Common Core Standards Come to Nevada: Common Core Standards Come to - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Common Core Standards Come to Nevada: Common Core Standards Come to Nevada: Implications for Students with Disabilities

Anne H. Davidson Nevada Department of Education Nevada Department of Education A presentation to the National Conference on Student Assessment Detroit, 2010

Overview Overview

 Walk through the story of Common Core State Standards

(CCS) coming to Nevada

 Share the results of an inquiry we conducted to support our

Race to the Top application process Race to the Top application process

 Review implications of CCS for students with disabilities

Review implications of CCS for students with disabilities (SWD)

Nevada’s Story Nevada’s Story

Late 2009

 Nevada discusses whether and how to adopt the CCS.

NDE l h l i b h CCS d h

 NDE sets out to evaluate the relation between the CCS and the

Nevada Content Standards (NCS) as basis for planning, budgeting, RTTT activities, etc.

2010

 J  January

 CCS committee requests feedback from states.  NDE conducts preliminary, qualitative review of Draft 1 by NDE

staff and field experts.

Nevada’s Story Nevada’s Story

2010

 February

 CCS committee releases Draft 2 and requests specific responses from

states. NDE l d d b d d i di b i di

 NDE completes a standard-by-standard, indicator-by-indicator

evaluation of Draft 2.  March

 Stakeholders review the NDE evaluation results for agreement and  Stakeholders review the NDE evaluation results for agreement and

reasonableness and provide feedback on implications.

 NDE and stakeholders recommend adoption of CCS 100% without

addition.  April – May

 Nevada formally adopts the CCS.  NDE drafts potential rollout plans in conjunction with the Phase II

RTTT application.

February Draft 2 Evaluation February Draft-2 Evaluation

 I iti l f

i ti

 Initial focusing questions

• To what degree do the Nevada Math and ELA standards “match” the CCS?
• To what degree do the Math and ELA standards “match” the CCS by grade-level

expectation?

 Completed by NDE content specialists  I di t

l l i

 Indicator-level review  Not an alignment analysis (i.e., no determination of DOK

alignment) alignment)

 Dichotomous determination of “match” (yes/no)

R lt f D ft 2 E l ti f M t h Results of Draft-2 Evaluation of Match

NDE specialists found no exact matches due to the difference in the language and degree of specificity, but they did find a significant match

• f content and skills.

N Math CCS 649 N ELA CCS 971 N Math CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 487 N ELA CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 725 % Math CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 75.0 % ELA CCS th t t h d t l t N d t d d 74 7 % ELA CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard 74.7

March Stakeholder Review March Stakeholder Review

 Initial focusing questions

• To what degree did the NDE judgments agree with stakeholder judgments?
• What did stakeholders recommend regarding the potential adoption of the CCS

in Nevada?

 49 participants representing districts, regional PD programs, and

IHE

 4-7 participants per grade span group  Indicators level review  Specific agreement decision rules used to collect concurrence data  Specific agreement decision rules used to collect concurrence data  Allowed for other qualitative notes

Grade level Evaluation Math Grade-level Evaluation - Math

CCS Grade Level NCS Grade Level Total K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS All Codes K 11 11 1 34 8 42 2 11 28 15 54 2 54 3 1 8 14 13 1 1 38 4 2 1 3 32 14 2 3 57 5 1 1 6 18 16 10 1 5 58 6 1 4 18 47 28 2 3 6 109 7 1 2 3 11 9 25 2 7 60 8 2 1 1 5 17 30 11 67 8 2 1 1 5 17 30 11 67 12 1 6 10 116 133

Grade level Evaluation ELA Grade-level Evaluation - ELA

NCS Grade CCS Grade Level Grade Level Total K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10 11-12 All Codes K 106 3 1 2 1 113 1 10 106 2 1 119 2 9 10 96 8 2 4 1 1 131 3 3 3 12 121 8 5 4 3 1 5 5 170 4 3 4 2 9 99 6 16 10 16 16 14 195 5 4 5 1 3 102 42 32 28 24 21 262 6 1 1 2 2 132 40 28 25 23 254 7 1 1 2 4 124 29 15 25 201 8 1 1 3 5 2 12 137 30 31 222 H 36 15 51 12 1 1 1 1 2 79 84 169

Findings

Differences in Grade-Level Expectations: CCS to NV Standards

Findings

• With some exception, skills

400 450

were judged to appear in the CCS at earlier grade levels than in the NCS.

300 350 400 Match

• For ELA, instances occurred

in which mastery of certain CCS skills were expected at a lower d l l i h NCS h i

150 200 250 Instance of GL M

grade level in the NCS than in the CCS.

• For Math in high school,

50 100

g , NCS appeared to require mastery of content that was more rigorous than in the CCS h STEM t d d t

CCS more rigorous than NVS NVS more rigorous than CCS CCS more rigorous than NVS NVS more rigorous than CCS

when STEM standards were not considered.

g g ELA 201 408 Math 314 44

Findings Findings

I l ti i t In general, participants

• believed that the match between CCS and NCS was

positive and endorsed statewide adoption;

• believed that the expectations in the CCS were

d l ll i d ibl ll developmentally-appropriate and accessible to all students;

• noted that increased rigor had significant implications for

g g p professional development;

• acknowledged limitations of current resources (e.g.,

t t tb k th t d t t t d kill t th current textbooks that do not cover content and skills at the grade levels indicated in the CCS).

Findings Findings

S ti i t Some participants

• felt the endorsement of technology opened doors for

gy p students who were more visual in their learning;

• felt that the increased clarity and provision of examples in

h CCS ld h l l h d d if i h the CCS would help users apply these standards if given the needed tools;

• expressed concern for students, including SWD, who

p , g , might be left behind by the rapid pace set by the CCS;

• noted the CCS emphasis on technology in middle school

d hi h h l b t f lt th d d t b t and high school but felt there needed to be greater emphasis on technology at earlier grade levels.

Implications for SWD Rigor Implications for SWD - Rigor

1

Instances e isted here master of certain CCS skills ere

1.

Instances existed where mastery of certain CCS skills were expected at a higher grade level in the NCS than in the CCS,

suggesting that the CCS are indeed more rigorous than the NCS.

• The distribution of these differences may indicate that the impact of

increased rigor is greatest at the elementary grades. Such impact could suggest particular challenges for SWD in the early grades when identification of specific disabilities can be confused with developmental identification of specific disabilities can be confused with developmental effects or misdiagnoses.

• Changes in the level of rigor and the introduction of new skills at earlier

d ld h h d k ll grades could create scenarios in which students miss necessary skills in critical learning progressions. This scenario could have particular, negative consequences to SWD.

Implications for SWD Assistance Implications for SWD - Assistance

Th NCS l d h h “ h ”

2.

The NCS includes the phrase “with assistance” to some standards, whereas the CCS did not use this language.

• Differences in the CCS’ stance toward assistance could have implications for

SWD and their learning and assessment opportunities.

• Removal of assistance options could remove opportunities from scaffolding
• f skill or knowledge.
• CCS discussion of college and career readiness de-emphasizes process

standards (e.g., writing standards) and emphasizes mastery. Such emphases may make it more difficult to diagnose where SWD are on given learning progressions. progressions.

I li ti f SWD P d Implications for SWD - Preparedness

3.

A 75% match between CCS and NCS suggests that Nevada schools are prepared for adoption of CCS to some degree. However, the relative preparedness for implementation of the CCS depends on:

• degree of alignment (e.g., relative overlap of content and complexity

expectations);

• direction of match (e.g., whether the CCS are more inclusive and cover

more content than the state standards or vice versa);

• whether educators are successfully using the state standards for all students

already;

• how educators will unpack the CCS effectively for SWD.

Implications for SWD PD Implications for SWD – PD

4

Successful and equitable implementation of the CCS depends on

4.

Successful and equitable implementation of the CCS depends on professional development with particular focus on SWD.

• The advent of the CCS puts new pressure on LEAs to unpack standards
• The advent of the CCS puts new pressure on LEAs to unpack standards

effectively and at grade level for all students, including SWD.

• Differences in grade-level rigor could require a significant shift in

i l i t ti d t d i Thi hift ld h ifi curriculum, instruction, and assessment design. This shift could have specific consequences for SWD if the presentation of learning progressions differentially supports certain groups of students, learning styles, or are

• therwise biased toward particular learning needs.
• Standards will only be as effective as the capacity of teachers and test

developers to translate the standards into effective, differentiated instruction and assessment for all students. Given the huge task of interpreting the new g p g set of standards, capacity could be a bottleneck without necessary resource and support.

Implications for SWD Technology Implications for SWD - Technology

5

The CCS’ emphasis on technology and digital media support

5.

The CCS emphasis on technology and digital media support universally-designed curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

• Technology could open doors for students with specific learning styles and
• Technology could open doors for students with specific learning styles and
• needs. For example, students who were more visual in their learning could

benefit from technology solutions.

• T h

l l ti d di it l di ill b fit SWD l th

• Technology solutions and digital media will benefit SWD as long as they are

built with universal design principles (e.g., multiple means of representation, expression and engagement) to be inclusive and accessible.

• While technology solutions are embedded into the CCS at middle school

and high school, Nevadans emphasized the need for technology-enhanced instruction and assessments at earlier grade levels is necessary as well.

• Concerns remain about the necessary infrastructure to support technological

requirements of the CCS-aligned instruction and assessment.

I li ti f SWD C di ti Implications for SWD – Coordination

I l f h CCS d d d f

6.

Implementation of the CCS demands intensive coordination of system elements in order to support SWD.

• Until we move to a more coordinate system to support standards-based

IEPs, differentiated instruction, universal design in instruction, teachers will be responsible for untenable, disconnected and onerous workloads and l k h h d struggle to make it through a day at a time.

• Limitations of current resources (e.g., current textbooks or data sources that

d d kill h d l l i di d i h CCS) do not cover content and skills at the grade levels indicated in the CCS) threaten the successful transition to CCS. Coordinated efforts to supply efforts is essential.

Implications for SWD Assessment Implications for SWD - Assessment

7

C h i t t li d t th CCS ld h

7.

Comprehensive assessment systems aligned to the CCS could have positive outcomes for SWD.

• Having assessments aligned to the CCS will allow for cross-state

comparisons of results.

• C

t t d i i t ti ill i th t h i l lit f t

• Cross-state administrations will improve the technical quality of assessment

systems previously limited by small sample sizes and provide better evaluation of bias, construct stability, and comparability.

• Measuring student ability closer to the time of instruction (e.g., formative,

interim/benchmark, through-course) could mitigate changes in rigor at each grade level.

Conclusions Conclusions

I h C C S S d d l h f f

 Inspecting the Common Core State Standards in light of a set of

state content standards helped tease out specific implications for students with disabilities.

 Positive implications include:

• positive match between CCS and state standards suggesting a degree
• positive match between CCS and state standards, suggesting a degree
• f state preparedness,
• emphasis on technology integration could promise new opportunities

for SWD and for SWD, and

• potential for improved assessment systems could particularly benefit

SWD.

Conclusions Conclusions

 Negative implications include:

• differences in rigor and grade-level sequencing of skills and

knowledge could be particularly problematic for SWD knowledge could be particularly problematic for SWD,

• concern that not all teachers are using the state standards

currently could suggest a lack of preparedness, and

• limitations of capacity, resources, and system coordination

could threaten a successful rollout of the CCS for SWD.

Thank you! Special thanks to Lisa Ford and Cindy Sharp C Contact: Anne Davidson adavidson@doe.nv.gov