In Intr troductions Melissa Colsman, Associate Commissioner, - - PDF document

2/7/2017 1

Upcoming Standards Review and Revision Process Melissa Colsman, Ph.D. Karol Gates February 2, 2017

• Melissa Colsman, Associate Commissioner,

Student Learning Division

• Karol Gates, Director, Office of Standards and

Instructional Support In Intr troductions

2

2/7/2017 2

• To provide participants with information

about the state plans for the standards revision process and how local boards of education, parents, and community members can be involved in the process

• To gather input on the standards review and

revision process Pu Purpose

3

The The Rela latio tionship ip to to St Standar andards to to Cl Classr assroo

• om

In Instruction

Standards Curriculum Curriculum Instruction Instruction

Broad goals articulating what students should know, understand, and be able to do over a given time period.

• An organized plan of instruction: a

sequence of instructional units.

• Can be a published program or

district developed Learning experiences designed to meet the needs of students.

State Local Districts

2/7/2017 3

Wh What at Ar Are the the Legisla Legislativ ive Requir quirements fo for the the Color Colorado do Ac Academ ademic ic St Stand andards? s?

5

• 2008: CAP4K passes; school readiness and postsecondary workforce

readiness defined by the State Board of Education

• 2009: Standards revision process conducted; new standards adopted in

all ten content areas (called the Colorado Academic Standards)

• 2010: Assessment system attributes defined; Common Core State

Standards in mathematics and English/language arts adopted; standards in these two content areas reissued

• 2011‐13: Transition process to new standards and assessments
• 2013‐14: Full implementation of standards and continued transition to

new assessment system

• July 1, 2018: The first review and revision cycle for the Colorado

Academic Standards is set to conclude (and every six years thereafter)

CAP4K CAP4K Tim Timeline line

6

2/7/2017 4

The Colorado Academic Standards must:

• Minimally include: reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography,

visual arts, performing arts, physical education, world languages, English language competency, economics, civics, financial literacy

• HB 16‐1198 requires addition of optional, secondary computer science standards by

July 2018

• Be comparable in scope, relevance, and rigor to the highest national and

international standards

• Require the development of creativity and innovation skills; critical‐thinking and

problem‐solving skills; communication and collaboration skills; social and cultural awareness; civic engagement; initiative and self‐direction; flexibility; productivity and accountability; character and leadership; and information technology application skills

• Be aligned with career and technical education standards, as practicable
• Be aligned with the state’s postsecondary and workforce description
• Lead to postsecondary and workforce readiness

Ke Key Com Compon

• nents

ts of

• f CAP4K

CAP4K Re Related to to St Standar andards

7

• The Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 16‐1198 during the 2016

legislative session requiring the development of secondary computer science standards to be adopted by the State Board of Education by July 1, 2018.

• The standards need to identify the knowledge and skills secondary students

should acquire related to computer science, including computer coding.

• The standards are to be articulated in one or more courses that districts

could choose to qualify as a graduation requirement for mathematics or science.

• Districts may choose to adopt the standards.
• CDE will engage a committee to develop recommended computer science

standards during the same timeline as the standards review and revision process.

Com Computer Science Science St Standar andards

8

2/7/2017 5

Wh What at Ar Are the the Com Componen

• nents

ts of

• f the

the Re Review and and Re Revision Proposal?

• posal?

9

Gui Guiding Pr Principles fo for Pro Process

• Transparent: Process and decisions are public
• Announcements on the website, CDE communications and monthly webinars
• Online application elements
• Inclusive: Process involves key stakeholders
• Variety of stakeholders included: educators, administrators, higher

education, parents, community members

• Representation of all regions within the state
• Blind Review: Vetting based on qualifications
• Blind application process‐all applications will be given an application ID

number

• Review teams of 4‐5 to recommend committee members using vetting

rubrics

• Review teams will consist of CDE staff and external partners

2/7/2017 6

Ro Roles and and Re Responsibilities

11

State Board of Education Make decisions to guide the review and revision process; approve revisions Stakeholders Provide feedback

• n standards

review process and proposed revisions Review Committees Propose revisions to the standards for State Board consideration CDE Staff Facilitate the review and revision process and staff the content area committees Research and Information Gathering: Survey, online system, benchmarking reports Committees Use Research and Information to Inform Revision Recommendations Committee Recommendations Presented to the Board and Stakeholders For Feedback Committees Revise Recommendations Based on Feedback and Present Final Recommendations for State Board Consideration

Basic Basic Pro Process

12

Public Input Public Input

2/7/2017 7

2016‐17

Planning Research and resource development Begin review and revision

2017‐18

• Complete

review and revision

• July 2018:

Adopt revisions

2018‐19

• Districts

transition: (1) review and revise local standards (2) revise local curriculum

2019‐20

• Districts

transition: (1) review and revise local standards (2) revise local curriculum

2020‐21

• Districts

implement revisions

• State

assessment reflects revisions

Re Review and and Re Revision Tim Timeline line

13

St Stand andards Commi mmitte ttee Applic licatio ion Pro Process

2/7/2017 8

St Standar andards Re Review and and Re Revision Com Commit ittees es

• Thirteen content area committees: Arts (consisting of four content

areas: drama; dance and theatre arts; music; visual arts); comprehensive health and physical education; mathematics; reading, writing, and communicating; science; social studies to include personal financial literacy; world languages; English language development; computer science

• Committee composition: Educators from each grade span (P ‐ 2, 3 ‐5,

6 ‐ 8, 9 ‐ 12) and representatives from higher education, parents, English learners, special education, business, administrators and community partners to the extent possible.

• Content area committees to represent educators, business leaders,

representatives from higher education, and parents/community members in content area committees.

• CDE will solicit committee participation through an online application

process for each of the thirteen standards areas.

• Applicants will be required to demonstrate content area expertise

and willingness to serve.

• Applications will be considered using a blind‐review process,

considering only the applicants’ qualifications.

• The review committees will utilize feedback from stakeholders and

research to inform recommended revisions to the Colorado Academic Standards.

St Standar andards Re Review and and Re Revision Com Commit ittees es

2/7/2017 9

Applic Applicatio ion Ca Categorie ries

• Professional Sector (PreK, Elementary, Middle, High School, Higher

Education, Community, Parents)

• Geographic Region (Denver Metro Region, North Central Region,

Northeast Region, Northwest Region, Pikes Peak Region, West Central Region, Southeast Region, Southwest Region)

• Specialized Education Experience (Gifted and Talented, Students with

Disabilities ELL Students, and Early Childhood)

• Expertise in Standards Related Work

An Anticipa cipated Ke Key Da Dates

• February 15, 2017: Application Window Opens
• March 15, 2017: Application Window Closes
• March 20‐28, 2017: Application Reviews Conducted
• March 28‐30, 2017: Applicants Notified
• April 3, 2017: Committee Membership Announced

2/7/2017 10

• Results of Standards Perception Survey
• Online Standards Feedback System
• Purpose: Gain specific feedback on each

standard to inform the planning process and the work of the standards committees

• Timeline: November 9 – April 30*, 2017

What What’s Ha Happeni ppening ng Now? Now?

19

Comput mputer er Scien Science St Standards Input put Me Meet etings gs

Business 6% CTE 6% Certificate program 1% Community College 4% IHE 5% Professional association 2% K ‐ 12 40% STEM 7% Technology Librarian 11% Workforce development 2% Other 16%

Stakeholder Representation

• Purpose: Seek input from

stakeholders on initial planning for the computer science standards development process

• Timeline: October ‐

November

• 170 registrants
• Facilitated by Education

Commission of the States

• Meetings held in Denver,

Pueblo, and Grand Junction with a webinar conducted for those unable to attend

2/7/2017 11

Colorado’s computer science standards ought to:

• Be adaptable to the rapid changes in technology
• Require mastery and application of skills, including in real‐world

contexts

• Be integrated into other disciplines
• Consider student learning prior to the secondary level
• Raise student awareness of computer science job opportunities
• Increase business partnerships, including through work‐based

learning opportunities

• Increase in number of Colorado youth pursuing computer science

careers

Ke Key Them Themes fr from

• m Com

Comput puter er Scie Scienc nce St Stan anda dards Input nput Me Meet etings

• Purpose: Gain the general perceptions of the

standards from multiple stakeholder groups to inform the planning process

• Timeline: October 19 – November 13
• Responses:
• 2,833 total responses
• From all counties except Custer, Dolores, and

Hinsdale

• From 146 out of 178 school districts

St Standar andards Pe Perception Sur Survey

22

2/7/2017 12

23

1,845, 65% 290, 10% 191, 7% 128, 5%

Ro Roles of

• f Sur

Survey ey Responden

• ndents

Educator in a K‐12 school system Parent Educator at an institution for higher education Student currently enrolled in an elementary, middle or high school General public residing in Colorado/Colorado taxpayer Colorado Department of Education staff Professional educator organization not listed above Member of community organization Colorado Association of School Boards member/local school board member Media Education policy advocate Student currently enrolled in a postsecondary institution

Ro Roles of

• f Educ

ducator Responden spondents

24

ROLE IN THE SCHOOL/DISTRICT PERCENTAGE Teacher

67%

School administrator

8%

District administrator

7%

Specialized service professional

7%

District‐level non‐ administrator staff

5%

School‐level non‐ instructional staff

3%

Paraprofessional

2%

SCHOOL LEVEL

PERCENTAGE

Early childhood

14%

Grade K‐2

40%

Grade 3‐5

43%

Grade 6‐8

44%

Grade 9‐12

41%

N = 1,762

2/7/2017 13 Ove Overal all Im Impressions of

• f the

the Col Colorado do Ac Acad adem emic ic St Standar andards (C (CAS) AS)

25

• Overall, around half of all survey respondents view the CAS positively (49%).
• Education policy advocates (71%) and K‐12 educators (53%) are more

supportive of the CAS than other respondent groups.

• K‐12 teachers who receive higher levels of training and support have more

favorable opinions of the CAS than those with less training or support.

11% 37% 28% 18% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Positive Positive Neutral Negative Very Negative N=2,316

Po Positive Impr pression ession of

• f the

the CAS CAS by by Ro Role

26

Combined “Very Positive” and “Positive”

55% 22% 29% 32% 33% 44% 44% 45% 50% 51% 53% 71% 49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Other (n=99) Business owner (n=9) Media (n=14) Parent (n=236) Student (n=90) Educator at an institution for higher education (n=147) Elected official/policymaker (n=9) General public residing in Colorado/Colorado taxpayer or member of community organization (n=62) State agency staff (n=36) Professional educator association member (n=39) Educator in a K‐12 school system (n=1,558) Education policy advocate (n=17) All Respondents (n=2,316)

2/7/2017 14 Educ ducator

• rs’

s’ Po Positive Impr pression ession of

• f the

the CAS CAS by by Familia iliarity rity, Train ainin ing, and and Support Support

27

Combined “Very Positive” and “Positive”

38% 54% 57% 43% 51% 62% 20% 39% 56% 49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Low Level of Training or No Training (n=237) Moderate Level of Training (n=322) High Level of Training (n=363) Low Level of Support or No Support (n=335) Moderate Level of Support (n=349) High Level of Support (n=238) Slightly/Not at All Familiar (n=206) Moderately Familiar (n=489) Extremely/Very Familiar (n=1,621) All Respondents (n=2,316) Level of Training Level of Support Degree of Familiarity

Pe Perceived Rig Rigor of

• f the

the CAS CAS by by Schoo School Lev Level

28

9% 14% 17% 14% 11% 14% 37% 36% 39% 40% 36% 34% 35% 33% 33% 34% 43% 32% 17% 15% 10% 11% 10% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Grade 9‐12 (n=580) Grade 6‐8 (n=634) Grade 3‐5 (n=625) K‐2 (n=581) Early childhood (n=200) All Respondents (n=2,062)

Too High High Just Right Low Too Low

2/7/2017 15 Pe Perceived Lev Level of

• f CAS

CAS Re Revision Needed Needed by by Con Conten ent Ar Area ea

29

28% 32% 25% 23% 21% 14% 18% 13% 14% 13% 12% 24% 19% 24% 24% 22% 24% 21% 25% 22% 24% 18% 24% 23% 24% 24% 27% 29% 26% 28% 28% 26% 29% 12% 12% 15% 17% 16% 20% 19% 22% 22% 22% 27% 13% 14% 13% 12% 15% 13% 16% 12% 13% 15% 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Drama and Theatre Arts Dance Music Visual Arts Comprehensive Health and Physical Education Social Studies World Languages Reading, Writing and Communicating Science Mathematics English Language Proficiency No Revision Slight Revision Moderate Revision Substantial Revision Complete Revision

Im Import rtance of

• f Fa

Factors fo for the the CAS CAS Re Revision Pr Proces ess

30

15% 37% 41% 43% 38% 54% 70% 20% 31% 28% 33% 40% 30% 20% 28% 16% 18% 16% 17% 11% 6% 26% 6% 9% 5% 12% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Incorporation of public opinion in revisions to the CAS Improve upon the existing CAS rather than start from scratch Inclusion of diverse representation (e.g., educators, parents, community members) on committees for revising the CAS Standards based on research Focus on the content of the standards themselves An open, transparent process Incorporation of educators' input in revisions to the CAS Extremely Important Very Important Moderately Important Slightly Important Not at All Important n=1,909‐1,961

2/7/2017 16 How How eff effective ar are the the CAS CAS in in pr prom

• moting
• ting hi

higher gher studen udent perf perform

• rmance

nce and and im improved studen udent out

• utcom
• mes?

es? By By Ro Role

31

24% 20% 13% 16% 30% 17% 30% 17% 24% 19% 22% 57% 22% 36% 25% 21% 15% 31% 20% 37% 32% 39% 37% 29% 35% 40% 80% 63% 62% 55% 52% 50% 46% 44% 42% 41% 14% 44% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other (n=80) Elected official/policymaker (n=5) Business owner (n=8) Parent (n=191) General public residing in Colorado/Colorado taxpayer or member of community organization (n=53) State agency staff (n=29) Media (n=10) Educator at an institution for higher education (n=130) Professional educator association member (n=34) Student (n=77) Educator in a K‐12 school system (n=1,376) Education policy advocate (n=14) All Respondents (n=2,007) Role

Extremely/Very Effective Moderately Effective Slightly/Not at All Effective

• Purpose: Gain specific feedback on each

standard to inform the planning process and the work of the standards committees

• Timeline: November 9 – April 30
• To date number of unique users: 136
• To date number of comments provided: 453

St Status us of

• f Online

Online St Standar andards Feedback eedback Syste System

32

2/7/2017 17

• Screen shot examples:

What’s Happening Now?

33

Online Standards Feedback System

34

2/7/2017 18 Di Distribut bution of

• f Commen

mments Wi Within Onl Online ne St Standar andards Re Review Syst Systems

35

Content Area Number of Comments Percent of Comments Comprehensive Health and Physical Education 14 3% Dance 2 0% Drama and Theatre Arts 9 2% Math 23 5% Music 48 11% Reading, Writing and Communicating 47 10% Science 51 11% Social Studies 231 51% Visual Art 28 6% World languages 0%

What What’s On On th the Horiz Horizon? n?

• Early 2017
• Launch communications for the standards review and revision process
• February ‐ March 2017
• Application window for the standards review and revision committees
• Monthly through July 2018
• Communication to stakeholders about the progress of the review and

revision process and information about how to be involved

• Webinar series beginning February 7
• Updates to State Board of Education and decision points for the standards

review and revision process

36

2/7/2017 19

Ques Questions,

• ns, Comme

mment nts, and and Feedback eedback

37

Yo Your Input nput We Welcome

38

2/7/2017 20

• Provide input using the online standards feedback

system

https://www.cde.state.co.us/apps/costandardsreview/login

• Provide your comments to the department about the

review and revision process:

standardsreview2018@cde.state.co.us

• Sign up to receive standards review and revision

updates:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/standardsupdate

• Apply to be on a committee or recruit members

How How To To Bec Become In Involv lved

39

Parent Guides Comprehensive FAQs Standards Development History

Com Communic unications ions Re Resources