format of K-8 Standards

25. High School Conceptual Categories Number and Quantity Algebra Functions Modeling Geometry Statistics & Probability

26. 9-12 Conceptual Categories and Clusters Number and Quantity The Real Number System Quantities The Complex Number System Vector and Matrix Operations Algebra Seeing structure in expressions Arithmetic with Polynomials, Rational Expressions Creating Equations Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities Functions Interpreting functions Building functions Linear, quadratic and exponential models Trigonometric Functions Modeling 26

27. Geometry Congruence Similarity, Right Triangles and Trigonometry Circles Expressing Geometric Properties with Equations Geometric Measurement and Dimension Modeling with Geometry Statistics & Probability Interpreting categorical & quantitative data Making Inferences & Justifying Conclusions Conditional Probability and Rules of Prob. Using Probability to Make Decisions 27 9-12 Conceptual Categories and Clusters

28. Format of High School Standards Note no grade level, different way of labeling domain in the gray box.Note no grade level, different way of labeling domain in the gray box.

29. WMAS to CCSS 29

30. Portrait of Students Who Meet ELA Standards Students: Demonstrate independence Build strong content knowledge Respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline Comprehend as well as critique Value evidence Use technology and digital media strategically and capably Come to understand other perspectives and cultures 30

31. Overview to English Language Arts Standards Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards (CCR) for each strand: Reading Writing Speaking and Listening Language Overarching targets (parallel for each grade band) 31

32. Strands of English Language Arts Standards Reading: Text complexity and growth of comprehension Grades K-5: Literature and Informational Text Grades K-5: Reading Standards – Foundational Skills Grades 6-12: Literature and Informational Text Writing: Text types, responding to reading, and research Speaking and Listening: Flexible communication and collaboration Language: Conventions and vocabulary

33. Old to New – English Language Arts “Reading Informational Text” 33

34. CCR Standard 10 Range of Reading and Text Complexity 10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. 34

35. Standard 10 The Standards’ Approach to Text Complexity 35

36. Standard 10

37. Analyzing Texts That Have Appropriate Challenges for Students Guiding Questions: How do you make informed decisions about choosing appropriate texts for students to read? How do you insure that all students are exposed to texts that are appropriate for them to read as well as exposing them to increasing text complexity? 37

38. Linking Common Core Standards and Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards

39. Linking Common Core Standards and Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards

40. Standards for Disciplinary Literacy Grades 6-12: Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects Based on CCR Anchor Standards for: Reading Writing Technical subjects: defined as workforce-related subjects; technical aspects of wider fields of study such as art and music 40

41. 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. 41

43. How do we get from here...

44. Balanced Assessment Balanced, systematic process of constant inquiry Multiple measures Screening Progress monitoring 44 Important to note that there are a variety of data systems. What is important is that you use a balanced, systematic approach using a rich mix of data. Within RtI, two assessment elements you hear a lot about are screening and progress monitoring. What is important here is that these are PROCESSES to systematize data-based decision making. Again, to emphasize, no single piece of data should make decisions about a student’s experience, rather multiple measures are important to get a full picture of the student.Important to note that there are a variety of data systems. What is important is that you use a balanced, systematic approach using a rich mix of data. Within RtI, two assessment elements you hear a lot about are screening and progress monitoring. What is important here is that these are PROCESSES to systematize data-based decision making. Again, to emphasize, no single piece of data should make decisions about a student’s experience, rather multiple measures are important to get a full picture of the student.

45. DATA NEED PURPOSE Data used to immediately inform instruction: Formative assessment Data used to establish a starting point and/or monitor progress: Benchmark assessment Data used to evaluate cumulative learning: Summative assessment To plan learning prior to instruction To support learning during instruction To monitor learning between instruction To verify learning after instruction 45 Linking Assessment Type, Data Need, & Purpose Balanced Assessment: By PURPOSE So we have our assessment types: Formative, Benchmark, and Summative. Now we’re adding another dimension here to think about when balancing assessment. (These are typical but not exclusive categories.) Use of the data, not just the type of assessment, is a really important driver. Will data be used to….? We are intentionally shifting the conversation from focusing on the type of assessment (formative, benchmark, summative) to the purpose and data need of an assessment. Often, the conversation is about whether an assessment is summative or benchmark– which is the type of assessment. When using and evaluating data, it’s important to know the type of assessment, but it’s essential to understand the purpose of the assessment as well. The instructional link is not just about timing and sequence (prior, during, between, after instruction) but also about the purpose of the assessment (to plan, support, monitor, and verify learning) as well as the data need (to inform, benchmark/monitor, evaluate). So we have our assessment types: Formative, Benchmark, and Summative. Now we’re adding another dimension here to think about when balancing assessment. (These are typical but not exclusive categories.) Use of the data, not just the type of assessment, is a really important driver. Will data be used to….? We are intentionally shifting the conversation from focusing on the type of assessment (formative, benchmark, summative) to the purpose and data need of an assessment. Often, the conversation is about whether an assessment is summative or benchmark– which is the type of assessment. When using and evaluating data, it’s important to know the type of assessment, but it’s essential to understand the purpose of the assessment as well. The instructional link is not just about timing and sequence (prior, during, between, after instruction) but also about the purpose of the assessment (to plan, support, monitor, and verify learning) as well as the data need (to inform, benchmark/monitor, evaluate).

46. 46 DPI Balanced Assessment This chart shows the range of data needs along a continuum of assessment choices. It is important to think of the data need in order to match your need to the purpose. The continuum can be found online: http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/pdf/balsystem.pdf Balanced Assessment: By PURPOSE So… put together the different dimensions of type of assessment, purpose of assessment, and data need of an assessment (discussed in the last several slides), and we get this matrix. The most commonly used way of thinking about balanced assessments is to look at the diagonal from the top left corner of the matrix down to the bottom right corner. This is the way DPI’s original balanced assessment system continuum was originally organized. But a truly balanced assessment system uses different types of assessments for different data needs and purposes. So for example, a formative assessment tool (such as a class exit ticket question) could be used for a “summative” purpose to verify instruction after it has occurred. While it is important to understand the different types of assessment available to educators, it is critical to examine the purpose of each assessment. We must shift to the important question of use. What is the purpose? Why give this assessment? What will it tell me? What will it tell the student? Think about different types of assessments and how they can be used, depending on purpose, timing, data need etc. Portfolios are a great example– they can fit into this matrix in just about every (if not every) “box” depending on how they are used. So… put together the different dimensions of type of assessment, purpose of assessment, and data need of an assessment (discussed in the last several slides), and we get this matrix. The most commonly used way of thinking about balanced assessments is to look at the diagonal from the top left corner of the matrix down to the bottom right corner. This is the way DPI’s original balanced assessment system continuum was originally organized. But a truly balanced assessment system uses different types of assessments for different data needs and purposes. So for example, a formative assessment tool (such as a class exit ticket question) could be used for a “summative” purpose to verify instruction after it has occurred. While it is important to understand the different types of assessment available to educators, it is critical to examine the purpose of each assessment. We must shift to the important question of use. What is the purpose? Why give this assessment? What will it tell me? What will it tell the student? Think about different types of assessments and how they can be used, depending on purpose, timing, data need etc. Portfolios are a great example– they can fit into this matrix in just about every (if not every) “box” depending on how they are used.

47. In Short… Data Need + Assessment Purpose = Balance 47 Balanced Assessment Summary

48. SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium Wisconsin is a governing state in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment consortium (SBAC) SBAC’s priorities align well with Wisconsin’s Next Generation Assessment Task Force recommendations: a good fit for Wisconsin

49. WI has a leadership role. Lynette Russell, Director of the Office Accountability is one of the seven elected officials to serve in the SBAC executive committee with OR, WA, ID, MI, UT, ME.WI has a leadership role. Lynette Russell, Director of the Office Accountability is one of the seven elected officials to serve in the SBAC executive committee with OR, WA, ID, MI, UT, ME.

50. Assessment system that balances summative, interim, performance, and formative components for ELA and mathematics: Computer adaptive summative assessment Grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window within the last 12 weeks of the instructional year) Selected response, enhanced constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks Computer adaptive interim assessment Learning progressions Administered throughout the year Formative Tools and Processes System components

51. The distinguishing features of SMARTER Balanced Assessment consortium: SMARTER will develop a computer adaptive summative test. SMARTER will develop a system of assessments, offering multiple data points to be accessed throughout the year. SMARTER has a primary focus on educator involvement, notably around the formative and benchmark components, and professional development that creates a system of assessment and instruction. Assessing the Common Core 51 Summative: administered last 12 weeks of school year - - most likely in grade 11 During the year: formative and benchmark assessments Formative strategies, resources and model units of instruction will be developed in an online clearinghouse. Educator involvement in developing, piloting, and then implementing formative assessments.Summative: administered last 12 weeks of school year - - most likely in grade 11 During the year: formative and benchmark assessments Formative strategies, resources and model units of instruction will be developed in an online clearinghouse. Educator involvement in developing, piloting, and then implementing formative assessments.

52. GOAL: Better prepare students for college and career readiness. Collaborate with colleges and universities to create student achievement standards that define college ready Students will enter postsecondary systems having met common, clear college ready standards Students will be able to track readiness for college and careers throughout high school Postsecondary Collaboration Higher education representatives will be working with the Consortium to create high school assessments that at a minimum will serve as college course placement exams. While it is too soon to know if the exams will also be accepted for college entrance, the intent will be to work with higher education to create exams that are informative about student readiness for credit-bearing course work. As the work progresses, there will be opportunities to decide if the high school assessments created by SMARTER will meet Wisconsin’s needs. Higher education representatives will be working with the Consortium to create high school assessments that at a minimum will serve as college course placement exams. While it is too soon to know if the exams will also be accepted for college entrance, the intent will be to work with higher education to create exams that are informative about student readiness for credit-bearing course work. As the work progresses, there will be opportunities to decide if the high school assessments created by SMARTER will meet Wisconsin’s needs.

53. Collaboration How can I facilitate a collaborative relationship within my organization to align these initiatives? 53

54. Partnerships for Implementation 54

55. Opportunities for Collaboration Communication Teacher development / Professional learning Resource development Curriculum development Formative and benchmark assessments Additional resources 55

56. Further Information DPI website: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/standards/ http://www.dpi.wi.gov/oea/sbac.html Common Core State Standards Initiative: http://corestandards.org/ 56 Please be wary of similar websites that use the ‘common core’ phrase but are not the official CCSS Initiative website.Please be wary of similar websites that use the ‘common core’ phrase but are not the official CCSS Initiative website.

  • Login