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 sets out to evaluate the relation between the CCS and the NDE l h l i b h CCS d h 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 completes a standard-by-standard, indicator-by-indicator NDE l d d b d d i di b i di 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  Initial focusing questions i ti • 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  Indicator-level review l l i  Not an alignment analysis (i.e., no determination of DOK alignment) alignment)  Dichotomous determination of “match” (yes/no)

Results of Draft-2 Evaluation of Match R lt f D ft 2 E l ti f M t h NDE specialists found no exact matches due to the difference in the language and degree of specificity, but they did find a significant match of 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 % ELA CCS that matched at least one Nevada standard t h d t l t N d t d d 74 7 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 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HS Total All Codes 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 11 34 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 42 11 28 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 54 54 1 8 14 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 38 2 1 3 32 14 2 3 0 0 0 4 57 1 1 6 18 16 10 1 0 0 5 5 58 0 0 1 4 18 47 28 2 3 6 6 109 0 1 0 2 3 11 9 25 2 7 7 60 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 5 17 17 30 30 11 11 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 10 116 12 133

Grade level Evaluation ELA Grade-level Evaluation - ELA NCS CCS Grade Level Grade Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10 11-12 Total All Codes K 106 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 113 1 10 106 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 119 2 9 10 96 8 2 4 0 0 0 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 0 4 5 1 3 102 42 32 28 24 21 262 6 0 0 1 1 2 2 132 40 28 25 23 254 7 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 124 29 15 25 201 8 0 0 1 1 3 5 2 12 137 30 31 222 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 15 51 12 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 79 84 169

Differences in Grade-Level Expectations: CCS to NV Standards Findings Findings 450  With some exception, skills 400 400 were judged to appear in the CCS at earlier grade levels than 350 in the NCS. Match 300 Instance of GL M 250  For ELA, instances occurred in which mastery of certain CCS 200 skills were expected at a lower 150 grade level in the NCS than in d l l i h NCS h i 100 the CCS. 50  For Math in high school, g , 0 NCS appeared to require CCS more rigorous than NVS mastery of content that was NVS more rigorous than CCS more rigorous than in the CCS CCS more rigorous than NVS g NVS more rigorous than CCS g when STEM standards were not h STEM t d d t ELA 201 408 considered . Math 314 44

Findings Findings I In general, participants l ti i t  believed that the match between CCS and NCS was positive and endorsed statewide adoption;  believed that the expectations in the CCS were developmentally-appropriate and accessible to all d l ll i d ibl ll students;  noted that increased rigor had significant implications for g g p professional development ;  acknowledged limitations of current resources (e.g., current textbooks that do not cover content and skills at the t t tb k th t d t t t d kill t th grade levels indicated in the CCS).

Findings Findings S Some participants ti i t  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 the CCS would help users apply these standards if given the h CCS ld h l l h d d if i h 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 and high school but felt there needed to be greater d hi h h l b t f lt th d d t b t emphasis on technology at earlier grade levels.

Implications for SWD Rigor Implications for SWD - Rigor Instances e isted here master of certain CCS skills ere Instances existed where mastery of certain CCS skills were 1 1. 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 grades could create scenarios in which students miss necessary skills in d ld h h d k ll critical learning progressions. This scenario could have particular, negative consequences to SWD.

Implications for SWD Assistance Implications for SWD - Assistance Th NCS The NCS includes the phrase “with assistance” to some l d h h “ h ” 2. 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 of 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.

Implications for SWD - Preparedness I li ti f SWD P d A 75% match between CCS and NCS suggests that Nevada schools 3. 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.