These are my morning notes from Jan K. Hoegh’s presentation on 24 January 2012 in Oklahoma City for the Oklahoma Curriculum Improvement Commission. Jan is a consultant for the Marzano Research Lab. (@marzanoresearch on Twitter – Jan is not on Twitter yet.) MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS. The official description of this full-day workshop was:
Currently, a transition to Common Core Standards is prevalent in the educational environment. This session will overview key steps in successful Common Core implementation. A focus of the presentation will be resources the Marzano Research Laboratory has developed to support teachers and administrators in this transition from state standards to Common Core Standards.
Handouts from today are linked on www.ossba.org/ocic
Jan is working on a book titled “Making Common Core Standards Useful” with Dr Robert Marzano
Thanks that seem little often times make a big difference
– story about her sister as a cardio-nurse about a charting error typo
Common Core implementation is monstrous, not little
– has come upon us on a quick manner
– today is pretty little in the grand scheme of things
– but today could make a significant difference in how we go about implementation
One of my favorite examples of brain research:
from Sousa, How the Brain Works, 2005
MY COMMENT: THIS ‘BRAIN RESEARCH’ IS AN URBAN LEGEND AND HAS BEEN DEBUNKED. I AM COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY THAT THIS WAS SHARED AS THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF ‘BRAIN RESEARCH’ AND ‘ACADEMIC RESEARCH’ IN TODAY’S SEMINAR. IN ADDITION, MY GOOGLE SEARCH SHOWS THIS BOOK WAS INACCURATELY CITED ON THE SLIDE, IT IS “HOW THE BRAIN LEARNS” FROM 2006. THANKS DR. JON BECKER FOR SHARING THE LINK TO HOW “The “Learning Pyramid” IS A MYTH AND NOT ACADEMICALLY SOUND RESEARCH. www.learningandteaching.info/learning/myths.htm
There is a lot to consider today with Common Core State Standards
Age = our attention span
– change of state needed
– tops out at 18-20 minutes
– adult learners need chagne also
– 3 ways we will group and regroup
Your table family (a.k.a. the people at your table)
– sorry, you don’t get to pick your family
– your are stuck with them, just like life! 🙂
Next: your close partners
– some people sitting near you but not at your table
– form groups of 2 or 3
– take 30 seconds to introduce yourselves and then return to your table…
Last one we’ll just use 1 time: an across the room partner
– agree on a place in the room where you’ll meet and work together
– intro yourself and return to your table
4 Modules for Successful Implementation of CCSS (by Marzano Research Laboratory)
1- What are the CCSS?
2- How do proficiency scales support CCSS implementation?
3- What instructional practices support CCSS implementation?
4- What assessment practices support CCSS?
We have developed scales for every CCSS standard, working with leaders around the country
CCSS require us to look at our instructional practices and determine if we’re getting to higher order thinking
– 21st century teaching and learning
Take a moment to think of a time of ‘adjustment’ or transition in your life, either professional or personal
– with your table family, list emotions you experienced
Our group’s answers: anxiety, frustration, apprehension, anger, fear, stress, uncertainty, relief, excitement, relief
“We are transitioning now as a country to CCSS”
– “although CCSS isn’t our new normal yet, it will be”
MY THOUGHT: MANY PEOPLE WOULD LIKE OUR NATION TO TRANSITION, BUT THIS ISN’T THE CASE IN TEXAS AND (I THINK) 15 OTHER STATES
We need to ‘be real’ in this transition time and express these frustrations / emotions
– we need to embrace the change and focus on improving the educational experience for our students
– that is a choice we can make
– look today for things you find exciting
#1 Educators must gain deep understanding of the purpose, organization, and content of the CCSS
“Verbatim note-taking is the least effective way to process and keep information”
Mission statement of CCSS: (focus on bold
consider the implications of these things for us as educators
You as a state [OKLAHOMA] have chosen to be part of the Park Consortium
– states could sign on to either one: PARCC has 24 states, 17 are governing board states (PARCC = Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers)
– Nebraska has opted OUT of CCSS: educators in Nebraska are wondering why they are opting out of CCSS, since it’s coming down the road for everyone
as a veering board state Oklahoma has agreed to
– pilot and field test assessment system components
– administrator new assessment system during 2014-2015
– use results from PARCC assessments in state accountability system
Our state has chosen to take a leadership role, and that is to be commended
MY COMMENT: I WONDER HOW MANY ACTUAL PEOPLE WERE IN THE ROOM AND DECIDED WE WOULD JOIN PARCC AS A GOVERNING MEMBER? THIS WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION AS FAR AS I KNOW. INTERESTING HOW THIS IS BEING PRESENTED AS A ‘GREAT THING’ WE SHOULD CELEBRATE AND BE PROUD OF.
“the promise of the standards…”
– “These standards are not intended to be new names for old ways of doing business… They are a call to take the next step. It is time for states to work together to build on lessons learned from two decades of standards based reforms. It is time to recognize that standards are not just promises to our children, but promises we intend to keep.”
When we talk about ‘rigor’ in this context, we are talking about “application of content knowledge and skills”
‘teachable and learnable’ = guidance for the design of curricula and instructional materials
measurable: observable and verifiable
– we give students tasks to complete in relation to the standards
coherent: progression of learning
– there are blocks upon which other blocks are learning
– a continuum of learning, you will see this in the standards so you don’t see a lot of repetition in grade levels
– some of the content we were repeating in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade is no longer repeated
grade-by-grade standards
internationally benchmarked: success in our global economy
– our environment is much different now than from when I started in education in the 1980s
What you must do as you get involved with CCSS is get the document in front of you and others you are working with
– starting at the beginning
– our intuition is to ‘just get to the meat of it’
– I was in Ohio yesterday and the teachers there didn’t want to hear about all the steps needed for successful implementation
– like “The Sound of Music” we have to start with ABC… reading the actual document
what observations can you make reading the table of contents
MY COMMENT: IT IS PRETTY UNBELIEVABLE THAT ALL THE MATERIALS FOR THIS WORKSHOP ARE NOT PROVIDED UP-FRONT IN ELECTRONIC / DIGITAL FORMAT. I DID ASK IF THESE COULD BE SHARED AND JAN SAID SHE’D EMAIL THEM TO USE IF WE INDIVIDUALLY SEND HER AN EMAIL. THE PERSON WHO INTRODUCED HER SAID THEY WOULD BE POSTED/SHARED ON THE OSSBA WEBSITE. THIS IS AS MAINSTREAM A CURRICULUM CONFERENCE AS YOU CAN GET IN OKLAHOMA, AND THE STACK OF PAPERS DISTRIBUTED AS WE CAME IN THE ROOM MAKE IT CLEAR THIS IS ‘PAPER-BASED LECTURE LEARNING AS USUAL.” IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT FACILITATING STUDENT USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES APPROPRIATELY AND REGULARLY IN THE CLASSROOM, WE HAVE TO START WITH TEACHER-LEADERS. (US) WE’VE GOT TO MODEL BLENDED LEARNING, AND THAT’S NOT HAPPENING HERE TODAY.
design and organization: focus on results rather than means
– this means teachers get to do the designing
– teachers are not told how they have to teach something
integrated model of literacy means it’s an integrated approach
we have to focus on research and media skills, those are integrated throughout the document
Only 70% of high school students graduate on time with a regular diploma (Green and Winters, 2005)
MY COMMENT: THAT STATISTIC IS SEVEN YEARS OLD! WHY ARE WE USING RESEARCH FINDINGS THAT ARE SEVEN YEARS OLD WHEN WE ARE IN 2012?
Also: “Approximately 40% of high school graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek.” (Achieve, Inc. 2005)
“U.S. dropouts’ literacy skills are lower than those of dropouts in most industrialized nations.” (A Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York)
MY COMMENT: WHERE IS THE DATE CITATION FOR THIS CARNEGIE CORP REPORT? WHERE IS THE LINK? HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FACT-CHECK AND CRITICALLY ANALYZE THE INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED TO US TODAY, WHEN QUOTATIONS LIKE THIS ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY CITED? WE NEED TO MODEL BEST PRACTICE WHEN IT COMES TO CITATIONS, AND THESE SLIDES MISS THAT BOAT.
“Our students literacy skills today are not what they need to be”
NAPE focuses on informational text use a lot, so CCSS follows suit…
– significant shift and implications
Reading Design and Organization
3 sections
1- literature
2- informational text
3- foundational skills (k-5)
Where do we go to find literary / informational text
– look at appendices A-C in the CCSS, and especially appendix B for examples of exemplary texts
What does “college and career ready” mean for students?
Content is just good, solid ELA and math content
four strands
– reading (including reading foundational skills)
– writing
– speaking and listening
– language
Numbering System of K-5 ELA Standards
– RL = reading literature
– RI = reading informational text
– W = writing
– RF –
– SL
Need to carve out time to help teachers understand the language / coding system
RST.6-8.3 = Reading, Science and Technology, grades 6-8, 3rd standard
Gaining understanding of the CCSS requires spending time with teachers ‘learning the lingo’ of abbreviations / acronyms in the CCSS
We already do a lot as teachers which is “orchestration”
– an arrangement of events to achieve a maximum effect
– the desired maximum effect is optimum levels of student achievement
MY THOUGHT: ACTUALLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER VERY IMPORTANT AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT OUTCOMES ON WHICH WE SHOULD/MUST BE FOCUSED AS PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS IN ADDITION TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Now we are shifting to module #2, looking at proficiency scales
– “Educators must gain keep understanding of how proficiency scales can be used to enhance CCSS processes”
Guiding Questions
– what is a proficiency scale and why is it necessary
– how does unpacking the standards support the development of scales?
– what resources does MRL have to support you regarding proficiency scales?
So what constitutes a clean refrigerator? (brainstorm)
– now discussing use of rubric to establish proficiency scales
– this creates documentation about the content of the standards and student performance
We are going to provide these scales as part of the appendix to the new book I’m writing with Dr Marzano
“the intent of CCSS was to create a national curriculum so students can move to different states and have the same learning”
– my fear is states are unpacking and unwrapping the standards so instead of having a national unpacking, we have 46 different unpackings
– so Marzano Research Labs has taken on the job of unpacking these standards as scales so these can be used as conversation pieces / starting places for conversations
On our proficiency scales, student expected performance is always at score 3 (score 3 is always explicitly taught in the classroom)
– application in real-world contexts
We want to get kids to college/career ready levels
MY THOUGHTS: I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO MORE CAREFULLY CONSIDER IF COLLEGE READY AND CAREER READY ARE THE SAME THING. THE CCSS ASSUME THEY ARE. OUR ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS ASSUME THEY ARE IN OKLAHOMA CURRENTLY (WHEN I’VE HEARD THEM TALK) BUT I’VE HEARD MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNOR’S WORKFORCE COUNCIL STRONGLY QUESTION THIS. THE CCSS ARE ASSUMING STUDENTS NEED A UNIFORM, CONSISTENT, STANDARDIZED SET OF EXPERIENCES TO PREPARE THEM FOR LIFE SUCCESS. I AM THINKING THIS IS ‘OLD WORLD’ THINKING IN MANY WAYS: 1 WAY, 1 SET OF STANDARDS, 1 PATH. THAT IS NOT DIFFERENTIATION. THAT IS FACTORY-THINKING.
Scale development
– now you’re going to create a scale for time and money
– start with level 3: what are all students expected to do? (learning goal / expectation)
– in level 2, include the vocabulary, foundational knowledge, simpler procedures, isolated details
– level 1: with help students can perform level 2 and 3
– level 0: even with help the student cannot perform expectations
– level 4: demonstrations of learning that go above and beyond what was explicitly taught
MY QUESTION: ARE WE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT RUBRIC DEVELOPMENT NOW?
Recommendation: Don’t have your teachers create all these scales
– have them go through the process to see what it takes
– scale captures content of the standard on the left side, the right hand shows example activities which pertain to content
Teachers get: “What does it look like in practice?”
We are in the process of posting our Scales as a bank
– access this from www.marzanoresearch.com/Free_Resources/itembank.aspx
MY COMMENT: NOTE A FREE ACCOUNT MUST BE REQUIRED TO ACCESS THE BANK
Now discussing implications: What does this mean for you in your district?
MY THOUGHTS ANSWERING THIS QUESTION:
– OUR TEACHERS NEED PD/OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP CCSS-ALIGNED RUBRICS
– WE OUGHT TO DEFINE HOW MUCH OF THIS ‘UNPACKING’ OUR TEACHERS NEED TO DO, TO UNDERSTAND THE CCSS AND HOW THEY APPLY
– I’M WONDERING WHERE THE FOCUS ON LESSON PLANNING IS? WHAT ARE THE KEY ELEMENTS OF A CCSS-ALIGNED LESSON PLAN WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN A ‘TRADITIONAL’ MADELAINE-HUNTER STYLE LESSON PLAN? I ‘GET’ THAT THE MARZANO GROUP WANTS TEACHERS TO USE SCALES/RUBRICS TO DEFINE AND ASSESS STUDENT LEARNING TASKS.
Technorati Tags: ccss, common, core, oklahoma, school, marzano, research, jan, hough, academic, standards, transition
Comments
8 responses to “Transition to Common Core Standards by Jan Hoegh (1 of 2)”
“I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO MORE CAREFULLY CONSIDER IF COLLEGE READY AND CAREER READY ARE THE SAME THING. THE CCSS ASSUME THEY ARE.” Not exactly. There was a pretty rigorous process used to look at a number of different standards and expectations, map them, and then invite comments to help inform the process.
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/process I’m curious why you didn’t submit comments if you are so concerned about the standards?
Thanks for sharing that link. The leaders in Oklahoma I’ve heard talk about CCSS seem to conflate college ready and career ready. The page you sent does too, it says “College and career readiness standards, which address what students are expected to learn when they have graduated from high school.” Isn’t that putting them in the same barrel?I am sure I should have submitted comments. I’ll use the excuse that I was writing my PhD dissertation….
I’m beginning to wonder if you have even read the standards or anything about the process used to create them. Here is one of the validation reports http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CommonCoreReport_6.10.pdf. You can find similar research at Achieve.
And that’s great about your Ph. D. I’m just surmised that someone who has such passionate views against the common core couldn’t find time during months of the comment process to weigh in, on one hand you criticize them for not involving teachers and being open to influence but in the other, you don’t participate in the process. I just don’t understand,
I don’t have “passionate views against the common core.” Did YOU “read my post?”
I think there are some great things about CCSS. The main problems I have are with high stakes testing and the way our nation has a myopic focus on high stakes testing that has completely skewed our perceptions about assessment and high quality learning.
I did not question the validity of the standards here. I’m questioning our need to spend millions on commercially produced testing materials instead of investing in our teachers, who are the most important variables in the educational equation.
Where in my post or elsewhere in my writings did I “criticize them [the CCSS] for not involving teachers?” I didn’t write or say that. Please do not engage in straw man attacks here.
I’ll ask the same question I asked on the other post from today’s workshop where you commented: What is your real name?
Jon. And maybe this was a straw an but no more so than what you post about most of these policies. I wasn’t talking about assessment, I was simply pointing to the validation committee – ,any of who, are individuals you quote on this blog – as evidenced that there was at least some rigor behind asserting the college and career standards are the same.
I’m still puzzled why you have not weighed in on public comments. So you’re against high stakes tasting. Mid you comment on the rttt assessment guidelines http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html. Or on any of the individual assessment coalitions? I’m being serious – why sit on the blog sidelines when there is a chance to actually influence the policy?
What a shame that the resources needed are for sale on Marzano’s site. Where did the public in public education go? It is not the teachers place to design rubrics for cc. That should have happended long before these standards were adopted by any state department of education. Now we are caught playing catch up or buying from educational gurus like Marzano.
I don’t fault Marzano for creating a business selling instructional materials and services. This is the USA and our economy is built on entrepreneurship, after all. That said, we’re hardly captive to him or any other company as educators and school representatives. The main way we are going to disrupt the traditional textbook economy in schools is by openly creating and sharing instructional materials like lesson plans, rubrics, etc. This will challenge commercial content providers to clearly differentiate their ‘value add’ over freely available materials. For examples see the “ingredients” section of this lesson planning site for Yukon Public Schools:
http://lessons.yukonps.com/home/ingredients/databases
For more on the ethic of sharing in education, see the videos and links on Oklahoma EDUshare:
http://okedushare.org/on-sharing/
I’m late getting back to this thread.
What do you mean “blog sidelines?” This isn’t the sideline, this is the frontline.
I did contribute my thoughts formally at a public hearing for comments in our state on the new virtual schooling legislation last month. I certainly would like to contribute more. I hardly think the fact that I haven’t submitted comments on RTTT or other legislation makes my views expressed here any less valid, however.
Do you really think the comments I could have shared on RTTT formally would have changed that “race to nowhere” agenda? That’s nice pie in the sky idealism, and I do think we need to participate in our democratic processes at multiple levels, but I really think we won’t see changes in the NCLB/RTTT mentality until we have another regime change in Washington. Even then there are no guarantees things will change, I don’t think a constituency has articulated a clear, counter-vision to the one we continue to be force-fed by politicians.