2011 – 2012 Phase I

1. 2011 – 2012 Phase I LECTURE TWO

2. NATIONALPathwayfor Common CoreImplementation Phase I 2011 - 2012

3. WELCOME Your Faculty Kevin Baird Kevin.Baird@CommonCoreInstitute.Org

4. Today’s Webinar Lecture Two Leadership Articulating the Brand Vision: What is College & Career Readiness / Grieving Lost Practices

5. Today’s Overview Knowledge: Quick Review & Closely Held Knowledge College & Career Readiness: Change Brand Building Enterprise-wide Change Process Building in Quality Synthesis: ELEMENTS: Your CCSS Implementation Leadership Plan Introduce: Job-embedded Professional Development Curriculum Mapping

6. Scope & Sequence • Readings from last lecture and for this lecture included in the link: Lecture 1: What is the National Pathway CCSS & Lecture 2: Articulating the Brand Vision (Deming, Lewin, Survey of Enacted Curriculum, College & Career Readiness as a Standard)

7. The Alignment Process Establish Goals Measure to Focus on Priorities Align Practice to Goals & Priorities Curriculum Instruction Assessment Observe, Communicate, Teach, Direct Refinement

8. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan: Provides the direction to eliminate the treadmill effect. Vision: The “Why are we doing this?” to combat confusion. Skills: The skill sets needed to combat anxiety. Incentives: Reasons, perks, advantages to combat resistance Resources: Tools and time needed to combat frustration. Conditions for Successful Implementation Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000)

9. Key Questions? • What do we communicate about CCSS? • How is CCSS implementation different from other past initiatives? • What are the elements of our Implementation Leadership plan? • How do we set ourselves up for success from the beginning?

10. Assertions • The Common Core Standards are the single largest enterprise wide initiative ever undertaken in American K-12 Schools. • The Common Core Standards represent the largest change in classroom expectations ever

11. Modern Era (1950’s to Today) • Civil Rights / Desegregation (50’s to 70’s) – busing, affirmative action, Title IX, school prayer • 1980s: Nation at Risk, Drug Prevention • Landmark event – first time indication of failing schools, falling scores, inflated grades • 1990s: Outcomes-based Education, National Education Goals (Goals 2000), NRP formed • 2000’s: NRP Report (2000), NCLB (2001), Reading First Report (2008)

12. Schools do not have substantial experience with enterprise change • Common Core Standards require significant change for every K-5 teacher, and most 6-12 teachers. • Common Core Standards require significant change for every principal. • Common Core Standards require immediate action.. Although implementation is over time.

13. Closely Held Knoweldge • Requirements: • Non-Fiction Information Text • Increased Lexile-levels / Text Complexity • Text-dependent Questions • Evidence-based writing • Instruction at higher levels of cognitive demand • New Instructional Practices: College & Career Readiness Anchors (ELA/Sci/Soc), and Standards for Math Practices • Linking Skills to Cognitive Demand

14. Lexile® levels today and with Common Core – Rigor Increased 2-3 Grade Levels Current Typical text measures (by grade) Common Core Text complexity grade bands and associated Lexile ranges

15. Percentage distribution of literary and informational passages – Non Fiction is Key Source: National Assessment Governing Board. Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research, 2007.

16. ACT Study – Schmeiser, 2006 Chance of later success Science Mathematics Unprepared in Reading Prepared in Reading 1% 32% 15% 67%

17. Kindergarten Essential vocabulary ELA Math Attribute Decompose Decomposition Composition Hexagon Dimensional Vertices Category • Stanza • Preference • Punctuation • Collaborate • Illustrator • Brainstorm • Punctuation • Non-fiction IN DOE: PARCC Lead

18. To Argue . . . and Inform . . . in Writing CCSS Requires Argument / Evidence-based Writing Distribution of Communicative Purposes by Grade in the 2011 NAEP Writing Framework Source: National Assessment Governing Board (2007). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, pre-publication edition. Iowa City, IA. ACT, Inc. It follows that writing assessments aligned with the Standards should adhere to the distribution of writing purpose across grades outlined by NAEP.

20. 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

22. Deconstruction

23. Change Requires a Brand Deming: To create consistent quality, create constancy of purpose.. (Point 1 in 14 Points) .. With the aim to become competitive, stay in business and provide jobs .. “with the aim to create competitive students, & support business by preparing them for jobs”

24. College & Career Readiness

25. Is It an adequate “Brand”? How do we know if our college and career readiness definition is internationally competitive? ACT conducted a comprehensive analysis of the assessment results of 2,248 US tenth-grade students from 77 high schools across the United States who took a special administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is an international assessment for 15-year-olds, and PLAN® , ACT’s tenth-grade college and career readiness assessment. The analysis identified the PISA score equivalents to PLAN’s college and career readiness benchmark scores in reading and math. From this, we determined if US college and career readiness performance standards are internationally competitive by comparing them with the performance of the highest performing nations.

28. “Brand” or “Philosophy” • Deming: Point 2 – We must adopt the new philosophy – • Leadership must awaken to the challenge • We are in a new age • We must learn new responsibilities • We must take on Leadership for change

29. A Higher Standard • It is no longer sufficient to meet specifications or minimum expectations.. • We must create students that our communities, our country and our competitors boast about.. hold in high esteem.. Identify as excellent

30. Brand + Vision College & Career Readiness is not about something as mundane as a standard.. College & Career Readiness is about Brilliance. Unlocking the Brilliance in every student, by Unleashing the Brilliance in every teacher. Be Competitive. Be Brilliant. Got Brilliance?

31. Today’s text gap Source: Metametrics

32. PRACTICUM QUESTIONs • How will you position the Brand? • How will you help your district ENVISION College & Career Readiness? • How will you illustrate, and motivate others to adopt.. BRILLIANCE!

33. Enterprise Change • If Constancy of Purpose is the First Step to Quality, Motivation to Change is the First Step to Organization Development (Lewin) • Not everyone will change (it’s OK) • Resistance is ugly • Build advocates and change agents

34. How to Motivate CHANGE? (Lewin/ Schein; See Wirth, 2004) • Build on Dissatisfaction (We all agree.. Kid’s skills are not where they should be..) - Diminish the Gap between what is currently accepted as “true” and what is required as “needed”.. If that gap is too big, then more likely to be ignored..

35. Lexile® levels today and with Common Core – Rigor Increased 2-3 Grade Levels Current Typical text measures (by grade) Common Core Text complexity grade bands and associated Lexile ranges

38. Anticipate “Survival Anxiety” • Vestige of old, now invalid thinking • Leads to defensiveness and resistance due to pain of having to UNLEARN and RETHINK • Three stages: Denial (won’t happen), scapegoating and passing the buck (their fault / I’m retiring), maneuvering & bargaining (my kid’s can’t, it isn’t developmentally appropriate, etc)

39. Common Core Challenge • Enterprise (everybody) • Big Steps (Rigor) • Scary Change (New Practices) • Skills Fear (Especially Math) • Consequences? Fired?

40. Lewin/ Lippitt Prescription (See Kritsonis article, Comparison of Change Theories) • Diagnose the Problem • Assess Motivation & Capacity for Change • Assess Resources (skills) and Motivation of Change Agent (Who is YOUR Change Agent?) Commitment? Power? Stamina? • Choose progressive change objects.. • Make Role of Change Agent Clear (Cheerleader, facilitator, expert) • Maintain change: Constant Push, Communication • Gradually release “helping” relationship

41. Questions to Consider • Do you view change as linear or cyclical? • Cyclical change includes a constant success / relapse behavior (like dieting, or quitting smoking) • Either way: Self Efficacy is KEY The confidence to Take Action The confidence to Persist

42. From Theory to Practice

43. Real Experts on Standards Implementation • Originally funded by National Science Foundation • Largest study of Standards Alignment and Efficacy since advent of NCLB • Informs the CCSS • Lessons for our Implementation

44. Process for Implementation • Professional Development for Consistent, Effective Instruction Aligned to Standards • Define Standards • Define Common Curriculum (Master Curriculum) • We look at this in our next lecture on Curriculum Mapping • Predict: The Planning Process Should include Standards Alignment Activity / Forecast • Observe / Analyze: What is the “Reality Check” / Look at Gaps • Interpret: What was the gap, why were there gaps?

45. Choose Your Target(s) • Schools chose Specific Targets for Improvement / Implementation • Ex: Measurement, algebraic thinking, nature of science, hands-on learning • Ex: bottom quartile students, spatial sense • Teachers were implementing enterprise change, but with a Progressive, Focused Approach in a Process • Plan / Forecast • Reality Check / Observe / Analyze • Interpret / Make Sense / Change Activity

46. Conditions for Effectiveness • Allocation of Sufficient Time for Professional Development • Included Saturday Sessions • Consistent PD Participation • School-level leadership that linked the model to other professional development activities • Regular identification and communication of targets for improvement from the analysis

47. CCSSO: Survey of Enacted Curriculum NSF / CCSSO: Misalignment of the content of instruction (instruction or curriculum) accounts for 50% of student achievement variance. Ed Researcher Vol 31, #7

48. Curriculum Alignment • Research shows that a well-articulated curriculum, aligned to standards is critical for student achievement. (Marzano 2003, 2006) • Survey of Enacted Curriculum • Pervasive misalignment of standards and instruction – particularly the level of rigor (CCSSO, 2010) • 50% of the variance in student achievement can be explained by the extent to which curriculum, instruction, and assessment are aligned to state standards (CCSSO, 2004)

49. Compare… Lewin/Lippitt (See Kritsonis article, Comparison of Change Theories) • Diagnose the Problem • Assess Motivation & Capacity for Change • Assess Resources (skills) and Motivation of Change Agent (Who is YOUR Change Agent?) Commitment? Power? Stamina? • Choose progressive change objects.. • Make Role of Change Agent Clear (Cheerleader, facilitator, expert) • Maintain change: Constant Push, Communication • Gradually release “helping” relationship

50. Take Aways What lessons do Deming / Quality Improvement and Lewin / Change Theory and the CCSSO / Survey of Enacted Curriculum have to share with us? What are the implications for our implementation of the Common Core State Standards?