1 / 35

Understanding the ELA Common Core State Standards

Understanding the ELA Common Core State Standards. CCGPS. The Common Core State Standards Initiative.

leighna
Download Presentation

Understanding the ELA Common Core State Standards

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Understanding the ELA Common Core State Standards CCGPS

  2. 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 • Source: http://www.achieve.org 2

  3. Why Common Core State Standards? • Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. • Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. • Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code. • Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. • Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials. • Source: www.achieve.org 3

  4. Process and Timeline • K-12 Common Standards: • 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 • Georgia adopted on July 8, 2010. Georgia’s version is called Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS). 4

  5. Feedback and Review • External and State Feedback teams included: • K-12 teachers • Postsecondary faculty • State curriculum and assessments experts • Researchers 5

  6. American Council on Education (ACE) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Campaign for High School Equity (CHSE) Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) Modern Language Association (MLA) National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) National Education Association (NEA) Source: www.achieve.org Feedback and Review: National Organizations (including, but not limited, to):

  7. Common Core State Standards Design • Building on the strength of current state standards, the CCSS are designed to be: • Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous • 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. 7

  8. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base • Evidence was used to guide critical decisions in the following areas: • Inclusion of particular content • Timing of when content should be introduced and the progression of that content • Ensuring focus and coherence • Organizing and formatting the standards • Determining emphasis on particular topics in standards 8

  9. 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

  10. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base Mathematics Belgium (Flemish) Canada (Alberta) China Chinese Taipei England Finland Hong Kong India Ireland Japan Korea Singapore • English language arts • Australia • New South Wales • Victoria • Canada • Alberta • British Columbia • Ontario • England • Finland • Hong Kong • Ireland • Singapore Writing teams looked for examples of rigor, coherence, and progression. They examined content, structure, and language. 10

  11. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/ Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

  12. 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 (32 total) 10 for Reading 10 for Writing 6 for Language 6 for Listening and Speaking (Let’s take a look!) 12

  13. 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 Common Core State Standards forEnglish Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

  14. Overview of Text Complexity • Reading Standards include over exemplar texts (stories and literature, poetry, and informational texts) that illustrate appropriate level of complexity by grade • Text complexity is defined by: Qualitative measures – levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands Quantitative measures – readability and other scores of text complexity Quantitative Qualitative Reader and Task – background knowledge of reader, motivation, interests, and complexity generated by tasks assigned Reader and Task 14

  15. Examine the Layout of the Document • Format highlights progression of standards across grades

  16. Reading Comprehension (standards 1−9) • Standards for reading literature and informational texts • Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on students’ ability to read and comprehend informational texts • Aligned with NAEP Reading framework Range of reading and level of text complexity(standard 10, Appendices A and B) • “Staircase” of growing text complexity across grades • High-quality literature and informational texts in a range of genres and subgenres

  17. Reading Foundational Skills Four categories (standards 1−4) Print concepts (K−1) Phonological awareness (K−1) Phonics and word recognition (K−5) Fluency (K−5) Not an end in and of themselves Differentiated instruction

  18. Reading Standards for Literature Grade 3: Describe characters in a story (e.g., their traits, motivations, or feelings) and explain how their actions contribute to the sequence of events. Grade 7: Analyze how particular elements of a story or drama interact (e.g., how setting shapes the characters or plot) Grades 11-12: Evaluate various explanations for characters’ actions or for events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain. Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading: CCR Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

  19. Reading Standards for Informational Text Grade 3: Describe the relationships between a series of historical events, scientific ideas of concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect. Grade 7: Analyze the interactions between individuals, events, and ideas in a text (e.g., how ideas influence individuals or events, or how individuals influence ideas or events). Grades 11-12: Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over the course of the text. Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading: CCR Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

  20. Overview of Writing Strand Writing • Expect students to compose arguments and opinions, informative/explanatory pieces, and narrative texts • Focus on the use of reason and evidence to substantiate an argument or claim • Emphasize ability to conduct research – short projects and sustained inquiry • Require students to incorporate technology as they create, refine, and collaborate on writing • Include student writing samples that illustrate the criteria required to meet the standards (See standards’ appendices for writing samples) 20

  21. Writing Writing types/purposes (standards 1−3) Writing arguments Writing informative/explanatory texts Writing narratives Strong and growing across-the-curriculum emphasis on students writing arguments and informative/explanatory texts Aligned with NAEP Writing framework

  22. Writing Production and distribution of writing (standards 4−6) Developing and strengthening writing Using technology to produce and enhance writing Research (standards 7−9) Engaging in research and writing about sources Range of writing (standard 10) Writing routinely over various time frames

  23. Speaking and Listening Focus on speaking and listening in a range of settings, both formal and informal – academic, small-group, whole-class discussions Emphasize effective communication practices Require interpretation and analysis of message as presented through oral, visual, or multimodal formats Language Include conventions for writing and speaking Highlight the importance of vocabulary acquisition through a mix of conversation, direct instruction, and reading To be addressed in context of reading, writing, speaking and listening Media and Technology are integrated throughout the standards. Overview of Speaking and Listeningand Language Strands:

  24. Speaking and Listening Comprehension and collaboration (standards 1−3) Day-to-day, purposeful academic talk in one-on-one, small-group, and large-group settings Presentation of knowledge and ideas (standards 4−6) Formal sharing of information and concepts, including through the use of technology

  25. Language Conventions of standard English Knowledge of language (standards 1−3) Using standard English in formal writing and speaking Using language effectively and recognizing language varieties Vocabulary (standards 4−6) Determining word meanings and word nuances Acquiring general academic and domain-specific words and phrases

  26. Key Advances Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Text complexity Writing Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing Writing about sources Speaking and Listening Inclusion of formal and informal talk Language Stress on general academic and domain-specific vocabulary

  27. Reading Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Knowledge of domain-specific vocabulary Analyze, evaluate, and differentiate primary and secondary sources Synthesize quantitative and technical information, including facts presented in maps, timelines, flowcharts, or diagrams Writing Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Write arguments on discipline-specific content and informative/explanatory texts Use of data, evidence, and reason to support arguments and claims Use of domain-specific vocabulary Overview of Standards for History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

  28. Key Advances Standards for reading and writing in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects • Complement rather than replace content standards in those subjects • Responsibility of teachers in those subjects Alignment with college and career readiness expectations

  29. Supporting ELA Documents • Appendix A—Research Document • Appendix B---Text Exemplars and Performance Tasks • Appendix C---Writing Exemplars • http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

  30. DOE Proposed Timeline (Subject to Change) •2010 - 2011  - Administrator Professional Learning/Resource Development •2011-2012-  Teacher Professional Learning for CCGPS and resources supporting “Bridging the Gap” (Transition for standards that shifted to different grade levels) •2012-2013 – ELA and Math CCGPS Year 1 Implementation (Transition Standards) •2013-2014 –  ELA and Math CCGPS Year 2 Implementation; Field Test •2014-2015 – ELA and Math  CCGPS Year 3 Implementation and Common Assessment

  31. Keep Informed and Provide Input • The DOE team will conduct webinars for educators, so they can provide input as to the 15% that Georgia can add to the existing CCSS document. • Georgia educators will determine the 15% of the GPS to be added.

  32. 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.

  33. Conclusion Standards: Important but insufficient To be effective in improving education and getting all students ready for college, workforce training, and life, the Standards must be partnered with a content-rich curriculum and robust assessments, both aligned to the Standards.

  34. Resources Slides were extracted from the following Power Points: • http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Common_Core_Standards_June_2010_Webinar_Final_v_2.ppt#410,34,Conclusion • http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSJune22010FINAL.ppt

  35. Any Questions? CSRA-RESA PLC Meeting August 27, 2010

More Related