The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Connecticut - November 2011

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Connecticut - Implications for Curriculum, Instruction and Learning Presented to the East Haven Public Schools

1. 1
Implications for Implications for
Curriculum, Instruction and LearningCurriculum, Instruction and Learning
Presented to thePresented to the
East Haven Public SchoolsEast Haven Public Schools
Marion H. Martinez, Ed.D.Marion H. Martinez, Ed.D.
November 2011November 2011
Connecticut State Department ofConnecticut State Department of
EducationEducation
THE COMMON CORE THE COMMON CORE
STATE STANDARDS IN STATE STANDARDS IN
CONNECTICUTCONNECTICUT

2. In the spring of 2009, governors and state commissioners of
education from 48 states, two territories and the District of
Columbia committed to developing a common core of state
standards (CCSS) for K-12 English language arts (ELA) and
mathematics.
http://www.corestandards.org
2Achieve, 2010

3. The CCSS, adopted by the State Board on July 7, 2010,
are internationally benchmarked
prepare all students to succeed in a global economy
support the State Board’s 5-Year Plan
support Connecticut’s Secondary School Reform
3

4. Connecticut content experts in English Language Arts and
Mathematics worked in teams to determine the existence of
matches between CCSS and CT standards using the
Common Core Comparison Tool developed by Achieve, Inc.
CCSS were compared to CT standards:
standard by standard at the same grade level
at the prekindergarten level, grade levels before or after the
targeted CCSS and by high school grade bands
4
Connecticut’s CCSS
Adoption Process

5. 5
80%
20%
Matched to CT
Standards
Not Matched to CT
Standards
Overall, 80% of the CC ELA standards were matched to CT’s ELA standards. The
remaining 20% were not matched. This translates to about 200 of the 1,019 CC
ELA standards that will be “new” for CT.

6. Overall, 92% of the CC Math standards were matched to CT’s Math standards.
The remaining 8% were not matched. This translates to 40 CC Math standards
that will be “new” for CT.
6
92%
8%
Matched to CT
Standards
Not Matched CT
Standards

7. Possible matches:
Exact match
All of the concepts and skills addressed in the CCSS also included in the CT
standard(s) at the same grade level
Collective match
Parts of two or more CT standards within, beyond or below grade, together address
the CCSS
Partial match
Only a portion of a compound CT state standard applies to the CCSS being
addressed and part does not; a CT standard in its entirety only addresses a portion
of a compound CCSS
No match
The concepts and skills in the CCSS are not addressed in the CT standard(s), or is
addressed at a level far beyond the parameters being compared
7
Categories of Matches

8. Strength rating accounts for differences in wording, specificity,
or performance expectation
Strength of each match is rated:
3 - Excellent: the expectations in both verb/performance
and content/topic are equivalent
2 - Good: minor aspects of the CCSS are missing (or
addressed more broadly/generally than the CCSS)
1 - Weak: major aspects of the CCSS are not addressed;
standards may be related but only generally
8
Strength of Match

9. 9
20%
37%
31%
12%
Excellent Match
Good Match
Weak Match
No Match
Overall, 68% of the matches between the CCSS and CT’s ELA standards were
excellent or good; 12% were weak matches and 20% were unmatched.

10. 10
8%
47%
21%
24%
Excellent Match
Good Match
Weak Match
No Match
Overall, 68% of the matches between the CCSS and CT Math standards were
excellent or good; 24% were weak; and 8% were unmatched.

11. It is important to note that Grades 9-12 are not included on the graph because the Mathematics
Standards for High School are written for the entire 9-12 grade span rather than for each grade
level.
Grade Level Comparisons: CT
Mathematics Standards and CCSS K-8

12. CT Cross-walk documents were created to connect K-12 CCSS
with CT Curriculum Framework Grade-level Expectations to CMT
and CAPT strands and sub-strands.
Early childhood experts are working to align the Preschool
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks to the CCSS.
TESOL, bilingual, mathematics and English language arts
experts worked together to create a document that links the
CCSS and ELL Framework to support:
district curricula revisions and professional development planning;
and
general education teachers working with English language learners
(ELLs).
12

13. Districts need to compare current curriculum to CCSS. Much will stay the
same, however some CCSS concepts/skills may need to be added; some
current standards move to a different grade.
Current instructional materials may need to be supplemented, enhanced
or moved to a different grade.
Practicing and pre-service teachers need support to understand the
impact of the CCSS on designing learning opportunities for students.
State assessments will remain unchanged until 2014. CT is participating
in the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium charged with
developing new assessments based on CCSS by 2015.
13
Crosswalk Considerations
and Curriculum

14. CMT and CAPT
Assessment of selected
concepts and skills in Grades 3-
8 and 10 through 2014.
CCSS
2014-2015
CCSS
Guide for ELA and mathematics
curriculum content and
instruction in grades K-12.

STUDENT LEARNING
DISTRICT
Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Guidelines
Begin revisions 2010
Complete by 2014
Using the CCSS in Your
District…

15. The Department recognizes key stakeholder needs:
Birth to five standards need to be developed.
Districts need support and a phase-in timeline for revising or
aligning their curriculum to CCSS.
Higher Education must incorporate CCSS into teacher
preparation programs to ensure that all new teachers will have the
knowledge and skills to effectively teach to the standards.
Constituents need adequate notice of changes to state
assessments, which will measure student mastery of the
standards.
15
Stakeholder Needs

16. Curriculum Framework & Materials
Communication
Professional Development
Assessment
16

17. CSDE is collaborating with Larry Ainsworth, Leading & Learning Center, to
use his new Rigorous Curriculum Design model to complete the
foundational steps for designing rigorous curriculums in K-12 Mathematics
and English Language Arts. 
Guiding documents are being developed by State level Curriculum Design
Teams for use by district level curriculum teams.
The process for creating the guiding documents includes:
Prioritizing the CCSS
Naming the units of study
Assigning the priority and related supporting CCSS
Preparing a pacing calendar
Constructing the unit planning organizer
17

18. CT Assessment Forum
Common message across all professional groups
SDE/CCSS Web page updated regularly with calendar for
development with links to programs and presentations
Higher Education
P-20 Council
CABE/CAPSS Conference/Newsletters
Governor’s Office and Legislators
Regional Service Centers across Divisions within SDE
18

20. Principles underlying SBAC’s Work:
◦Create a comprehensive, integrated system of
summative, interim and formative assessments.
◦Provide valid and reliable measures of student
performance and college/career readiness.
◦Involve teachers in developing and scoring
assessments to improve teaching and learning.
◦Share decision-making among member states; CT is a
Governing State.
◦Adhere to established professional standards.
20

21. 21

22. Harriet Feldlaufer, Chief, Bureau of Teaching and Learning
860-713-6707
[email protected]
Amy Radikas, English Language Arts
860-713-6762
[email protected]
Charlene Tate Nichols, Mathematics
860-713-6757
[email protected]
Joanne R. White, English Language Arts
860-713-6751
[email protected]
22