A framework to move from common core to classroom practice

Louisiana Leadership – Session 2October 23, 2014

1

Overview of the Sessions

2

Outcomes• Analyze current LDC implementation data and plan

next steps for supporting teachers• Develop a deeper understanding of effective

practices when writing LDC modules• Gain a deeper understanding of the role of text

complexity• Calibrate expectations when scoring and analyzing

student work

3

Norms

• What working agreements will help make today be successful for you?

4

Opportunities/Expectations

5

• Mode of Communication

• Status of Implementation

• Comments from Teachers

• Structures for Supporting LDC Implementation6

Periodic Scheduled Check-Ins Site-Based Data

Jurying ModulesHow are modules deemed ‘exemplar’?How can we support this process?

7

8

Overview of the LDC Framework

9

Jurying a Module

Comparing Economic Systems-Section 1: What Task

10

Good to Go: Task Clarity and Coherence• Template task uses a writing mode that matches the

intended purpose of the prompt.• Task purpose is focused.• Prompt wording is clear.• Prompt wording is unbiased, leaving room for diverse

responses.• Prompt wording, content, texts, and student product are

aligned to task purpose (a “good fit”).• Task is text dependent, requiring students to go beyond

prior knowledge to use evidence from the texts in their responses.

• Background statement frames task for students. 11

12

What Revisions?

Comparing Economic Systems-Section 1: What Task

- Overview (page 1)

Module Revisions

New Overview lists state specific social studies standards, what students have learned before this module, class demographics, and existing instructional routines. This provides better context for an outside teacher who may be considering using this module.

14

What Revisions?

Comparing Economic SystemsSection 1: What Task-Teaching Task

Directions: 1.Identify the revisions 2.Determine if the module rating would change

Task Revisions

16

“After Reading”Argumentation Template Tasks

Task 2: [Insert optional question] After reading ________ (literature or informational texts), write a/an ________ (essay or substitute) in which you address the question and argue_______(content) Support your position with evidence from the text(s). (Argumentation/Analysis)

Task 4: [Insert optional question] After reading ________ (literature or informational texts), write a/an ________ (essay or substitute) in which you compare ________ (content) and argue ________ (content). Support your position with evidence from the texts. (Argumentation/Comparison)

1. Identify the revisions 2. Determine if the module rating would change

Module Revisions

The module author’s changed :• Task 2: argumentative – analysis to Task 4: argumentative – comparison• Provided more specific about texts• Made the writing product more authentic

17

Overview of the LDC Framework

18

Jurying a Module

Comparing Economic Systems

-Section 2: What Skills?- Old: page 5- New: pages 8-9

Directions: 1.Identify the revisions 2.Determine if the module rating would change

19

Overview of the LDC Framework

20

Jurying a Module

Comparing Economic Systems

-Section 3: What Instruction?- Old: pages 6-11- New: page 8-21

Directions: 1.Identify the revisions 2.Determine if the module rating would change

21

Overview of the LDC Framework

22

Jurying a Module

Revised Module: Comparing Economic Systems

•Identifying Changes

•Top 3 Most Effective Changes

23

Top 3 Changes

24

Teacher Self Assessment Tool

25

Text Complexity

• Quantitative Measures

• Qualitative Characteristics

• Considerations of Readers and Task

26

Quantitative Dimensions

…refer to those aspects of text complexity, such as word

length or frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion,

that are difficult … for a human reader to evaluate

efficiently… and are thus today typically measured by

computer software

27

Qualitative Characteristics

…refer to those aspects of text complexity best measured

or only measurable by an attentive human reader, such as

levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language

conventionality and clarity; and knowledge demands.

28

- Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts)- Structure- Language Conventionality and Clarity- Knowledge Demands: Life Experiences (literary texts)- Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge (literary texts)- Knowledge Demands: Content/Discipline Knowledge (informational texts)

Matching Reader and Task…variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation,

knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks (such as

purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the

questions posed) must also be considered… Such assessments

are best made by teachers employing their professional

judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and

the subject.

29

Analyzing Text

30

Should the U.S. have a national health-care system?

YES ARGUMENT

We have two health-care systems in America. People with good insurance get excellent care. But most families are just one bad break, like a lost job or a serious illness, away from crisis.

I believe we should build one America, with one health system in which everyone can get decent,

affordable health care. This means asking everyone to share the responsibility of helping to finance

health care for all and paying what you can for your own care.

A universal health-care system would translate into reality what Americans believe—that health care

is a right, not a privilege. America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but 18,000 people

die each year because they don't have insurance. That's just wrong.

Insisting that every American participate in a universal system will save money by spreading out the

risk. Today, families with insurance pay more for their coverage—an additional $922 a year on

average—because they wind up footing part of the bill for treating the uninsured.

But this debate is about more than 45 million uninsured Americans. Millions more have inadequate

insurance that doesn't cover all their needs. And because our current system relies mostly on

employers to provide insurance, other people stay in jobs they'd otherwise leave just to hold on to

their health insurance.

It's time to act. A million Americans lose their health insurance every year. Universal health care is

the most important thing we can do to provide security for American workers and families.

—Former Senator John Edwards

Democratic candidate for President

Wal-mart: Good or Evil

Once upon a time, social activists decried the plight of workers in company towns whose paychecks vanished each week because they were being gouged by the local stores. And urban politicians, angered by the high prices charged at many grocery stores in the inner city, offered subsidies in order to attract chain stores that would make food more affordable for the poor.

Then Wal-Mart came along, offering urbanites food at the same low prices charged in the suburbs. Now the activists and politicians have a new cause: Say No to Wal-Mart! Stop it before it discounts again!

This new crusade is especially puzzling in light of the current consensus among poverty experts. Many have praised the welfare reform of the 1990s and say the government should keep pushing people off the welfare rolls and into jobs.

From that perspective, Wal-Mart has been one of the most successful antipoverty programs in America. It provides entry-level jobs that unskilled workers badly want--there are often 5 to 10 applicants for each position at a new store.

JOBS FOR UNSKILLED WORKERS

Critics say Wal-Mart's pay, $9.68 per hour on average, is too low and depresses local retail wages when a new store opens. That effect is debatable, but even if wages do go down slightly, these workers still end up with more disposable income, according to Jason Furman, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser in the Clinton administration who studies Wal-Mart.

Furman notes that the possible decline in wages is minuscule compared with what the typical family saves by shopping at Wal Mart: nearly $800 per year on groceries alone, a savings that's especially valuable to the many low-income shoppers at Wal-Mart.

AN EASY TARGET

The average income of Wal-Mart shoppers is $35,000, compared with $50,000 for Target and $74,000 for Costco. Costco is touted as the virtuous alternative to Wal-Mart because it pays better wages, but it needs to do so because it requires higher-skilled workers to sell higher-end products to its more affluent customers.

Wal-Mart is often denounced for getting "corporate welfare" because some of its employees rely on Medicaid for health care and on other government aid. But so do some employees at other companies or at government institutions like public schools. Wal-Mart offers health benefits that are generally comparable to what other big retailers offer.

Text Selection SupportAll

• CCSS Appendix B• Readworks.org• Newsela.com• Tweentribune.com• NYTimes Learning

Network• CNN Student News

ELA• LDE ELA Guidebook

Science• Sciencebuzz.org

Social Studies• Library of Congress• Ourdocuments.gov 31

Basics on Rubric• Seven scoring elements• Four performance levels• Four correlating score points

• plus mid-point scores 32

Scoring Rubric for Argumentation Template Tasks

Scoring Elements

Not Yet Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Advanced

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Focus Attempts to address prompt, but

lacks focus or is off-task.

Addresses prompt appropriately and establishes a position, but

focus is uneven.

Addresses prompt appropriately and maintains a clear, steady focus. Provides

a generally convincing position.

Addresses all aspects of prompt appropriately with a consistently strong

focus and convincing position.

Controlling Idea Attempts to establish a claim, but lacks a clear purpose. (L2) Makes no mention of counter claims.

Establishes a claim. (L2) Makes

note of counter claims.

Establishes a credible claim. (L2) Develops claim and counter claims

fairly.

Establishes and maintains a substantive and credible claim or proposal. (L2)

Develops claims and counter claims fairly and thoroughly.

Reading/ Research

Attempts to reference reading materials to develop response,

but lacks connections or relevance to the purpose of the

prompt.

Presents information from reading materials relevant to the

purpose of the prompt with minor lapses in accuracy or

completeness.

Accurately presents details from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt to develop argument or claim.

Accurately and effectively presents

important details from reading materials to develop argument or claim.

Development

Attempts to provide details in response to the prompt, but lacks

sufficient development or relevance to the purpose of the

prompt. (L3) Makes no connections or a connection that is irrelevant to argument or claim.

Presents appropriate details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim, with minor lapses in the reasoning, examples, or explanations. (L3)

Makes a connection with a weak or unclear relationship to

argument or claim.

Presents appropriate and sufficient details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3)

Makes a relevant connection to clarify argument or claim.

Presents thorough and detailed information to effectively support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or

claim. (L3) Makes a clarifying connection(s) that illuminates argument and adds depth

to reasoning.

Organization Attempts to organize ideas, but

lacks control of structure.

Uses an appropriate organizational structure for

development of reasoning and logic, with minor lapses in

structure and/or coherence.

Maintains an appropriate organizational structure to address specific

requirements of the prompt. Structure reveals the reasoning and logic of the

argument.

Maintains an organizational structure that intentionally and effectively enhances the presentation of information as required by the specific prompt. Structure enhances

development of the reasoning and logic of the argument.

Conventions

Attempts to demonstrate standard English conventions, but

lacks cohesion and control of grammar, usage, and mechanics. Sources are used without citation.

Demonstrates an uneven command of standard English

conventions and cohesion. Uses language and tone with

some inaccurate, inappropriate, or uneven features. Inconsistently

cites sources.

Demonstrates a command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of

the prompt. Cites sources using appropriate format with only minor

errors.

Demonstrates and maintains a well-developed command of standard English

conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone

consistently appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Consistently cites sources using

appropriate format.

Content Understanding

Attempts to include disciplinary content in argument, but

understanding of content is weak; content is irrelevant,

inappropriate, or inaccurate.

Briefly notes disciplinary content relevant to the prompt; shows

basic or uneven understanding of content; minor errors in

explanation.

Accurately presents disciplinary content relevant to the prompt with sufficient

explanations that demonstrate understanding.

Integrates relevant and accurate disciplinary content with thorough

explanations that demonstrate in-depth understanding.

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

What Results? What Results? – Section 4

Scoring Student Work with the LDC Rubric

• Can be used to score holistically or analytically

• 2 rubrics – Informative/explanatory & Argumentative

• 7 Scoring Elements:

• Focus• Controlling Idea• Reading/Research• Development• Organization• Conventions• Content Understanding 33.

LDC Rubrics – Scoring v. Grading

The LDC rubric…•provides feedback to students and teachers•helps students know expectations prior to completing the task•helps teachers gauge the effectiveness of their instructional choices

34

Scoring Rubric for Argumentation Template Tasks

Scoring Elements

Not Yet Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Advanced

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Focus Attempts to address prompt, but

lacks focus or is off-task.

Addresses prompt appropriately and establishes a position, but

focus is uneven.

Addresses prompt appropriately and maintains a clear, steady focus. Provides a generally convincing

position.

Addresses all aspects of prompt

appropriately with a consistently strong focus and convincing position.

Controlling Idea

Attempts to establish a claim, but lacks a clear purpose. (L2)

Makes no mention of counter claims.

Establishes a claim. (L2) Makes

note of counter claims.

Establishes a credible claim. (L2) Develops claim and counter claims

fairly.

Establishes and maintains a substantive and credible claim or proposal. (L2)

Develops claims and counter claims fairly and thoroughly.

Reading/ Research

Attempts to reference reading materials to develop response,

but lacks connections or relevance to the purpose of the

prompt.

Presents information from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt with minor

lapses in accuracy or completeness.

Accurately presents details from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt to develop

argument or claim.

Accurately and effectively presents

important details from reading materials to develop argument or claim.

Development

Attempts to provide details in response to the prompt, but lacks

sufficient development or relevance to the purpose of the

prompt. (L3) Makes no connections or a connection that is irrelevant to argument or claim.

Presents appropriate details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim, with minor lapses in the reasoning,

examples, or explanations. (L3) Makes a connection with a weak

or unclear relationship to argument or claim.

Presents appropriate and sufficient details to support and develop the

focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3) Makes a relevant connection to clarify

argument or claim.

Presents thorough and detailed information to effectively support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or

claim. (L3) Makes a clarifying connection(s) that illuminates argument

and adds depth to reasoning.

Organization Attempts to organize ideas, but

lacks control of structure.

Uses an appropriate organizational structure for

development of reasoning and logic, with minor lapses in

structure and/or coherence.

Maintains an appropriate organizational structure to address specific

requirements of the prompt. Structure reveals the reasoning and logic of the

argument.

Maintains an organizational structure that intentionally and effectively enhances the presentation of information as required by the specific prompt. Structure enhances

development of the reasoning and logic of the argument.

Conventions

Attempts to demonstrate standard English conventions,

but lacks cohesion and control of grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Sources are used without citation.

Demonstrates an uneven command of standard English

conventions and cohesion. Uses language and tone with

some inaccurate, inappropriate, or uneven features. Inconsistently

cites sources.

Demonstrates a command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with

few errors. Response includes language and tone appropriate to the

audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Cites

sources using appropriate format with only minor errors.

Demonstrates and maintains a well-developed command of standard English

conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone

consistently appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Consistently cites sources using

appropriate format.

Content Understanding

Attempts to include disciplinary content in argument, but

understanding of content is weak; content is irrelevant,

inappropriate, or inaccurate.

Briefly notes disciplinary content relevant to the prompt; shows

basic or uneven understanding of content; minor errors in

explanation.

Accurately presents disciplinary content relevant to the prompt with sufficient

explanations that demonstrate understanding.

Integrates relevant and accurate disciplinary content with thorough

explanations that demonstrate in-depth understanding.

LDC Rubrics – Scoring vs Grading

• The rubric helps students know expectations before the task is completed, and where their strengths and weaknesses are after the task is completed.

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

35

Grading vs Scoring

36

• Grading: • Reflects the performance of students relative

to expectations at a particular point in time.

• Scoring: • Uses fixed standards of quality that do not

change over time.

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

LDC Rubrics – Scoring vs Grading

• The LDC rubric is constructed for classroom use and to provide feedback to students and teachers.

• It is not a summative rubric, as might be used in state exams to measure a set of absolute criteria.

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

37

Grading• 3.5• 2.0• 2.5• 2.0• 4.0• 2.5• 2.0• Total = 18.5

• 18.5 divided by 28 total points = .66• 18.5 divided by 7 elements = 2.64

38R

ea

ch A

sso

cia

tes

20

14

How Does LDC Look and Sound in a Classroom?

39

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s

Cluster 1: Preparing for the task The teacher… The students… Questions, Comments, Talking Points Teacher: Facilitating conversation Asking intentionally planned,

probing questions Focusing discussions Referencing teaching task and

rubric Referencing academic learning

behaviors Referencing metacognitive

strategies Students: Analyzing/deconstructing task Analyzing rubric Planning/discussing timeline for

task completion Discussing/Demonstrating

academic learning behaviors Discussing/Demonstrating

metacognitive strategies Classroom Environment: Teaching task posted Evidence of LDC rubric Evidence of academic learning

behaviors and metacognitive strategies

Arrangement conducive to student discourse opportunities

Evidence of module materials being utilized

Tips for Supporting the Implementation of LDC

• Lesson Plans• Mini-Tasks• Collaboration Opportunities• Collaborative Scoring• Support from TOTs• Evaluation• Feedback• Join in the Conversations 40

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s

SupportsWhat assistance is available?

41

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

LDC Websitewww.ldc.org

42

Re

ach

Ass

oci

ate

s 2

01

4

Action PlansSupporting LDC Implementation

• After today’s conversations, what will be the next steps to _____________? How will you do this?

• Writing modules• Implementing modules• Scoring student work• Jurying and revising modules• Scaling LDC

43

Next Time…

• Please bring back a module written within your school, district or parish to jury.

44