Bibliography: Common Core State Standards (page 100 of 130)

This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices.  Some of the authors featured on this page include Michael J. Petrilli, Victoria R. Jacobs, Megan Wilhelm, Anne Collins, Megan H. Wickstrom, Randolph A. Philipp, Michelle Hall, James E. Spruill, Sandy Chang, and Heather A. Martin.

Massey, Chris L.; Gambrell, Linda B. (2014). Measuring Students' Writing Ability on a Computer-Analytic Development Scale: Orchestrating the Dance between Technology and the Teacher, Literacy Research and Instruction. Literacy educators and researchers have long recognized the importance of increasing students' writing proficiency across age and grade levels. With the release of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a new and greater emphasis is being placed on writing in the K-12 curriculum. Educators, as well as the authors of the CCSS, agree that writing is an essential and integral part of preparing students for college- and career-readiness. One major hurdle in effective teaching and assessment of writing is that educators and researchers continue to struggle to find valid and reliable ways to document student progress in the ability to write. As former K-12 classroom teachers and current university professors, the authors are acutely aware of the fact that the assessment of student writing is messy, confusing, and extremely time consuming. The authors are intrigued that the Writing Ability Developmental Scale (Burdick et al. 2013) has the potential to allow teachers and researchers to "easily and quickly estimate a writer's ability by using multiple writing occasions" (p. 259). Through the use of the affordances of technology, the Writing Ability Developmental Scale has the potential to provide new insights for both research and practice about the development of students' writing proficiency. In "Measuring Students' Writing Ability on a Computer-Analytic Developmental Scale: An Exploratory Validity Study," Burdick et al. (2013) sought to measure students' writing ability, which they defined as an individual trait used to indicate one's power to compose written text. In that study they explored the measurement validity of the Writing Ability Developmental Scale by comparing results of the computer scale to human evaluations. That is, they compared writing proficiency scores of human evaluators to those scores given by a computer-generated program based on Lexile scores. The study was well constructed, and Burdick et al. (2013) thoughtfully and thoroughly address both reliability and validity issues, as well as important limitations of the scale. The autho's agree with their conclusion that the Writing Ability Developmental Scale can serve as one tool to move the field forward with respect to assessing students' writing development across time. This article expresses their responses to the article by Burdick et al. (2013).   [More]  Descriptors: Writing Evaluation, State Standards, Instructional Effectiveness, Writing Ability

Tobiason, Glory; Chang, Sandy; Heritage, Margaret; Jones, Barbara; Herman, Joan (2014). Building Blocks, Learning Goals, and Success Criteria: Planning Instruction and Formative Assessment for K-8 Math Standards. From the College and Career Ready Standards to Teaching and Learning in the Classroom: A Series of Resources for Teachers, Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation. This resource is part of a series produced by the Center for Standards and Assessment Implementation (CSAI) to assist teachers and those who support teachers to plan teaching and learning from College and Career Ready Standards (CCRS) for all students, including students with disabilities, English learners, academically at-risk students, students living in extreme poverty, and gifted/talented students. The series of resources addresses key shifts in learning and teaching represented in the CCRS. This resource uses the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) as an example of CCRS. The processes described in this resource are applicable to all States' CCRS, including the CCSS. The content of this resource is drawn from leading theory and research about learning and formative assessment and from an examination of the CCSS. This resource is the second in a suite of resources that helps teachers merge content and practice standards of CCRS for Mathematics in daily instruction. The first in this suite, "What's Learned First, What's Learned Together? Developing a Yearlong Plan from the K-8 College and Career Ready Standards for Mathematical Content," helps teachers arrange and sequence content standards into a Yearlong Plan. This resource assists teachers in moving from a Yearlong Plan to establishing Learning Goals and Success Criteria for daily lesson plans and formative assessment. This resource is divided into two sections: (1) Teachers determine the "Building Blocks" (i.e., series of changes that occur in student thinking or ability) that lead from the previous grade's learning to achievement of the current grade's standards; and (2) For each Building Block, teachers determine associated Learning Goals and Success Criteria–two key elements of formative assessment. Contains a list of references and background materials. The following templates are provided: (1) Building Blocks of a Standard; and (2) Lesson-Sized Learning Goals and Success Criteria. [For "What's Learned First, What's Learned Together? Developing a Yearlong Plan from the K-8 College and Career Ready Standards for Mathematical Content," see ED565345.]   [More]  Descriptors: Career Readiness, College Readiness, Educational Resources, Educational Practices

Wickstrom, Megan H. (2014). Piecing It Together, Teaching Children Mathematics. Any of the key concepts that students need to know about area measurement are covered in the third-grade expectations detailed in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (CCSSI 2010). However, making sense of area measurement is not always an easy task for students; it takes time. Researchers have found that young children often attend to length attributes when asked to measure area, or they are unsure of what exactly is meant by the word "area" (Lehrer, Jenkins, and Osana 1998). Consequently, students should have multiple and varied experiences over time to make sense of area measurement (Sarama and Clements 2009). Introductory experiences in the first or second grade may help build the foundation that students need to successfully tackle this topic in third grade. To build conceptions of area, the CCSSM document suggests that students in second grade should experience partitioning a rectangle into rows and columns of same-size square units and counting the squares to find a total. Even though the concept–equal partitioning and structuring a rectangle–may seem intuitive to an adult, students often have difficulty conceptualizing it. By second grade, children can usually succeed at counting units, but they often fail to construct units that are the same size or units that are in rows and columns (Sarama and Clements 2009). To address this issue, students need experiences playing and interacting with square units and building rectangular regions with these units. Researchers have indicated that experiences like these foster students' conceptions of area and their precision in measuring (Miller 1984). In this article, assistant professor Megan Wickstrom describes how she designed a lesson that would both challenge students' notions about length and also provide an introduction to area measurement. After brainstorming several ideas, she selected the topic of quilt making for her lesson. Quilts and square quilt blocks are concrete objects that students could reference and use to express their thinking. She also selected a book, "The Quiltmaker's Gift" (Brumbeau and de Marken 2000), to provide a context for her students' mathematical questions and discussion. This article describes a three-day lesson with the goals of introducing area measurement to students and having them investigate perimeter to challenge their notions of length measurement.   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematics Instruction, Elementary School Mathematics, Mathematical Concepts, State Standards

Gallia, Toni (2012). A Quantitative Content Analysis of the Common Core State Standards Compared to Missouri's Grade-Level Expectations Using the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy Framework, ProQuest LLC. With the pressure in education to develop a 21st century learner with higher-level thinking skills, many educators connected previous state curriculum to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Missouri's Department of Education experts paired the previous state's curriculum known as the Missouri Grade Level Expectations (MO GLEs) with a corresponding CCSS based on Webb's depth-of-knowledge model in a document commonly referred to as the Missouri Crosswalk. This quantitative content analysis study compared the MO GLEs and CCSS by quantifying the language using an adapted and revised Bloom's taxonomy framework. This study tested for a cognitive difference in means and for a possible relationship between the two documents using the Missouri Crosswalk in each grade level from 1-5 in the areas of English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (MA). This study revealed no overall difference in means between the MO GLEs and the CCSS within the content areas of ELA and MA, grades 1-5. Although the results seemed as though CCSS did not offer more higher-level thinking opportunities than the MO GLEs, the researcher noticed a trend in the amount of objectives assigned in each cognitive category. In a further analysis that divided the objectives into higher-level and lower-level thinking, the results showed CCSS generally had more higher-level thinking opportunities than the MO GLEs. The contradicting results showed the importance of closely analyzing the two documents in order to adjust instruction. This study also revealed no cognitive relationship between the paired CCSS and MO GLEs aligned in the Missouri Crosswalk for all grades in both ELA and MA with the exception of fifth grade ELA. The structural difference in the ELA and MA crosswalk prompted an investigation of the objectives labeled "direct alignment" found only in the ELA crosswalk. The result showed no relationship between the higher-level thinking skills in the ELA GLE and the "direct" paired CCSS in all grade levels except fourth grade. Generally speaking, when adjusting instruction based on the objectives labeled "direct", only grade 4 ELA teachers may find the Missouri Crosswalk helpful since it was the only grade level to show a cognitive relationship. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Statistical Analysis, Content Analysis, State Standards, Academic Standards

Jacobs, Victoria R.; Martin, Heather A.; Ambrose, Rebecca C.; Philipp, Randolph A. (2014). Warning Signs!, Teaching Children Mathematics. In this article the authors explain that when engaging in a problem-solving conversation with a child, their goal goes beyond helping the child reach a correct answer. They want to learn about the child's mathematical thinking, support that thinking, and extend it as far as possible. This exploration of children's thinking is central to their vision of both productive individual mathematical conversations and overall classroom mathematics instruction (Carpenter et al. 1999), but in practice, they find that simultaneously respecting children's mathematical thinking and accomplishing curricular goals is challenging. In this article, they use the metaphor of traveling down a road that has as its destination children engaging in rich and meaningful problem solving like that depicted in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (CCSSI 2010). This road requires opportunities for children to pursue their own ways of reasoning so that they can construct their own mathematical understandings rather than feeling as if they are mimicking their teachers' thinking. Knowing how to help children engage in these experiences is hard. For example, how can teachers effectively navigate situations in which a child has chosen a time-consuming strategy, seems puzzled, or is going down a path that appears unproductive? Drawing from a large video study of 129 teachers ranging from prospective teachers to practicing teachers with thirty-three years of experience, the authors found that even those who are committed to pointing students to the rich, problem-solving road often struggle when trying to support and extend the thinking of individual children. After watching teachers and children engage in one-on-one conversations about 1798 problems, they identified three common teaching moves that generally preceded a teacher's taking over a child's thinking: (1) Interrupting the child's strategy; (2) Manipulating the tools; and (3) Asking a series of closed questions. Because these three teaching moves were almost always followed by the taking over of a child's thinking, the authors came to view them as "warning signs," analogous to signs a motorist might see when a potentially dangerous obstacle lies in the road ahead. By identifying these warning signs, they hope that teachers will learn to recognize them so that they can carefully examines these challenging situations before deciding how to proceed.   [More]  Descriptors: Problem Solving, Mathematics Instruction, Mathematical Logic, Cognitive Processes

Collins, Anne (2011). Using Classroom Assessment to Improve Student Learning: Math Problems Aligned with NCTM and Common Core State Standards, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Linking assessment to everyday classroom instruction requires a shift in both thinking and practice. For many, the term "assessment" simply means "grade". "Using Classroom Assessment to Improve Student Learning" shows how teachers can move away from using tests, letter or numerical grades, or passing or failing as evidence of student learning to creating a rich classroom environment that is conducive to effective formative assessment.   [More]  Descriptors: Student Evaluation, Formative Evaluation, State Standards, Classroom Environment

Jacobson, Erik (2014). Using Covariation Reasoning to Support Mathematical Modeling, Mathematics Teacher. For many students, making connections between mathematical ideas and the real world is one of the most intriguing and rewarding aspects of the study of mathematics. In the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSI 2010), mathematical modeling is highlighted as a mathematical practice standard for all grades. To engage in mathematical modeling, beginning algebra students must learn to use their understanding of arithmetic operations to make mathematical sense of problem situations and to relate this sense making to functions represented by equations, tables, and graphs. The word problems commonly used in beginning algebra courses give opportunities to practice mathematical modeling. Further, the ability to reason with quantities as well as numbers is an important capacity for students to develop. Two kinds of quantitative reasoning have a special relevance for beginning algebra students. The "correspondence" perspective deals with the question, How is one quantity related to another? A correspondence understanding of speed might be expressed as the rule that relates each value for time with a unique value for distance, such as the equation y = 25x, where x represents time and y represents distance. By contrast, the key question for "covariation" reasoning is, How does one quantity change as another quantity changes? A covariation understanding of speed would focus on how distance and time change together–that is, the distance covered increases by 25 meters as the elapsed time increases by 1 second. Both kinds of reasoning are important goals for algebra students. Correspondence is a fundamental piece of mature reasoning about functions, and covariation is critical for developing the rate-of-change concept. Presented in this article are two sessions from Ms. Holmes's classroom (the teacher's name is a pseudonym) in which seventh graders intuitively used covariation to begin to make sense of word problems. The passages show how students' covariation reasoning might surface in the classroom and illustrate some of the teaching strategies that Ms. Holmes used to support her students' reasoning. The sessions also provide a foundation for the discussion of classroom strategies, which summarizes research-based strategies for supporting students' use of covariation reasoning to build robust mathematical models.   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematics Instruction, Mathematical Models, Mathematical Logic, Teaching Methods

Marchitello, Max; Wilhelm, Megan (2014). The Cognitive Science behind the Common Core, Center for American Progress. Raising academic standards has been part of the education policy discourse for decades. As early as the 1990s, states and school districts attempted to raise student achievement by developing higher standards and measuring student progress according to more rigorous benchmarks. However, the caliber of the standards–and their assessments–varied greatly from state to state. For example, Massachusetts adopted some of the highest standards and most challenging exams in the country and has some of the highest-achieving students in the nation. On the other hand, Mississippi set a low bar, and the state's students are often ill prepared for college and careers. Recognizing that the previous patchwork system did not work, a group of bipartisan governors and state superintendents came together to develop a shared set of more rigorous, internationally benchmarked academic standards in English language arts and mathematics called the Common Core State Standards. Some worry that the standards have not been proven to improve student learning, as they were entirely new as of 2010. However, the Common Core is grounded in the latest cognitive science regarding how students learn. A review of the research base for the standards found that the Common Core promotes greater student learning in the following key ways: (1) Scaffolding student learning to provide a strong knowledge base on which new ideas and concepts are stacked; (2) Holding all students to high expectations, which promotes greater student achievement and growth; (3) Incorporating the latest research on how students learn to read to help close the literacy gap; (4) Employing both the traditional method of teaching math and conceptual strategies to provide students with a strong understanding of math and the skills to apply it; (5) Increasing the opportunities for students to learn from their peers and collaborate on assignments, which improves learning and interpersonal skills; and (6) Promoting problem- and project-based learning, which leads to a deeper understanding of concepts. If teachers and students are supported with high-quality curricula and instructional materials, a properly implemented Common Core will help prepare students to be complex problem solvers, as well as critical thinkers and readers. These six research-based practices get to the heart of how the Common Core will make that goal a reality for all students.   [More]  Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Cognitive Science, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Educational Research

Caldwell, Janet H.; Kobett, Beth; Karp, Karen (2014). Putting Essential Understanding of Addition and Subtraction into Practice: Pre-K-2, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Do your students have the incorrect idea that addition "makes numbers bigger" and subtraction "makes numbers smaller"? Do they believe that subtraction is always "taking away"? What tasks can you offer–what questions can you ask–to determine what your students know or don't know–and move them forward in their thinking? This book focuses on the specialized pedagogical content knowledge that you need to teach addition and subtraction effectively in prekindergarten-grade 2. The authors demonstrate how to use this multifaceted knowledge to address the big ideas and essential understandings that students must develop for success with these computations–not only in their current work, but also in higher-level mathematics and a myriad of real-world contexts. Explore rich, research-based strategies and tasks that show how students are reasoning about and making sense of addition and subtraction. Use the opportunities that these and similar tasks provide to build on their understanding while identifying and correcting misunderstandings that may be keeping them from taking the next steps in learning. You have essential understanding. It's time to put it into practice in your teaching. The Putting Essential Understanding into Practice Series moves NCTM's Essential Understanding Series into the classroom. The new series details and explores best practices for teaching the essential ideas that students must grasp about fundamental topics in mathematics–topics that are challenging to learn and teach but are critical to the development of mathematical understanding. Classroom vignettes and samples of student work bring each topic to life, and questions for reader reaction open it up for hands-on exploration. Each volume underscores connections with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics while highlighting the knowledge of learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment that pedagogical content knowledge entails. Resources and tasks are available at nctm.org/more4U. Maximize the potential of student-centered learning and teaching by putting essential understanding into practice.   [More]  Descriptors: Arithmetic, Addition, Subtraction, Elementary School Mathematics

Finn, Chester E., Jr., Ed.; Petrilli, Michael J., Ed. (2014). Knowledge at the Core: Don Hirsch, Core Knowledge, and the Future of the Common Core, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Children cannot be truly literate without knowing about history, science, art, music, literature, civics, geography, and more. Indeed, they cannot satisfactorily comprehend what they read unless they possess the background knowledge that makes such comprehension possible. Yet most American primary schools have been marching in the opposite direction: treating reading only as a "skill" and pushing off history, science, art, and music "until later." This problem grows more serious with the advent of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, which take for granted that children expected to meet those standards are being supplied with a content-rich curriculum. In far too many U.S. schools, however, that is simply not happening. So what can be done? Commit to implanting a sequential, content-rich curriculum in the country's elementary and middle schools. The essays in "Knowledge at the Core: Don Hirsch, Core Knowledge, and the Future of the Common Core" restate the case for such a curriculum and chart a course for the future. They also pay tribute to the decades of scholarship, service, and reform commitment of E. D. (Don) Hirsch, Jr., author of "Cultural Literacy" (and three other prescient books on education reform) and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Five of the essays presented herein were first presented at a December 2013 conference in Washington, D.C., cohosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Manhattan Institute. (Two more pieces by Don Hirsch, Jr., "Romancing the Child" and "Why I'm for the Common Core," are also included to flesh out further his ideas and insights.) Essays include: (1) Sustaining the American Experiment (E. D. Hirsch, Jr); (2) Romancing the Child: Curing American Education of its Enduring Belief that Learning Is Natural (E. D. Hirsch, Jr.); (3) Me, My Sons, and E. D. Hirsch (Sol Stern); (4) Complex Texts Require Complex Knowledge: Will the New English Standards Get the Content Curriculum They Need? (Ruth Wattenberg); (5) There Are No Shortcuts: Mending the Rift between Content Knowledge and Deeper Learning (Robert Pondiscio); (6) Building Teacher Enthusiasm for Core Knowledge (Steve Farkas and the FDR Group); and (7) Why I'm for the Common Core (E. D. Hirsch, Jr). [Additional support for both the conference and this volume was provided by the Challenge Foundation and Amplify.]   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Language Arts, Elementary Schools

Spruill, James E. (2014). A Study of the 8th Grade Technology Literacy of a Michigan Charter School, ProQuest LLC. As states adopt the common core state standards and next generation assessments for the 2014-2015 school year, the importance of students' technology literacy will increase Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. The next generation assessments will require students to complete technology performance tasks. For the first time in mandatory testing, students' technology literacy will directly impact a school's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rating. Technology literacy is defined as the ability to operate hardware and software (computer literacy), conduct effective research for and then evaluate digital content for accuracy and merit (internet and information literacy), and digitally communicate effectively (digital media literacy). Research has shown students are not technology literate. Michigan has lacked a consistent implementation of an educational technology integrated curriculum and assessment of 8th grade students' technology literacy skills. The central focus of this descriptive case study was the investigation of whether the consistent implementation of the Using Technology in Career Education (UTCE) curriculum could positively effect students' technology literacy skills. The study explored the charter school environment, teacher and student technology literacy, and UTCE implementation. Participants were two 8th grade classes at an urban charter school enrolled in the UTCE course and a Creative Writing course. Data tri-angulation was achieved through classroom observations, student surveys, teacher archival documents and student performance tests. First, category construction examined the data for each single case (vignette). Second, the research questions guided the cross-case data analysis to discover patterns and themes. Vignette 1 answered Research Question #1 and addressed the most effective implementation of UTCE using data from classroom observations to determine the level of technology integration. Vignette 2 answered Research Question #2 and investigated the relationship between teacher and student technology literacy, classroom instruction and the effect on UTCE implementation. Vignette 3 answered Research Questions #3 and #4 and focused on measuring student technology performance and the effect the UTCE curriculum had on student technology literacy. An initial impression was the inability to type could potentially negatively impact students' performance on the next generation assessments. Overall data analysis supported the theoretical proposition that consistent delivery of a comprehensive educational technology curriculum improved students' technology literacy skills. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Charter Schools, Middle School Students, Grade 8, Technological Literacy

Tobiason, Glory; Heritage, Margaret; Chang, Sandy; Jones, Barbara; Herman, Joan (2014). Developing and Refining Lessons: Planning Learning and Formative Assessment for Math College and Career Ready Standards. From the College and Career Ready Standards to Teaching and Learning in the Classroom: A Series of Resources for Teachers, Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation. This resource is part of a series produced by the Center for Standards and Assessment Implementation (CSAI) to assist teachers and those who support teachers to plan teaching and learning from College and Career Ready Standards (CCRS) for all students, including students with disabilities, English learners, academically at-risk students, students living in extreme poverty, and gifted/talented students. The series of resources addresses key shifts in learning and teaching represented in the CCRS. This resource uses the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) as an example of CCRS. The processes described in this resource are applicable to all States' CCRS, including the CCSS. The content of this resource is drawn from leading theory and research about learning, teaching, and formative assessment. The purpose of this resource is to provide guidance for teachers in the design of daily lessons that support student learning of CCRS. Although it can be used in isolation, this resource draws on teacher learning and work from other resources in the CSAI series. Teachers are best prepared to use this resource if they are familiar with the Fundamentals of Learning and the development of Learning Goals and Success Criteria. This resource is divided into four sections, each of which emphasizes the use of formative assessment in lesson planning and improvement: (1) Key considerations in lesson planning with formative assessment are presented and discussed; (2) A pair of tools is introduced to support teachers in lesson planning with formative assessment; (3) The process of implementing formative assessment is discussed. Key features include eliciting evidence, interpreting evidence, responding to anticipated and unanticipated evidence, and providing feedback; and (4) Ways to use student evidence and teacher self-reflection to improve subsequent lessons are discussed. The ideas presented in these sections are integrated into five planning tools: (1) Lesson Planning with Formative Assessment; (2) Lesson Hot Spots; (3) Quick-Guide to the Fundamentals of Learning; (4) Quick-Guide to the Deliberate Acts of Teaching; and (5) Lesson Reflection. Printable versions of these tools are included at the end of the resource. Contains additional resources, references, and background materials.   [More]  Descriptors: Formative Evaluation, Lesson Plans, Educational Planning, Career Readiness

Yuan, Kun; Le, Vi-Nhuan (2014). Measuring Deeper Learning through Cognitively Demanding Test Items: Results from the Analysis of Six National and International Exams. Research Report, RAND Corporation. In 2010, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation's Education Program has established the Deeper Learning Initiative, which focuses on students' development of deeper learning skills (i.e., the mastery of core academic content, critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and "learn-how-to-learn" skills). Two test consortia are developing the next generation of tests to measure students' attainment of the Common Core State Standards. These tests are expected to assess deeper learning skills to a greater extent than existing large-scale tests. A RAND study rated the cognitive demand of mathematics and English language arts items on six nationally and internationally administered exams: Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Programme for International Student Assessment, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, using Norman Webb's Depth of Knowledge framework and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career's self-developed frameworks. It found that these tests were more cognitively demanding than previously studied state achievement tests in both subjects, on average. The test items' level of cognitive demand varied by subject and format. The six tests varied in their percentages of cognitively demanding items, with only two tests meeting both criteria proposed by a panel of education researchers for high-quality measures of deeper learning. Moreover, the tests' cognitive demand levels varied with test purpose and the characteristics of the targeted students. The findings establish a benchmark for comparing how well the new generation of tests performs in assessing deeper learning. Findings included: (1) Six Nationally and Internationally Administered Tests Had Greater Cognitive Demand Than Previously Studied State Tests; (2) The Cognitive Demand of Test Items Varied by Subject and Item Format; and (3) The Six Tests Varied in the Extent to Which They Assessed Students' Deeper Learning Skills. The following are appended: (1) Distributions of NAEP Items, by Grade and Specific Framework Dimension; (2) Distributions of TIMSS Items, by Content and Cognitive Domain; (3) Exemplary Test Items at Each DOK Level; (4) Exemplary Test Items at Each PARCC Level, by Subject and Dimension; (5) Distribution of Modified PARCC Ratings; and (6) Results for the Original PARCC Dimensions and Levels.   [More]  Descriptors: Test Items, Cognitive Processes, Difficulty Level, Skill Development

Polikoff, Morgan; Marsh, Julie; Plank, David N.; Hall, Michelle; Hardaway, Tenice; Le, Tien (2014). Californians and Public Education: Results from the Fourth PACE/USC Rossier Poll, Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. California is in the middle of a nearly unprecedented period of change in the state's education system. Following voter approval of Proposition 30 in 2012, the Legislature adopted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013. The LCFF upended the way California funds schools, redistributing revenues toward schools and school districts facing the greatest challenges and shifting control over the allocation of revenues from Sacramento to local educators and their communities. The decentralization of authority and responsibility brought about by the LCFF is reflected in the state's new accountability system. The centerpiece of the new system is the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), which must be developed in consultation with parents, teachers, and the broader community. The LCAP ties decisions about the use of resources directly to local strategies for educational improvement, rather than focusing on student test scores as the sole or even primary criterion for educational performance. Along with radically new school finance and accountability policies, California is simultaneously moving forward with the most ambitious transformation of standards and assessments in a generation. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the associated Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments promise greatly improved instruction and deeper learning for all California students, but successful implementation of the new standards will require major changes in curricula, instructional materials, teacher training, and professional development, among many other things. The courts have also weighed in on education policy issues in California. The recent decision in the "Vergara v. State of California" case would require the state to rethink state and local policies on several key elements of teacher employment policy including "teacher tenure" and the rules for teacher dismissal. How much do California voters know about the policy changes that are transforming their education system, and what are their views about the direction in which the state is moving? This report presents findings from the latest Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education poll. The poll was conducted by MFour Research/Tulchin Research in June 2014. It surveyed California voters' knowledge and opinions about the quality of the state education system, CCSS, the "Vergara" case and teacher employment policies, LCFF, and charter schools. [For the previous report in the series of PACE/USC Rossier polls, "How Californians View Education Standards, Testing and Accountability: Results from the Third PACE/USC Rossier Poll" (2013), see ED564340.]   [More]  Descriptors: Public Education, Educational Change, Funding Formulas, Accountability

Research For Action (2014). Enacting Common Core Instruction: How Intermediate Unit 13 Leveraged Its Position as an Educational Service Agency to Implement and Scale the LDC Initiative. Funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) and Math Design Collaborative (MDC) offer a set of instructional and formative assessment tools in literacy and math, which were developed to help educators better prepare all students to meet the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and succeed beyond high school. Following three years of extensive data collection in LDC study sites throughout the country, Research for Action (RFA) has produced three case studies to illustrate how the LDC and MDC tools have been adopted in different settings and contexts, and which approaches and supports have contributed to the successful adoption and use of the tools. The case studies provide a set of "road maps" for other sites that will be adopting or scaling up tool use. Case study sites have been examined through the lens of three overlapping conditions found to be necessary for effective scale-up: (1) Effective leadership at multiple levels; (2) Alignment with the CCSS, curricula, and state assessments; and (3) Meaningful and ongoing professional learning opportunities (PLOs). These conditions provide the organizing framework for the case studies and guide the RFA's analysis of the strategic approaches undertaken by state, regional, local, and network entities that enabled strong initial implementation. Each case study illustrates how the tools were implemented and scaled under a specific set of circumstances that are likely to be applicable to many other sites. As such, they are intended to inform further exploration and discussion on how to effectively roll-out the LDC and MDC tools across a wide range of districts and schools. The Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit (IU 13) case study provides an example of how an intermediary educational service unit — or other regional organizations in other states — can offer leadership, leverage resources, and build district capacity to effectively use literacy tools aligned with the CCSS and scale such initiatives. This approach to the implementation and scaling of a CCSS-aligned literacy framework also provides useful lessons for how states with similar entities can approach elements of their CCSS strategy. This document describes how IU 13 implemented the LDC initiative. It is composed of the following sections: (1) A brief overview of the educational reform and policy context in Pennsylvania and IU 13; (2) A summary of IU 13's approach to LDC implementation–balancing the strengths and limitations of their role as an educational service agency; and (3) Descriptions of 10 IU 13-initiated strategies, organized by the three supporting conditions depicted in the Theory of Action, that have impacted early adoption and success of the LDC initiative.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Teaching Methods, Formative Evaluation

Leave a Reply