Getting To The Core

“More focus on depth than breadth”

The  was given a lengthy presentation on Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at its work session last week accompanied by a detailed power point.

Dr. Stacy Gross, Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum, started the Administration's Common Core State Standards presentation by stating that the shift to the CCSS is an “anxious time, but also a very exciting time in education. There hasn’t been a big change in education in many years….and we know that we have a big responsibility in getting it moving forward.”

What are Common Core State Standards?

According to the mission statement, the Common Core State Standards "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”

Gross said that CCSS are basically common grade-level educational content and skills expectations agreed to by multiple states in the nation; there are currently 45 states that have adopted them (click here to see who has adopted the CCSS and when.)

Connecticut formally joined the initiative when the State Board of Education adopted the CCSS with a unanimous vote in July of 2010.

The standards are “clearer and fewer—focusing more on depth than breadth.” They are described as containing rigorous content and emphasize application of knowledge using higher-order thinking skills- questioning, evaluating and synthesizing among others.

Gross pointed out “If some of these terms sound familiar to you – it is exactly what we have in the Vision of the Graduate;” reminding the Board that “before this (CCSS) even came out, we knew that this would be important for our students.”

Goodbye CMT and CAPT; Hello SBAC

One of the most significant changes coming will be the replacement of the current set of standardized tests, Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) during the 2014-2015 school year.

Based upon the standards established by grade level, the computer based assessment “requires student-initiated planning, management of information and ideas, interaction with other material and may require extended response and research." The mandatory summative assessments, which measures a student’s progress against the standards and will replace the other standardized tests, will be supplemented during the year through interim assessments which help teachers identify a student’s subject areas and skill sets in need of focus.

With the significant emphasis which the town places on performance on standardized testing, seeing the GPS results against a national set of standards will undoubtedly result in even greater levels of debate on the quality of the education provided to the children of Greenwich.

Impact of CCSS and SABC on Greenwich - September 2012

The standards will result in the need to align the GPS’s current curriculum with the new standards, some modifications to specific units and a series of professional training for administrators and teachers.

The board spent considerable time last week on mathematics curriculum, which will see a more immediate change than the other areas (Click here for the Language Arts addendum.)

Why? The Board will need to make a decision - and quickly - with how to proceed with math for changes to be implemented for September 2012. Tuck Southworth, the district's retiring mathematics curriculum coordinator, presented options for the board's consideration.

In the transition to CCSS Math, each option assumes that:

• teachers will receive professional learning around curriculum changes;
• the K-5 Core Math package is Everyday Math;
• costs are estimated which include ancillary materials and shipping.

The options are listed in increasing order of impact on classroom teachers.

1. Option 1 - Hold the Course

• Continue to use the current core math materials in K-5
• Provide staff with additional units and lessons that address CCSS at their grade level
• Identify concepts and skills no longer stressed at each grade level
• Adjust the benchmark exams to reflect the new standards
• Approximate Cost: $110,000

2. Option 2 - Common Core Phase-In (over 2 years)

• Purchase CCSS edition of Everyday Math for grades 3, 4 and 5 for Fall 2012
• Purchase CCSS edition of Everyday Math for grades K, 1 and 2 for Fall 2013
• Provide professional learning around the new materials for teachers (internal)
• Continue to use the current core math materials in grades K,1 and 2
• Provide K-2 staff with additional units and lessons that address CCSS changes
• Adjust the benchmark exams to reflect the new standards
• Approximate Cost: $150,000 per year

3. Option 3 - Front Load Common Core K-5 (1 year implementation)

• Adopt the K-5 CCSS edition of our math program for all schools
• Provide professional learning around the new materials and curriculum sequence
• Adjust Benchmark exams to reflect the CCSS focus objectives or use publishers exam package
• Approximate Costs: $255,000 (includes technology component)

Southworth said that he believes that "publishers are rushing to come up with materials" seeing that there is an "opportunity" to create, market and sell new program. As such he predicted that the publishers will make modifications after the inaugural year, "I would like to see what are other districts are doing."

Of course, in addition to the consumable materials, there is also professional development to consider. Southworth said that there will be much less involved in options 1 and 2 believing that it could be handled internally with the district's coaches. However, with an "extensive revision" under Option 3, the district would definitely need to bring in "external people."

Interim School Superintendent Roger Lulow said, "The discussion tonight is in response to at least two issues: a public concern raised about the quality of the math curriculum and our willingness to make adjustments in the schedule."

This was the prelude

At the conclusion of the presentation, board members questioned whether remaining with Everyday Math is the right path for Greenwich. Lulow said, "We hope that the overall presentation will somehow communicate to the public and to the board the issues involved over the next couple of years in implementing in the Common Core."

Proactive Look

This is what Board Chair Leslie Moriarty described as the 30-minute focus on where the district may go with math; "I think that all of us are in the same place; that we want to get our students as prepared as possible for the change in expectations – we know that they are coming – we know the time-frame that they are coming."

Stay tuned, because the changes are to start in September.

ALP's Next Step - You've Come a Long Way Baby

With a 101-page supporting document in hand, Bonnie O’Regan, ALP Facilitator and Assistant Superintendent Gross presented Step II of the ALP (Advanced Learner Program) Curriculum Review.

The review was initiated in March 2010 and was focused on defining what was currently being offered in the district, reviewing admission criteria for the program and analyzing the value added to an ALP student’s educational process. The review involved focus groups, public meetings, in-depth examinations of the program and the use of external experts.

Top 5%

O’Regan led a review of the ALP program in January 2012 which compared Greenwich’s program with standards published by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC.) Based upon the results of this analysis, Dr. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska of The College of William and Mary concluded “Greenwich ranks in the top 5% nationally on meeting best practice standards in identification, curriculum, and learning assessments.”

That was the good news, now the rest

Despite this high praise, the committee did areas for which they recommended improvements. Dr. E. Jean Gubbins, a member of the National Research Center on Gifted and Talented who advised the committee during Step I of the review, recommended “future decisions related to program planning and implementation should include an emphasis on streamlining the screening and identification procedures.” The current identification process is inefficient due to repetitiveness of efforts within the ALP department and between the ALP department and the district.”

Different Strokes for Different Folks?

There were also wide disagreements regarding the equity in determining the number of students placed in the ALP program among different schools. The issue of whether standards for qualifying for the program should and do vary among schools elicited multiple views by members of the committee. In the end, the committee recognized that differences in school population existed and that “placement in the ALP program should reflect the high levels of accomplishment when compared with other students in their school environment, meaning that at least 10-15% of students at each building will be placed in each strand of ALP.”

Back to the Board April 26

The much anticipated ALP Review will return to the board for a vote at their April 26 business meeting at Riverside School. Come back to the Report Card next Monday for a more in-depth look at the ALP review, the recommendations and the board's reaction.