Stockton teachers coming to Monterey to share tips on Common Core

Stockton teachers Liz and Bill James will be signing copies of their new book, Method to the Madness: A Common Core Guide to Creating Critical Thinkers through the Study of Literature, from 2 to 4 p.m. on Saturday, August 27 at Old Capitol Books, 559 Tyler St., Monterey.

The book was published in April by Rowman and Littlefield and is designed to help teachers develop rigorous curriculum that meets the needs of the Common Core standards, something that many teachers haven't had practice doing in the scripted, test-prep-focused NCLB-era.

The book is being described as being "ideal for the thousands of teachers who entered the profession in the last ten years and taught prescribed curriculum geared toward end of year bubble testing. Its intent is to empower districts and their teachers to create their own (free!) curriculum that will exceed the expectations of Common Core assessments, as well as create life-long learners that are college and career ready. By employing inquiry based units of study that insist on the use of iconic literature at the center, students will be more prepared for what awaits them with Common Core exams.

For more information about the event, click here.

MPUSD parents: learn more about the Common Core

The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District is presenting the last of three parent engagement nights designed to teach parents how to help their children with the Common Core Standards.

The Common Core Standards are a new set of academic goals aimed at preparing students to be ready for college and career by the time they finish high school.

The parent engagement night will take place from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at Walter Colton Middle School, 100 Toda Vista Way, Monterey. For more information call Kathieryn Medina at 645-1212 or kmedina@mpusd.k12.ca.us

Common Core for Parents

*** UPDATE *** The Monterey County Office of Education has postponed a parent education night on the Common Core previously scheduled for Dec. 5.

*** The Monterey County Office of Education will host a workshop so parents can hear what the fuzz is all about the Common Core Standards.

There is a major shift in the way teachers will instruct and students will learn. The Common Core State Standards call increased used of critical thinking skills so students can be ready for college or the workplace at the end of high school. Students will be required to explain their math reasoning, collaborate with peers on projects, and demonstrate their abilities to assess content, analyze impacts, express themselves in writing and provide evidence on how they reach conclusions.

The parent engagement nights will be available in English with interpretation into Spanish.

From 5:30 – 7 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, at the Monterey County Office of Education,901 Blanco Circle, Salinas.

*Child care and refreshments available.

The meetings will assess what participants know and want to know about Common Core State Standards. Additionally, they will provide valuable hands-on strategies on how parents can make a difference in their schools by asking the right questions or at home by providing supplemental learning activities that extend classroom learning. Simple strategies, such as math games and prompt questions to ask during reading sessions or while watching educational programming will be shared so parents can support classroom instruction. Additionally, various resources and tools will be made available in both English and Spanish, hard copy and via Internet.

For more information, contact Claribel Solis at 831.755.0368 or csolis@monterey.k12.ca.us or Jordan Alexander-Santana at jalex@monterey.k12.ca.us.

More on the saga of California new exams

By now, it's probably already water under the bridge. California legislators this week enthusiastically approved a series of measures designed to revamp education at California public schools.

Doug McRae, a local testing expert with national experience, is adamantly opposed to the new proposed exams, now awaiting the governor's signature, because they've not been 'tested' yet.

McRae's knowledge is too vast and exact to summarize sometimes -- and I'm afraid my stories sometimes can't completely describe all the nuances of his research and why he opposes the so-called Smarter Balanced exams. So here's a letter he wrote to the legislature, along with links to  (one) and (two) documents he's previously submitted for the record. Enjoy!

An Open Letter to the California Legislature on AB 484 (Bonilla)

Honorable Senators and Assemblymembers:

AB 484 (Bonilla), a measure setting direction for the California K-12 statewide assessment system for the next seven years, is scheduled for action on the floor of the Senate this week, and if approved it will be scheduled for concurrence in the Assembly before the end of the 2013 session this week. I would urge you not to support passage of this measure at this time.

There are two major reasons this measure does not deserve your support:

· The measure mandates that California use a “consortium” assessment system for the next seven years, through 2020, to measure the new Common Core standards. No one has seen the new tests yet, because the consortium tests have yet to be developed. Further, it is highly unlikely the federally funded consortium will be able to produce fully operational tests as promised for the spring 2015 testing cycle [see Attach 1, p 3 and Attach 2, pp 10-11 for details]. California’s timelines for implementing instruction for the new Common Core show Mathematics will not be ready for assessment until 2016 and English / Language Arts not until 2017 [Attach 1, p 2 & 6-7]. The consortium tests call for computer-administration, and California will likely not be technology-ready for assessments until 2018 [Attach 2, pp 3-4]. Finally, there will be competitive non-consortium tests that may provide better data and services for a lower price when California is ready to fully implement new computerized tests to measure the Common Core [Attach 1, p 13]. Mandating a single source for K-12 assessments for the next seven years before we know what will be delivered or what the costs will be for expenditures in the hundreds of millions of dollars is not a smart business decision.

· While it has been widely asserted that California “must” implement assessments to measure the new Common Core by 2015, the fact is there are no federal or state legislative mandates for implementation by this date, only a commitment to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium to implement their tests by 2015 . . . . a commitment that without AB 484 may easily be withdrawn. AB 484 as amended September 4 includes new language in Sec 60648.5 that the first full administration of consortium tests “shall occur in 2014-15 unless the state board determines that the assessments cannot be fully implemented.” This language would allow for indefinite delay for initial use of consortium tests, until all the necessary elements (tests, instruction, and technology) are in place. Under AB 484, the only option would be to continue participation in Smarter Balanced’s on-going test development work, which would not have federal support but rather be on California’s dime, and which would not generate valid and reliable individual student scores or statewide aggregate data. Without valid and reliable test data, California would not be able to generate the heavily used California Academic Performance Index (API) data for upwards of four years or longer [Attach 1, pp 2-3; Attach 2, p 14-17]. To have a four year hiatus from accountability data would not be well received by the California public-at-large [67 percent support the use of tests for accountability purposes, according to a UC/Stanford/USC PACE poll released just last week].

There are many additional reasons for not supporting AB 484 at this time, reasons discussed in the attachments to this letter but too detailed for lengthy discussion here.

I urge you not to support AB 484 (Bonilla) at this time, but rather wait until we are collectively ready to initiate a new computerized assessment system to measure the Common Core and have more complete knowledge of assessment systems, consortium and non-consortium, available for potential use for a new California K-12 statewide assessment system to measure the Common Core.

Douglas J. McRae, Ph.D.
Educational Measurement Specialist (Retired)
Monterey, California

[Doug McRae is a retired educational measurement specialist living in Monterey. In his 40 years in the K-12 testing business, he has served as an educational testing company executive in charge of design and development of K-12 tests widely used across the US, as well as an adviser on the initial design and development of California’s STAR assessment system. He has a PhD in Quantitative Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.]

California high-stakes testing bill develops into a high-level head-butting

Well, sort of.

It will never be described as such in the media pages, but California's bid to end federally mandated testing as we know it is not making the feds happy.

In a terse statement, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan threatened with cutting funds to California if a bill that would stop testing for students becomes law.

"If California moves forward with a plan that fails to assess all its students, as required by federal law, the Department will be forced to take action, which could include withholding funds from the state," Duncan said in the statement.

As some of you remember, California top educators last week announced their support for ending all STAR testing as of this coming spring in order to help teachers have a smoother transition towards Common Core. Here's a story I wrote about it.

Apparently, the news did not sit well with Arne, who promised action on the eve of the vote.

California Supt. of Schools Tom Torlakson was quick to reply that California would do "what's right for California's children." Then he ginned support from his friends,  San Diego County Superintendent of Schools and the superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District, who issued statements saying they have Torlakson's back.

Ah, this back and forth is fascinating. I'll have more on it in the print edition. Stay tuned.  

Here Comes the Common Core...

Ah, the Common Core Standards. Whether we like them or not, they'll be the guest of honor at Education's party for years to come.

The Common Core Standards, a nation-wide adopted series of expectations of what students should be learning, have been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. They're designed to better prepare students for post-secondary education and the work force.

But even though they were adopted in California in 2010, and Monterey County districts have been working on implementing them for a couple of years now, the general public seems a bit oblivious about what they mean.

At least, that's what our good friends at the PDK/Gallup poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools concludes.

In a nationwide survey, 62 percent of respondents had never heard of the standards. Among parents with children in school, only 45 percent had heard of them. (Here's a story about the poll)

I actually don't blame anybody for knowing little about this complicated topic. I'd probably would not know about it if it were not my job.

But I'm here to make your life easier. Here's a list of some resources you can use to learn more about the Common Core. 

The original site of the Common Core Standards, with grade-by-grade information.

Superintendent of Schools Tom Torlakson talking about new assessments for Common Core

California Common Core Standards Math

California Common Core Standards English

Here's the most interesting one. The Hunt Institute and the Council of Chief State School Officers have put together a series of cute little videos designed to better explain different aspects of the Common Core.

"These videos were developed to help different groups – educators, policymakers, parents – better understand the breadth and depth of the Standards and how they will improve teaching, make classrooms better, create shared expectations, and cultivate lifelong learning for all students," according to the site. 

I've only watched  two of these videos, but they are short and to the point, so I expect I'll be returning for more. 

I'll keep adding to this list, so if you see something worth including, let me know.

Just sharing: a cornucopia on the Common Core Standards

The Common Core Standards are upon us, and I came across this website with a plethora of information about the new teaching method (I'm still trying to come up with the best, simplest way to describe the CCS. Any suggestions).

The site contains courses developed by teachers on how to teach the Common Core. The concept looks interesting, and I'll try to explore it more in depth one of these days. In the meantime, have at it and tell me what you think!

Common Core, a Trojan Horse for Education?

Orlean Koehle, president of the Eagle Forum of California, and author of "Common Core, a Trojan Horse for Education" will be the guest speaker at the Southern Monterey County Republian Women Federated monthly luncheon meeting at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 6, at Stravaganza Grill, 611 Canal St., King City.

Koehle, a former teacher will discuss the Common Core Standard Initiative, an educational program of national standards and curriculum adopted in California in 2010 and way on its way to be implemented in most school districts. For reservations, call (831) 385-5843 or (831) 382-4230.

Common Core Standards for Parents!

Martin Cisneros, techology czar at the Monterey County Office of Education, put together this page on information and resources about the Common Core Standards.

Many schools in Monterey County (and the entire state) have begun the transition to the new educational system, which will need to be fully implemented in 2014, with students tested in 2015.

You can find the page here.

Tom Torlakson publishes list of recommended books

And they look a lot like the old recommended books.

Superintendent of Schools Tom Torlakson unveiled today a search engine that contains lists of recommended books for every age level. You can find it here.

After a quick perusal, it doesn't seem very different from previous lists. Which leads me to think, is the Common Core as different as proponents are making it to be?

Or is it going to take a while before old literature catches up with new trends?

Guest writer Doug McRae on the proposed revamping of testing

California Superintendent of Schools Tom Torlakson yesterday unveiled a proposal to revamp testing system for California schools. Here's my story on the topic.

As often is the case with topics on testing, I rely on the expertise of Doug McRae, statistician extraordinaire and former top executive with one of the leading testing companies in the country. He has a lot to say about the proposal, so here's what he wrote in response to Torlakson's detailed proposal. (You can also find that in the story).

By Doug McRae

General Comments

The purpose for a K-12 assessment system is the most important factor for the design of a new assessment system. The primary purpose defined by the report is found on page 4 when the report says the recommended system “has as its primary purpose to model and promote high-quality teaching and student learning activities.” This statement of purpose deviates from the usual purpose for a K-12 statewide assessment system, which is to measure the results of instruction. CA’s previous STAR system had measuring the results of instruction as its primary purpose, so the SPI is recommending a radical departure from the previous statewide assessments.

Based on many many years designing and developing large scale K-12 testing systems, I can say that the two purposes cited above are mutually incompatible. Systems designed for purposes of instruction do not serve the needs for measuring the results of instruction, and systems designed for purposes of measuring the results of instruction do not serve instructional needs well. The report itself says this in a one-sided way on page 5 when it says that STAR is valid for comparing school and district performance (i.e., measuring the results of instruction), but it was not designed to support instructional uses. What the report neglects to say is that assessment systems designed for instructional purposes are not designed to serve the needs of measuring the results of instruction (i.e., accountability uses) well.

The theme of the report focuses on use of assessment data for instruction. Now, data for instructional purposes is a vital ingredient for a comprehensive instructional system, but such data need to reside within the instructional system. Such an instructional system should have strong local school and district control to be aligned with other components of an instructional system, such as instructional materials and professional development. A statewide assessment system is centrally controlled with strict standardization and testing windows and test security that limit utility for instruction. In effect, the SPI recommendation replaces accountability testing by an approach to statewide testing motivated by helping instructional systems. As such, the report has a strong anti-accountability theme. Indeed, over the past 20 years, one of the constants in the debates over statewide assessment systems in the US has been the conflict between advocates of accountability and detractors of accountability for our K-12 schools, and advocating for instructional tests rather than tests that measure the results of instruction is in effect an anti-accountability Trojan Horse strategy that focuses on the benefits of instructional tests to hide an intent to minimize the use of accountability tests.

Rather than abandon the accountability purpose for CA’s statewide testing system, a far better approach would be to advocate for instructional tests as part of CA local control instructional systems, and reserve the mandated statewide assessment system efforts for measuring the results of instruction, or the accountability purpose.

The report provides very little information on three other aspects of its recommendations:

• Tests for instruction will take increased testing time – this is acknowledged generally in the report but no specific information is provided for how much increased time. From the information available from the Smarter Balanced consortium, the summative portion of the tests they plan to provide will increase CA’s statewide assessment time anywhere from 50 percent to 300 percent.
• Tests for instruction will require increased financial resources – again, this is generally acknowledged in the report but no specific information is provided for how many additional dollars will be needed. Based on information currently available on the Smarter Balanced tests that the SPI anticipates will serve as the core for a future statewide assessment system, the costs will increase anywhere from 50 percent to 300 percent.
• The prospects for California being able to implement a computer-adaptive testing system by 2014-15 are not addressed at all in the report. California will have to upgrade its technology hardware and bandwidth significantly simply to administer computer-adaptive tests, just to permit schools to conduct test administrations. In addition, whether or not students will be ready to take computerized tests by 2014-15 is an unknown that has yet to be explored at all. Frankly, the chances that California will have the hardware capability or the student experience needed to implement a statewide computerized test by 2014-15 are slim and none. [More on this under detail recommendation (2) below.]

Detailed Recommendations

The report provides 12 detailed recommendations on pp 41-47, with a summary table on p 48. I’ll now provide initial observations on these 12 recommendations.

(1) Suspend Portions of STAR Beginning Spring 2014
This recommendation is to suspend all parts of STAR not used for federal accountability reporting starting 2014. No rationale is given for this recommendation other than “suspending assessments . . . . will allow staff and stakeholders to focus attention, efforts, and resources on building a new assessment and accountability system.” The only logical way to interpret this recommendation is that the SPI and CDE staff are anti-accountability testing and they want to use their time to design a statewide instructional assessment system. The recommendation ignores the benefits of a substantial amount of data generated by the current STAR program, and the achievement data trends it supplies for schools and districts as well as the state. A far more nuanced recommendation would be to suspend the portions of STAR that generate duplicative and/or unneeded information; there are some major portions of our current statewide assessment system (STAR as well as CAHSEE) that can be modified without losing valuable specific information and/or trend information.

(2) Fully Implement Smarter Balanced E/LA and Math Tests in 2014-15
We have no idea whether we can implement a computerized test for 3-4 million kids by 2014-15 yet. As indicated above, hardware and bandwidth upgrades of unknown quantities will be needed, and students have not been prepped to be able to generate valid and reliable scores from computerized assessments yet. The report notes under this recommendation that for students unable to access a computer, a paper-and-pencil version of the SBAC assessment will be provided for up to 3 years. However, there is no discussion whether the two versions of the SBAC assessments will yield comparable scores that would allow for local school, local district, or statewide aggregation; the technical considerations for generating comparable scores particularly for variable form computer-adaptive tests and fixed form paper-and-pencil tests are substantial, and indeed the state-of-the-art for providing such comparisons is in its infancy. The “phase-in over 3 years” recommendation is shaky, much more so for computer-adaptive tests than for fixed form computer-administered tests and counterpart fixed-form paper-and-pencil tests.

(3) Use Grade 11 SBAC E/LA and Mathematics Tests as Indicators of College Readiness Other than college admission tests such as the College Board SAT and the ACT, the idea of measuring college readiness and/or career readiness across the full spectrum of grade 11 enrollment is a relatively new idea, and frankly assessment system designers do not have much experience with this concept. Initial progress by both consortia (Smarter Balanced and PARCC) now developing “next generation” assessments has been slow. The idea that we will have a fully functional college and/or career readiness assessment instrument by 2014-15 is fanciful thinking.

(4) Develop and Administer Science Assessments Aligned to New Science Standards No standards yet, no details yet, no timeline yet, other than these new assessments will be like the E/LA and Math assessments in terms of their instructional qualities. A pretty empty recommendation right now.

(5) Use Multistate Consortia Alternate Assessments to Replace CAPA To date, virtually no information has been disseminated on CA’s involvement in the NCSC consortium of which CA is a member, nor to my knowledge has the consortium itself disseminated information on its progress.

(6) Determine the Need for Assessments in Other Languages than English Primary language assessments are needed to provide evaluation of the effectiveness of various bilingual education programs (i.e., to measure the results of instruction for these programs). California has had an ineffective primary language program for years since the current test was not designed to provide valid accountability information.

(7) Assess the Full Curriculum with Model Instructional Tests
As indicated under General Comments above, this recommendation is a fine contribution to a local control comprehensive instructional system, but does not belong in a large scale standardized secure centrally controlled statewide assessment system.

(8) Invest in Interim, Diagnostic, and Formative Testing Tools
Again, as indicated under General Comments above, these tools are fine for a locally controlled comprehensive instructional system, but not for a centrally controlled statewide assessment system. There is a significant danger that including these components in a statewide assessment system will result in these components simply being used to game a statewide summative assessment system designed to measure the results of instruction, or in effect as state encouraged institutional tools to “teach to the test” in ways more pervasive than current “teaching to the test” efforts. Teaching to the test efforts degrade both the validity of statewide assessment results and good instructional practices.

(9) Consider Alternatives to CAHSEE
 CAHSEE is essentially a redundant test for a substantial number of 10th graders in CA. We can use STAR results from earlier grades as “early qualification” tests for the CAHSEE high school graduation requirement. This efficiency for our statewide assessment system has been ignored for years by Sacramento policymakers, and is a major contributor to over testing our high school students.

(10) Explore Matriculation Exams
Finally, a recommendation I can agree with . . . . .

(11) Conduct Comparability Studies
These studies are absolutely necessary, but they will impose a substantial time requirement for students to take both tests. The representative samples needed may be problematic if any phased implementations over three years recommended above takes place if indeed certain subgroups of students (i.e., our underserved subgroups) all take paper-and-pencil tests while other subgroups (non-minorities, high SES) take computer-adaptive tests. Achieving adequate study designs for these studies will not be trivial.

(12) Maintain a Continuous Cycle of Improvement
Always a good recommendation for any “future” report . . . . . fills out a nice round number for recommendations.

English learners and the Stanford project

When I wrote an article about English learners and the Common Core a couple of weeks ago, I failed to link to the Understanding Language Project at Stanford University. The team is working on developing teaching resources to share, something that could be very useful as schools work on implementing the Common Core Standards.

The project will host a webinar to discuss their unit "Persuasion across time and space," a unit for 7th graders that analyzes a series of texts in the context of the Common Core. I was lucky to attend a workshop on this unit taught by Prof. Aída Walqui, who piloted the program in Oakland to much success. So English teachers out there, I highly recommend the webinar!

Of teaching literature, non-fiction, and the Common Core Standards

In his latest post for the National Association of Scholars, "How the Internet Ruined the Teaching of Literature," Monterey Peninsula College English instructor David Clemens decries how current technology is changing student habits for the worse: they are so used to be fed images they no longer find it pleasurable -- or necessary -- to read literary classics. Students also fail to acquire the necessary knowledge in grammar, history, or morality attached to the works. He writes it much more eloquently that I ever could, so take a look.

You're probably aware that California schools are in the process of changing their teaching practices to accommodate Common Core Standards. One of the main components of Common Core is switching emphasis from literature to works of non fiction. Instead of analyzing "Catcher in the Rye," students will now focus on an equivalent in the non-fiction world, like the biography of a famous leader.

Given the changes the Internet has brought about in the literary scene, and how students are no longer finding it "fun" to learn from the literary masters (it's all about fun these days for young people), maybe the Common Core standards have arrived just in time. Now the challenge for educators will be to make learning "fun" within these confines, and keep ahead of the Internet!