Curricular & Instructional Tools aligned to CCSS

Report
ADP Network Webinar
December 1 & 2, 2011
State Collaboration to Produce and Pool
Quality Instructional Materials
Tri-State Consortium (MA, NY, RI)
April, September, and October 2011 meetings
States have very different and strong opinions of what comprises an
“instructional unit”; rubrics must be constructed to show quality regardless of
how the units are arranged.
States are piloting the rubrics by evaluating previously-developed units.
Protocols for calibration will be developed. Each state has committed to bring
teams of 3-4 members outside of the SEA to quarterly meetings to review
samples of units developed by each state.
States will be able to pool their respective instructional units with assurances
of high quality – a tremendous service to teachers.
This will also provide each state with a group of individuals who are able to
certify instructional materials as quality.
2
Lessons Learned
States are on very different timelines and have differing priorities and
requirements when in comes to developing instructional materials.
Quality review can be done regardless of how each state defines the
components of a unit. Rather, it is done based on key priorities of quality as
opposed to a checklist of various components.
It is a better use of states’ collective efforts to develop a rubric and protocols
to collectively review the quality of materials developed by each individual
state or their contractors.
3
Other Achieve work to Evaluate
Quality of Educational Resources
To help states, districts, teachers, and other users align resources to the
CCSS and determine the quality of electronic resources (e.g., applets,
lessons, practice problems, units, online textbooks, support materials),
Achieve created a series of evaluation rubrics.
The rubrics can be applied across content areas; at this point the CCSS for
English/Language Arts and Mathematics are available in the tool.
Achieve worked with the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in
Education (ISKME) to create an online tool that allows the rater to identify,
evaluate, and sort objects based on quality.
OER Commons is now hosting the tool and its resulting evaluation data on
(www.oercommons.org). ISKME is also providing technical support to other
organizations who would like to use the rubrics for resources found outside of
OER Commons, ensuring a rich dataset of Common Core aligned content
across the Web.
More information is available at http://www.achieve.org/oer-rubrics
4
Common Core
Implementation
Analysis
Analysis of CCSS Implementation in 19
States
Arkansas (AR)
Maine (ME)
Colorado (CO)
Massachusetts (MA)*
District of Columbia (DC)*
Maryland (MD)*
Delaware (DE)*
New Jersey (NJ)
Florida (FL)*
New York (NY)*
Georgia (GA)*
North Carolina (NC)*
Hawaii (HI)*
Ohio (OH)*
Indiana (IN)
Rhode Island (RI)*
Kentucky (KY)
Tennessee (TN)*
Louisiana (LA)
Total: 19 states reviewed
*Race to the Top Winner
6
Two Needs Surfaced Across the 19 States
The desire to see, use, and share state materials*
• States are clamoring to see what their peers are creating—either because they
don’t want to reinvent the wheel, or because they seek exemplary work they can
adapt. Examples:
• Rubrics to ensure alignment of instructional materials
• Webinars introducing the new assessments
• Some states will reach across state lines for assistance, but many expect
Achieve and/or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) to facilitate this document sharing.
The desire for a national marketing or advocacy campaign
• States voice a need to create urgency around the standards, raise awareness
among parents and stakeholders, and convince teachers that the standards
really do represent new expectations.
• Many states—including those with histories of college- and career-ready
reforms—call for a national marketing campaign that could begin in 2012 to lay
the groundwork for full implementation in 2014.
7
Monitoring of CCSS Implementation
States are taking various approaches to monitoring
how their districts are implementing CCSS.
15
9
7
10
3
5
0
States that have
created or will create
processes or tools to
gauge how districts are
executing the CCSS
States that currently are
not monitoring their
districts for fidelity of
CCSS implementation,
or they have not yet
developed plans to do
so even if they want to
have this feedback loop
States that are relying
only on surveys sent to
attendees of
professional
development sessions
8
Educator Engagement
Nearly every state said teachers, principals, or content specialists
are involved in some way in CCSS implementation.
The most common ways of engaging educators are:
Serving on committees or panels in English or math to conduct gap analyses, review
the standards, crosswalk current standards with CCSS, etc.
Writing curriculum, model instructional units, sample lesson plans, etc.
Leading professional development sessions as master teachers
Serving on school-based leadership teams to attend professional development
sessions about the CCSS, then returning to their school to train other teachers
Piloting assessment items, formative assessments, and instructional materials
Videotaping exemplary lessons modeled by teachers
9
Professional Development
All 19 states had plans or are developing plans for professional
development, including training activities or materials intended to
inform educators about the CCSS and how they compare to and
contrast with the state’s current standards.
Most of the activities are a mix of online and face-to-face trainings, “train the trainer” sessions, or
regional forums.
10
Curriculum and
Instructional
Materials
Curriculum and Instructional Materials
Most states have plans or are developing plans to
change curriculum and instructional materials to align
to the CCSS.
15
11
6
10
2
5
0
States that are
changing or have
developed plans to
change curriculum and
instructional materials
States that are in the
process of developing
plans, or will rely on
PARCC for materials
States that currently
have neither a plan nor
one in development
12
Curriculum and Instructional Materials
There are many nuances to how states are developing curriculum
and instructional materials. For example:
Full curriculum
Model instructional units with or without lesson plans
Curriculum maps
Lesson study
Guidance
13
Rubrics for Instructional Materials
States are taking mixed approaches in terms of helping
districts choose instructional materials that are aligned
to CCSS.
•
15
9
10
10
•
5
0
States that currently do
not have a rubric that
schools and districts can
use to determine whether
instructional materials are
aligned with the CCSS
States that do have a
rubric or process
•
Seven are using statedeveloped rubrics or
are vetting materials at
the state level.
Two are using rubrics
from the Council of
Chief State School
Officers or vendors
under contract.
One is urging districts
to use its CCSS-aligned
curriculum frameworks
as the rubric.
14
Partnerships
Partnerships
Many—but not all—states see the need for partnerships with other
states as they move forward with CCSS implementation.
Overall, some trends in state partnerships emerged:
Background materials
Aligned instructional materials and rubrics to determine alignment
Implementation plan and checklist
Cross-state sharing and more multi-state convenings
Help with legislative issues
16
Challenges
Challenges
States identified many common challenges as they implement
CCSS:
Staff capacity
Connections with other reforms
Engagement of higher education
Engagement of business/industry
Awareness and urgency
18
Cross-State
Conversation
Laura Slover
Senior Vice President
PARCC
[email protected]
Stephen Pruitt
Vice President
Content, Research & Development
[email protected]
Alissa Peltzman
Director
State Leadership & Policy Development
[email protected]
20

similar documents