Date post: | 08-Aug-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gothamschoolsorg |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 52
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
1/52
EngageNY.org
A New Baseline:Measuring Student Progress on
the Common Core LearningStandards
August 2013
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
2/52
Common Core in New York
EngageNY.org 2
2010: Board of Regents adopts Common Core State
Standards2013: Common Core Assessments in Grades 3 8 ELA and
Math are administered
2014: Roll-out of Common Core Regents Exams begins
June 2014: ELA and Algebra I June 2015: Geometry and Algebra II
Class of 2017: First cohort of high school graduates requiredto pass Common Core Regents Exams for graduation
Transition to New York Common Core Assessments is a
seven year phase-in.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
3/52
A New Baseline
EngageNY.org 3
This years grades 3-8 ELA and math proficiency percentages
should not be compared directly with prior-year results. Unlike prior years, proficiency is now based on the
Common Core a more demanding set of knowledge and
skills necessary for 21st century college and careers.
These results present a new and transparent baseline fromwhich we can measure student progress and preparedness for
college and careers.
School and district leaders are urged to be thoughtful to ensure
these proficiency results have no negative impact on students,
schools, districts, or teachers.
No new districts will be identified as Focus Districts and no new
schools will be identified as Priority Schools based on 2012-13
assessment results.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
4/52
New Yorks growth scores are based on year-to-yearcomparisons for similar students, all of whom
experienced New Yorks Common Core assessments for
the first time in 2012-13.
The state-provided growth scores are based on year-to-year comparisons on scale scores, not performance levels.
Therefore, the state-provided growth scores resulted in
similar percentages of educators earning each rating
category* in 2012-13 compared to 2011-12.
*Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective
State-Provided Growth Scores
EngageNY.org 4
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
5/52
State-Provided Growth ScoreComparison - 2012 and 2013
EngageNY.org 5
HEDI Rating
2011-12 Percent of
Teacher MGPs
N=33,129
2012-13 Percent of
Teacher MGPs
N=37,614
Highly Effective 6.7% 7.0%
Effective 77.2% 76.3%
Developing 10.1% 10.8%
Ineffective 6.0% 5.9%
Growth scores are expected to be released to districts the week of 8/19
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
6/52
College andCareer Readiness
Converging Evidence aboutCollege Readiness
EngageNY.org 6
Whether the measure is
national or New York-specific,there is converging evidence
about student preparedness
for college and careers.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
7/527
Graduating College andCareer Ready
EngageNY.org 7
New York's 4-year high school graduation rate is 74% for All Students.However, the percent graduating college and career ready is significantly lower.
June 2012 Four-Year Graduation Rate (2008 Cohort)
Graduation under Current Requirements Calculated College and Career Ready*
% Graduating % Graduating
All Students 74.0 All Students 35.3
American Indian 58.5 American Indian 18.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 81.6 Asian/Pacific Islander 56.5
Black 58.1 Black 12.5
Hispanic 57.8 Hispanic 15.7White 85.7 White 48.5
English Language Learners 34.3 English Language Learners 7.3
Students with Disabilities 44.7 Students with Disabilities 4.9
*Students graduating with at least a score of 75 on Regents English and 80 on a Math Regents, which correlates with
success in first-year college courses.
Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
8/528
33% 4
1%
26% 3
1%
9%
4%
24%
32%
Grade 4 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
New York 2011 NAEP ReadingGrades 4 and 8
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
9/529
44%
40%
31%
23%
5% 7
%
30%
20%
Grade 4 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
New York 2011 NAEP Math
Grades 4 and 8
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
10/52
SAT and PSAT Benchmarks forNew York Students
EngageNY.org 10
College Board and NAEP study determined scores
on SAT and PSAT/NMSQT that correspond with
college readiness for the nation.
Criteria were adapted slightly to accommodateNew York students course-taking patterns.
The results for all New York students who
graduated in 2010 and who took the SAT andPSAT/NMSQT are on the following slide.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
11/52
SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCRBenchmark Data: ELA
EngageNY.org 11
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
12/52
SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCRBenchmark Data: Math
EngageNY.org 12
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
13/52EngageNY.org 13
Why Readiness Matters -Underperformance Costs $1 Trillion
Americas urban school districts underperform
compared with their suburban counterparts.
Americas suburban school districts underperform
compared with their international counterparts. If American students performed at the same level in
math as Canadian students, we would add $1 trillionannually to the economy.
Source: Levine, Arthur. The Suburban Education Gap. The Wall Street Journal. 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
14/52
Why Readiness Matters -Talent Dividend
If New York increased its college attainmentrate by just one percent from 33.8 to 34.8percent the State would capture a $17.5billion Talent Dividend.
EngageNY.org 14
Source: CEOs for Cities:
http://ceosforcities.org
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
15/52
Regents Reform AgendaImplementing Common Core
standards and developingcurriculum and assessmentsaligned to these standards to
prepare students for success in
college and the workplace
Building instructional data systemsthat measure student success and
inform teachers and principals how
they can improve their practice in
real time
Recruiting, developing, retaining, andrewarding effective teachers andprincipals
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools
EngageNY.org 15
College andCareer Ready
Students
Highly EffectiveSchool Leaders
Highly EffectiveTeachers
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
16/52
Common CoreStandards / CCR
Cut
Scores
NY Educator
Judgment
SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FORCOMMON CORE ASSESSMENTS
Standard SettingDetermination
Research-basedMethodology
EngageNY.org 16
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
17/52
Just as New York Educators areEssential to Test Development
New York educators are represented on the following panels:
New York State Content Advisory Panels
Spans early childhood and P12 through CUNY, SUNY and cIcu faculty
Item Development, Item Review, Final Form ReviewThese panels are informing:
College and Career Ready Determinations
Test specifications, policies, and items
Policy-level and grade-level performance leveldescriptions
EngageNY.org 17
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
18/52
New York Educators areEssential to Setting Standards
95 New York educators for Days 1 to 4
34 stayed for Day 5
Variety of educators nominated and represented:
K-12 ELA and Math Teachers
BOCES
ELL and SwD specialists
Higher Education
K-12 Administration
Panelists represented New Yorks geographic and
demographic diversity
EngageNY.org 18
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
19/52
Days 1 to 495 panelists followed a research-based protocol:
Worked in four groups (ELA 3-5, ELA 6-8, Math 3-5, or
Math 6-8).
Defined expectations based on what students should know
and be able to do at each grade according to the demands
of the Standards.
Reviewed the New York tests and external benchmark data
(NAEP, SAT, PSAT/NMSQT).
Viewed test questions in easiest-to-hardest order and made
individual panelist judgments on where to place the cutscores for proficiency levels.
Discussed rationales for their judgments and viewed impact
data for each of four rounds of review.
EngageNY.org 19
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
20/52
Panelist Evaluation ofStandard-Setting Process
Over 90% of panelists at end of Day 4 said they woulddefend the recommended cut scores. Of those in the
minority, none strongly disagreed with the recommended
standards (they only moderately disagreed).
The standards are being set by a group that consists of
teachers, K-12, co l lege professo rs and adm inistrators . It
makes sense and it 's transparent.
The co l lect ive experience and know ledge evidenced indiscussion s and the outcom es of the tasks resul ted in fai r
and unbiased standards. Part ic ipants fol lowed direct ions
careful ly and jud ic iously .
EngageNY.org 20
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
21/52
Day 5 34 of the 95 panelists remained and worked in two groups
(ELA 3-8 or Math 3-8) Panelists reviewed the results across all six grade levels to
ensure that the results made sense from a broader
perspective.
Panelists were allowed to make small adjustments only(within +/- 4 raw score points).
Adjustments were required to be grounded in the
expectations of the Common Core standards.
Commissioner was presented with both sets ofrecommendations those from Day 4 and from Day 5.
The results of Day 4 and Day 5 differed minimally.
EngageNY.org 21
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
22/52
Statement from National ExpertsIn observing the training for the NY State Grades 3-8 ELA
and Math Common Core Tests Standard Sett ing on June 29,
2013, we were com fortable that the faci l i tators were fol low ing
best p ract ices in imp lement ing research-based procedures.
After observing a ful l standard-sett ing session, we are
con f ident that the recommended cut s cores were der ivedusing a wel l-imp lemented p rocess that fol lowed the plan
presented to the NY technical advisory committee (TAC).
Marianne Perie, Co-Director at the Center For Educational Testing and Evaluation,University of Kansas
Michael Rodriguez, Campbell Leadership Chair in Education and Human Development,University of Minnesota
New York State TAC
EngageNY.org 22
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
23/52
The Commissioner accepted Day 5 performancestandard recommendations with no changes.
EngageNY.org 23
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
24/52
New Standards, New Tests,New Scale
EngageNY.org 24
New performance standards
NYS Level 4: Student excels in CCLS forthis grade level
NYS Level 3: Student is proficient in CCLSfor this grade level
NYS Level 2: Student is below proficient in
CCLS for this grade level (partial butinsufficient)
NYS Level 1: Student is well belowproficient in standards for this grade level
New Scale
100 425
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
25/52
EngageNY.org
2013 Grades 3-8
English Language ArtsResults
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
26/52
26
77.4%
53.2% 55.1%52.8%
31.1%
Grades 3-8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The vertical lines indicate
years where changes
were implemented. In
2010, cut scores changed,
but the standards and
scale remained the same.
In 2013, the standards,scale, and cut scores
changed to measure the
Common Core.
In ELA, 31.1 percent of students in grades 3-8 across theState met or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS
Levels 3 or 4), reflecting a new baseline relative to the
Common Core Standards
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
27/52
27
30
.5%
34
.1%
28
.8%
29
.6%
33
.2%
39
.2%
35
.7%
41.6%
36
.6%
36
.6%
27
.4%
21
.0%
21
.7%
16
.0% 2
3.4
%
23
.4%
3.7
% 9.3
%
8.5% 1
3.6
%
8.0%
1
0.3
%
35
.7%
32
.0%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
In each grade level statewide, the majority of students
performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in ELA
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
28/52
28
12.6%
55.7
%
11.7%
58.2
%
3.2
%
33.0
%
36.4
%
80.1
%
14.3
%
55.9
%
English Language Learners Not English Language Learners
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
3.2 percent of English language learners met or exceeded
the ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades
3-8
Beginning in 2013-14, data will be available for
students who received ELL services at any time
prior to test administration.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
29/52
29
14.5
%
59.9
%
15.5
%
62.4%
5.0
%
35.9
%
39.3
%
84.2
%
15.2
%
60.2
%
Students with Disabilities General Education
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
5 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded the
ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
30/52
30
64.3
%
64.8
%
68.9
% 8
5.9
%
77.4%
67.9
%
34.4
%
36.8
%
41.3
%
64.8
%
53.2
%67.4
%
35.0
%
37.2
%
40.6
%
64.2
%
52.8
%70.1%
37.2
%
40.0
%
43.1
%
66.4
%
55.1
%
50.4
%
16.1
%
17
.7%
21.2
%3
9.9
%
31.1
%
8
6.6
%
Asian Black Hispanic American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The ELA proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for
race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the
persistence of the achievement gap
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
31/52
55.6
%
1
9.8
%
2
0.5
%24.9
%
45.1
%
45.3
%
12.6%
14.9%
17
.8%
34.9
%
Asian Black Hispanic American
Indian/Alaskan Native
White
Females Males31
Across all race/ethnicity groups in grades 3-8, girls
performed better than boys on the ELA proficiency standard(NYS Levels 3 or 4)
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
32/52
32
43.9
%
27.8
%
47.5
%60.2%
52.8
%
46.9
%
28.1
%
42.0
% 49.0
%
62.4
%
77.2
%
55.1
%
26.4
%
10.4
% 17.7%
2
2.7
%35.0
%
51.9
%
31.1
%
6
8.8
%
56.9
%
70.9
%76.3
% 84.2
% 91.8
%
77.4
%
42.4
%
29.1
%
43.1
%49.6
% 61.5%
74.9
%
53.2
%
40.3
%
75.0
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to
outperform other areas of the State in ELA proficiency (NYS
Levels 3 or 4)
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
33/52
33
68.8
%
5
4.4
%
56.0
%
52.7
%6
5.2
%
42.4
%
27.7
%
25.3
%
25.5
%
39.2
%53.2
%
43.9
%
26.9
%
24.4
%
22.5
%
37.8
%52.8
%
46.9
%
27.9
%
20.7
%
24.2
%
40.7
%
55.1
%
26.4
%
11.5%
5.4
%8.7
% 1
6.4
%
31.1
%
77.4
%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
A smaller percentage of students in grades 3-8 met or
exceeded the ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4)
in the Big 5 cities than statewide.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
34/52
34
English Language Arts 2009-2013Charter Schools Comparisons
Grades 3-8 CombinedPercentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
43.9
% 52.8
%
49.2
%55.1
%
23.1% 3
1.1
%
76.1
%
77.4
%
43.0
% 53.2
%
Charter Schools Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
35/52
EngageNY.org
2013 Grades 3-8Math Results
In math 31 percent of grades 3 8 students across the State
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
36/52
36
86.4
%
61.0%
63.3%
64.8
%
31.0
%
Grades 3-8 Math
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The vertical lines indicate
years where changes
where implemented. In
2010, cut scores
changed, but the
standards and scale
remained the same. In
2013, the standards,
scale, and cut scoreschanged to measure the
Common Core.
In math, 31 percent of grades 3-8 students across the Statemet or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or
4) in math, reflecting a new baseline relative to the Common
Core Standards
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
37/52
37
28
.9% 3
9.8
%
28
.9%
31
.2%
35
.4%
34
.7%
30
.3% 4
0.5
%
34
.3%
41
.3%
21
.9%
23
.4%
21
.0%
18
.1%
20
.3%
20
.2%
12.3
%
12.9
%
8.9
% 12.5
%
7.4
%
7.2
%
30
.4% 3
8.0
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
In each grade level statewide, the majority of students
performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in math
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
38/52
38
3
2.3
%
65.9
%
34.4
%
67.2
%
9.8
%
3
2.7
%
67.1
%
87.9
%
30
.7%
63.5
%
English Language Learners Not English Language Learners
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
9.8 percent of English language learners met or exceeded
the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades
3-8
Beginning in 2013-14, data will be available for
students who received ELL services at any time
prior to test administration.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
39/52
39
26.9%
70.0
%
28.5
%
71.5
%
7.0
%
35.5
%
58.4
%
91.5
%
24.6
%
67.7
%
Students with Disabilities General Education
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
7 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded the
math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
40/52
40
94.9
%
75.0
%
79.5
%
81.6
%92.2
%
86.4
%
81.7
%
40.9
%
47.3
%
49.5
%71
.1%
61.0%
83.7
%
44.0
%
50.2
%
52.3
% 73.3
%
63.3%
85.4
%
46.1
%
53.1
%
53.8
% 74.0
%
64.8
%
60.3%
15.3
%
18.4
%
20.9
% 38.1
%
31.0
%
Asian Black Hispanic American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The math proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for
race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the
persistence of the achievement gap
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
41/52
60.8
%
16
.4%
18.2
%
2
0.2
%
37.5
%
59.8
%
14.2%
18.7
%
21.5
%
38.6
%
Asian Black Hispanic American
Indian/Alaskan Native
White
Females Males
41
Results on the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or
4) in grades 3-8 were relatively comparable for girls and
boys across race/ethnicity groups
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
42/52
42
57.3
%
31.6
%
55.8
%6
9.7
%
63.3
%
60.0
%
32.5
%
49.7
%56.6
%7
0.4%
84.1
%
29.6
%
9.0
% 15.1% 1
9.2%
32.3
%
50.9
%
31.0
%
81.8
%
64.7
%
81.0
%85.8
%
91.1
%95.9
%
86.4
%
54.0
%
31.1
%
48.6
%54.3
%6
7.6%
80.8
%
61.0
%
49.1
%
83.2
%
64.8
%
New York City Large City Urban-
Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to
outperform other areas of the State in math proficiency
(NYS Levels 3 or 4)
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
43/52
43
81.8
%
63.3
%
63.4
%
58.2
% 73.8
%
54.0
%
29.8
%
28
.0%
25
.7% 4
1.5
% 61.0
%
57.3
%
3
1.0
%
29.4
%
25.3
% 40.4
%6
3.3
%
60.0
%
29.9
%
27
.3%
26
.9% 4
6.8
% 64.8
%
29.6
%
9.6
%
5.0
%
6.9
%14.5% 3
1.0
%
86.4%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
A smaller percentage of students in grades 3-8 met or
exceeded the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or
4) in the Big 5 cities than statewide.
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
44/52
44
Mathematics 2009-2013Charter School Comparisons
Grades 3-8 CombinedPercentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
64.6
%
63.3
%68.7
%
64.8
%
31.3
%
31.0
%
89.4
%
86.4
%
59.9
%
61.0
%
Charter Schools Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Materials to Support Score
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
45/52
Materials to Support ScoreInterpretation and Use
ReleasedAnnotated
Items
PerformanceLevel
Descriptions
SuggestedData
Analyses
AnnotatedScore Report
EngageNY.org 45
Available on EngageNY.org upon release of scores
Wh t i th W k?
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
46/52
What is the Work?Implementing the Common Core
Instructional Shifts Demanded by the Core
EngageNY.org 46
6 Shifts in Mathematics
FocusCoherenceFluencyDeep UnderstandingApplicationsDual Intensity
6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy
Balancing Informational andLiterary TextBuilding Knowledge in theDisciplinesStaircase of ComplexityText-based AnswersWriting from SourcesAcademic Vocabulary
EngageNY org
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
47/52
EngageNY.org
EngageNY.orgResources for Professional Development
Parent and FamilyResources
Most relevant and
current information,and newest materials
highlighted for easy
access.
One-stop location for
resources and
materials to support
implementation of the
Regents Reform
Agenda
44
C i l M d l
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
48/52
EngageNY.org 48
Curriculum Modules
EngageNY.org 48
Exemplary, comprehensive, optional, free High-quality, rigorous, deeply aligned to the CommonCore
Address needs of students performing above and belowgrade level, students with disabilities, and English
language learners Include performance tasks and other assessments thatmeasure student growth daily, weekly, at the end ofeach unit/module
Ensure diversity of voices and perspectives in text
selection Contain notes for teachers, templates, handouts,homework, problem sets, overviews
Innovative creative commons license approach
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
49/52
Instructional Videos on EngageNY.org
EngageNY.org 49
Oth Ed t R
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
50/52
Professional development videos developed with authors of
Common Core and PBS Tri-State / EQUiP rubrics to evaluate curricular materials
against the Common Core
Curricular exemplars (sample lessons and instructional
materials) developed with feedback from the authors of
Common Core
Grade- and subject-specific test guides and assessment
design information
Sample assessment questions developed with feedback
from the authors of Common Core
Network Team Institutes / Teacher & Principal Common
Core Ambassadors Program
50EngageNY.org
Other Educator Resources
50
Bilingual Common Core Progressions
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
51/52
Bilingual Common Core Progressions
Analysis of the main
academic demand ofeach standard
Performance
indicators that
demonstrate how
students at each levelof language
progression meet the
standard using grade-
level text
EngageNY.org 51
Analysis of the linguistic demand of each standard Scaffolds and supports that guide teachers for each proficiency
level
8/22/2019 2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK
52/52
A New Baseline:Measuring Student Progress on
the Common Core LearningStandards
August 2013