ADP Network Webinar December 1 & 2, 2011

ADP Network WebinarDecember 1 & 2, 2011

2

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.

3

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.

4

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

Common Core Implementation Analysis

6

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

7

• 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 to see, use, and share state materials*

• 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.

The desire for a national marketing or advocacy campaign

Two Needs Surfaced Across the 19 States

8

Monitoring of CCSS Implementation

States are taking various approaches to monitoring how their districts are implementing CCSS.

Series10

5

10

15 9 73

States that are relying only on surveys sent to

attendees of professional

development sessions

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

9

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

10

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.

Curriculum and Instructional Materials

12

Curriculum and Instructional Materials

Most states have plans or are developing plans to change curriculum and instructional materials to align

to the CCSS.

Series10

5

10

1511

62

States that currently have neither a plan nor

one in development

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

13

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

14

Rubrics for Instructional Materials

States are taking mixed approaches in terms of helping districts choose instructional materials that are aligned

to CCSS.

Series10

5

10

15 9 10

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 state-developed 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.

Partnerships

16

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 materialsAligned instructional materials and rubrics to determine alignmentImplementation plan and checklistCross-state sharing and more multi-state conveningsHelp with legislative issues

Challenges

18

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

Cross-State Conversation

20

Laura SloverSenior Vice PresidentPARCClslover@achieve.org

Stephen PruittVice PresidentContent, Research & Developmentspruitt@achieve.org

Alissa PeltzmanDirectorState Leadership & Policy Developmentapeltzman@achieve.org