The Common Core State Standards and English Language Learners

1. The Common Core State Standards and English Language Learners Presenter: Giselle Lundy-Ponce AFT Washington, DC glundypo@aft.org

2. Goals of this Presentation • Provide an introduction to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). • Share information about the supports that ELLs will need to meet the CCSS, and the new roles for teachers and educators of ELLs in the era of the CCSS. • Give strategies and resources to include ELLs in the CCSS.

3. Four Stages How would you rate where you are at with the Common Core State Standards? • 1.Still Wondering: formulating questions • 2. Forming More Awareness: gathering information and discussing possibilities • 3. Skill Building: Actually engaged in professional discussions and/or professional development around the CCSS • 4. Application: Actually implementing the CCSS

4. What are Standards? Standards define the common knowledge and skills students must acquire in each subject in each grade • They articulate goals for student achievement • They serve as the basis for developing the curriculum to prepare students to meet the standards • They serve as the basis for developing assessments to determine if the standards are met

5. AFT Policy • 1983 – “A Nation at Risk” • AFT Resolutions • 1992 – National Education Standards and Assessments • 1996 – A System of High Standards: What we mean and why we mean it • 2002 – Achieving the Goals of Standards-Based Reform • 2011 – Recommendations of the AFT Ad Hoc Committee on Standards Rollout

6. How Were the Standards Developed?

7. The Common Core State Standards Initiative • 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

8. Why Common Core State Standards?

9. Educational Disconnect • The text complexity of K-12 textbooks has become increasingly "easier" over the last 50 years. There have been steep declines in average sentence length and vocabulary level in reading textbooks. • The text demands of college and careers have remained consistent or increased over the same time period. College students are expected to read complex text with greater independence than are high school students. • As a result, there is a significant gap between students' reading abilities and the text demands of their postsecondary pursuits. Research shows that this gap is equal to a Lexile difference between grade 4 and grade 8 texts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

10. Common Core State Standards Design Building on the strength of current state standards, the CCSS are designed to be: • Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous • Fewer, clearer, higher-level • Internationally benchmarked • Anchored in college and career readiness* • Evidence and research based *Ready for first-year credit-bearing, postsecondary coursework in mathematics and English without the need for remediation.

11. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base 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

12. 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. • English language arts • Australia • New South Wales • Victoria • Canada • Alberta • British Columbia • Ontario • England • Finland • Hong Kong • Ireland • Singapore Mathematics Belgium (Flemish) Canada (Alberta) China Chinese Taipei England Finland Hong Kong India Ireland Japan Korea Singapore

13. Common Core State Standards forEnglish Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards • Overarching standards for each strand that are further defined by grade-specific standards • Grade-Level Standards in English Language Arts • K-8, grade-by-grade • 9-10 and 11-12 grade bands for high school • Four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language • Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • Standards are embedded at grades K-5 • Content-specific literacy standards are provided for grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12

14. Common Core State Standards forMathematics • Grade-Level Standards • K-8 grade-by-grade standards organized by domain • 9-12 high school standards organized by conceptual categories • The K- 8 standards: • The K-5 standards provide students with a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals • The 6-8 standards describe robust learning in geometry, algebra, and probability and statistics • Modeled after the focus of standards from high-performing nations, the standards for grades 7 and 8 include significant algebra and geometry content • Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills will be prepared for algebra, in 8th grade or after

15. Common Core State Standards forMathematics The high school mathematics standards: • Call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real world issues and challenges • Require students to develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly are called to do • Emphasize mathematical modeling, the use of mathematics and statistics to analyze empirical situations, understand them better, and improve decisions • Identify the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college and career ready.

16. Overview of Reading Strand • Reading • Progressive development of reading comprehension; students gain more from what they read • Emphasize the importance of grade-level texts that are of appropriate difficulty and are increasingly sophisticated • Standards for Reading Foundational Skills (K-5) • Reading Standards for Literature (K-12) • Reading Standards for Informational Text (K-12) • Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies (6-12) • Reading Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects (6-12)

17. Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

18. 6 Shifts in Math 6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy Focus Coherence Fluency Deep Understanding Applications Dual Intensity Balancing Informational and Literary Text Building Knowledge in the Disciplines Staircase of Complexity Text-based Answers Writing from Sources Academic Vocabulary Shifts in the CCSS

19. Process and Timeline • Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics (See www.corestandards.org for list of team members) • External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process • Draft K-12 standards were released for public comment on March 10, 2010; 9,600 comments received • Validation Committee of leading experts reviews standards • Final standards were released June 2, 2010

20. Feedback and Review External and State Feedback teams included: • K-12 teachers • Postsecondary faculty • State curriculum and assessments experts • Researchers • National organizations (including, but not limited, to):

21. AFT Teacher Participation • Work Team • 5 AFT members • Feedback Team • 3 AFT members • Validation Committee • 1 AFT member • AFT’s Standards Review Team • 30 AFT members

22. AFT’s Voices of Support Posted on YouTube Search under “Teachers Help Develop Common Core Standards” or under “AFTHQ” (AFT’s YouTube Channel) • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRH_bJF2XwU&list=UUdaoJ8gUQ12aLC5kZFwUbRQ&index=3&feature=plcp

23. Intentional Design Limitations 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 Citation: www.corestandards.org/

24. Recommendations from the AFT’s Ad Hoc Committee on Standards Rollout for Proper Implementation

25. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Design and development • Meaningful involvement of teachers and other stakeholders • Inclusion of all disciplines • Commitment to early consideration of ALL students

26. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Shift in Culture • A shift away from excessive testing and test preparation • Implement the standards as part of a quality, coherent, consistent system • 360-degree accountability system

27. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Curriculum • Options of rich curricula that serve as thoughtful guides for teachers • Curricula should not be prescriptive or scripted, and must allow appropriate teacher autonomy

28. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Professional Development • Time for all to participate in appropriate professional development • Access to high quality pre-service and in-service professional development

29. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Instructional Tools, Time and Resources • Curricular choices • Quality teacher developed model lesson plans and exemplars of model instructional strategies • Equitable access to modern technology

30. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS Assessments • High quality, aligned, appropriate, timely assessments that are not used excessively or punitively.

31. AFT recommendations: Proper Rollout of CCSS • Take a proactive, positive approach to improving public education • Level the playing field • Ensure that teacher voice is interwoven throughout • Work collaboratively to ensure lasting change

32. What Do the CCSS Mean for ELLs?

33. Existing Challenges • ELLs will have a wide gap to bridge to reach the CCSS • Most ELLs score at the “Below Basic” level on NAEP (71% in 4th grade / 75% in 8th grade & 78% in 12th grade) in reading • ELLs do not usually have exposure to complex texts • ELLs have the highest dropout rate of all groups – 43 percent

34. Implications for ELLs • Mainstream and specialized educators must collaborate so that ELLs acquire English language proficiency and grade-appropriate content area knowledge simultaneously • ELLs will meet language arts standards according to their English proficiency levels and grade-by grade progress for these students in language arts needs to take this into consideration

35. Implications for ELLs • ELLs are a heterogeneous group and effectively educating these students requires diagnosing each student instructionally, adjusting instruction to meet their needs and strengths, and monitoring their progress

36. Implications for ELLs “The NGA Center for Best Practices and CCSSO strongly believe that all students should be held to the same high expectations outlined in the CCSS. This includes students who are ELLs. However, these students may require additional time, appropriate instructional support, and aligned assessments as they acquire both English language proficiency and content area knowledge.” From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

37. Implications for ELLs The vision is for ELLs “to be able to participate on equal footing with native speakers in all aspects of social, economic, and civic endeavors” From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

38. Implications for ELLs To help ELLs meet high academic standards in language arts it is essential that they have access to: • Teachers and personnel at the school and district levels who are well prepared and qualified to support ELLs while taking advantage of the many strengths and skills they bring to the classroom • Literacy-rich school environments where students are immersed in a variety of language experiences From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

39. Implications for ELLs To help ELLs meet high academic standards in language arts it is essential that they have access to: • Instruction that develops foundational skills in English and enables ELLs to participate fully in grade-level coursework • Coursework that prepares ELLs for postsecondary education or the workplace, yet is made comprehensible for students learning content in a second language (through specific pedagogical techniques and additional resources) From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

40. Implications for ELLs To help ELLs meet high academic standards in language arts it is essential that they have access to: • Opportunities for classroom discourse and interaction that are well-designed to enable ELLs to develop communicative strengths in language arts • Ongoing assessment and feedback to guide learning • Peers and tutors who know the language well enough to provide ELLs with models and support From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

41. Implications for ELLs To help ELLs meet high academic standards in language arts it is essential that they have access to: • Opportunities to communicate mathematically and scientifically—this is not primarily a matter of learning vocabulary. Students learn to participate in mathematical and scientific reasoning, not by learning vocabulary, but by making conjectures, presenting explanations, and/or constructing arguments From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

42. Implications for ELLs To help ELLs meet high academic standards in language arts it is essential that they have access to: • Vocabulary learning that occurs through instructional environments that are language-rich, actively involve students in using language, require that students both understand spoken or written words and also express that understanding orally and in writing, and require students to use words in multiple ways over extended periods of time. From “Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners”

43. Implications for ELLs The CCSS Will Require Students to: • Participate actively • Persevere and develop stamina • Formulate questions • Investigate • Pose explanations • Develop and write logical arguments with evidence • Think creatively • Work independently

44. The simultaneous pursuit of language and content acquisition is absolutely necessary for students' success

45. Why Teach Language with Content? • How the brain acquires language • Content is more accessible and comprehensible • Better use of time in a standards-based approach

46. How to Teach Language with Content? • Building background • Comprehensible input • Strategies for success • Practice and application • Frequent, formative assessment

47. What does this look like?Video Clip from Colorín Colorado“Watch and Learn” Serieshttp://www.colorincolorado.org/multimedia/learn See “Story set-up: Pre-reading strategies for comprehension” video of teacher Michelle Lawrence Biggar

48. Some Strategies

49. Tips for Working With the CCSS • Select complex texts for students—these texts include words with multiple meanings (e.g. great, party, table, etc.) idioms (e.g., “hit a homerun”, “opened up a Pandora's box”, “break a leg”) , formulaic expressions (e.g. “to my knowledge”, “in my opinion”, “no matter what”, “by the same token”) • Build on prior knowledge • Build on background knowledge

50. Tips for Working With the CCSS According to Lilly Wong Fillmore • We must become “contrarian thinkers” “I’m reminded of Hank Levin’s approach to educating “at risk” students––Accelerate rather than remediate. That might seem like contrarian thinking in the case of English learners––how could students who have to learn the school language possibly manage the kind of complexity being promoted in the CCS document? I would argue that the only way students can gain the complex language skills needed for doing anything in school is by working with complex demanding materials.”