Final Report - Common Core Implementation Tools Prepared for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation November 2013 In the following report, Hanover Research identifies and analyzes Common Core implementation tools available through national developers and state departments of education. Hanover Research | November 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................... 3 Common Core Implementation Tools ............................................................................... 5 National Common Core Implementation Tools .................................................................... 5 Target Student Populations and Subjects ......................................................................... 5 Current Usage ................................................................................................................... 5 CCSS Alignment ................................................................................................................. 5 Developers ........................................................................................................................ 6 State Common Core Implementation Tools ......................................................................... 7 Prevalence of State-Developed CC Implementation Tools ............................................... 7 CCSS Alignment ................................................................................................................. 7 Crosswalk Tools ................................................................................................................. 7 References to National CC Implementation Tools ............................................................ 7 Common Core Implementation Tool Matrices ..................................................................... 8 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A: Common Core Alignment – National Tools .................................................... 32 Appendix B: Abbreviations.................................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX C: STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ............................................................................... 35 APPENDIX D: COMMON CORE ALIGNMENT – STATE-LEVEL TOOLS .................................................... 36 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2 Hanover Research | November 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION In this report, Hanover Research identifies and analyzes Common Core (CC) implementation tools available through national developers and vendors, as well as state departments of education. Nationally, various education initiatives, organizations, and vendors have developed guides, frameworks, templates, and resource repositories to assist with CC implementation. State departments of education also facilitate implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) through a distinct arsenal of CC-aligned tools. The remainder of this discussion proceeds in three sections: National Common Core Implementation Tools presents CC-aligned implementation tools in three categories: English language arts (ELA); mathematics; and ELA and mathematics. To the extent possible, Hanover Research provides details on each tool’s  developer  and  distributor,  format  and  features,  alignment  with  the  CCSS,  target   student population(s), current usage, and cost. Information regarding the Bill & Melinda Gates   Foundation’s   tools,   the   Literacy   Design   Collaborative   (LDC)   and   the   Mathematics Design Collaborative (MDC), is included for comparative purposes. State Common Core Implementation Tools catalogues 16 state-developed sets of tools, including the  nature  of  the  resources  provided,  any  efforts  to  “crosswalk”  the   CCSS  with  the  state’s  prior  standards,  and  any  references  to  nationally-available CCaligned  implementation  materials.  We  also  indicate  the  first  year  of  a  state’s  full  CCSS   implementation, in an attempt to observe whether the availability of state-level resources changes as full implementation nears. We further note that many states that did not design   “homegrown”   CC   implementation   tools   refer educators to CCaligned resources developed by other organizations. Common Core Implementation Tool Matrices offers a series of tables summarizing key information on national and state CC-aligned implementation tools referenced in the previous two sections. KEY FINDINGS Hanover Research identified a similar number of open source CC implementation tools developed and disseminated by national developers and state departments of education. Hanover Research found 18 major national, open source CC-aligned lesson planning and delivery tools in three categories: English language arts (ELA) (four tools); mathematics (seven tools); and ELA and mathematics (seven tools). Sixteen states have developed open source resources to assist educators with the implementation of the CCSS. Hanover Research identified 26 states that reference the LDC, making it the most frequently cited ELA-specific tool, and 25 states that reference the MDC, tying Inside Mathematics for the second most frequently cited mathematics-specific tool. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 3 Hanover Research | November 2013 Overall, the most commonly cited CC implementation tools were the mathematics tool Illustrative Mathematics (referenced by 36 states) and the ELA and mathematics tool Student Achievement Partners Resources (also referenced by 36 states). Behind the LDC, the second most commonly cited ELA-specific tool was the Basal Alignment Project (12 states). Numerous developers, publishers, and vendors make a variety of non-open source CC implementation resources available to educators, albeit at a cost. Depending on the tool, non-open source resources are sold at the district, building, or teacher level. Most CC implementation tools support teachers working with the general student population. Fewer resources address the needs of special student populations (e.g., English language learners and students enrolled in career and technical education programs). Most tools offer at least some guidance for teachers of students at all levels (elementary, middle, and high school). In the case of non-open source tools, however, resources for different grade levels may need to be purchased separately. Limited information exists about the scale of current usage for most national CC implementation tools; however, 15 of the 16 states with   “homegrown”   CC   implementation tools also refer educators to various nationally-available CC implementation tools. The national tools referenced most often by these states include: Student Achievement Partners Resources, Illustrative Mathematics, EQuIP/Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Model Content Frameworks (PARCC), and the LDC. States rarely direct educators to non-open source tools. None of the national open source CC implementation tools reviewed by Hanover Research have had their CCSS alignment verified by an independent third party. However, nearly all of the national open source tools reviewed provide at least some evidence of their alignment with the CCSS. “Crosswalk”  tools  represent  a  unique  feature  of  state-developed CC implementation tools. “Crosswalks”  demonstrate  how  the  CCSS  differ  from  previous  state  standards.   By   contextualizing   the   CCSS,   “crosswalks”   assist   efforts   to   implement   the   CCSS   in   a   local   setting.   At   least   nine   of   the   16   states   with   “homegrown”   CC   implementation   tools also offer  “crosswalks.” Collaboration was a common theme across national and state open source CC implementation tools. Many of the national open source CC implementation tools were developed through collaborations of two or more organizations. State departments of education also demonstrated the spirit of collaboration by including references to national open source tools on agency websites. Some states (e.g., Illinois and Indiana) even relied on national open source resources such as PARCC’s   Model Content Frameworks to develop state model frameworks. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 4 Hanover Research | November 2013 COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS NATIONAL COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS TARGET STUDENT POPULATIONS AND SUBJECTS A majority of CC implementation tools target the general student population. With respect to special populations, we detected only two open source ELL resources (English Language Proficiency Development Framework and the Understanding Language Project) and two open source resources for career and technical education programs (CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks and CCSS Transition Think Tank). Of the 18 open source CC implementation tools reviewed, 17 indicated the grade levels covered. Resources intended for students at all levels (elementary, middle, and high school) proved most common (nine tools), followed by resources for middle and high school students (six tools).1 With respect to the subject(s) addressed, Hanover Research identified prominent open source CC implementation tools in three categories: ELA (four tools); 2 mathematics (seven tools); 3 and ELA and mathematics (seven tools). 4 The relative distribution of subject-specific open source CC implementation tools suggests a slightly higher concentration of mathematics resources. CURRENT USAGE Limited information exists about the scale of current usage for most CC implementation tools. Hanover Research derived indirect indicators of the dissemination of these resources through measures such as registered site users, number of state members, and evidence of formal teacher training. CCSS ALIGNMENT None of the reviewed open source implementation tools have had their alignment with the CCSS verified by an independent third party. However, nearly all of the open source CC implementation tools examined by Hanover Research provided at least some evidence of their alignment with the CCSS. In some cases, a well-known education organization (e.g., The Council of Chief State School Officers) has endorsed specific instruments or sites: EduCore, English Language Proficiency Development Framework, EQuIP, Model Content Frameworks (PARCC), Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project, Basal 1 Two additional open source tools target a narrower range of grades: the Basal Alignment Project (grades 3-5 – elementary only) and the CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks (high school only). The Understanding Language Project is currently  targeting  “several  different grade spans,” though the specific grades were not indicated on its website. See: “Understanding  Language  – Frequently Asked Questions.”  Stanford  University.  http://ell.stanford.edu/about/faq 2 ELA-specific, open source tools include Anthology Alignment Project, Basal Alignment Project, LDC, and National Writing Project Resources. 3 Mathematics-specific open source tools include CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks, CCSS Transition Think Tank, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools, and MDC. 4 ELA and mathematics combined open source tools include Curriculum Review Tools (AFT), EduCore, ELP Development Framework, EQuIP/ Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Model Content Frameworks (PARCC), Student Achievement Partners Resources, and Understanding Language Project. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 5 Hanover Research | November 2013 Alignment Project, Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC), CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks, CCSS Transition Think Tank, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, and the Mathematics Common Core Toolbox. Yet, an opportunity clearly exists for the establishment of an explicit set of criteria to be applied to implementation tools to enable developers and users alike to assess the extent of their CCSS alignment accurately. The following table details the rating system used to determine evidence of CCSS alignment along with the number of open source CC implementation tools reviewed by Hanover Research that received each rating.5 Hanover Research did not review the CCSS alignment of any non-open source implementation tools included in this report, due to a lack of available information and documentation. CCSS Alignment Evidence Scale for Open Source Tools RATING 3 2 1 DESCRIPTION The developer of the CC implementation tool provides explicit details about its alignment process, including product formation and review. The developer provides some evidence of alignment with the CCSS. However, it does not offer explicit details about the alignment process. The tool appears widely-used or available. However, the developer does not provide any evidence of its alignment with the CCSS. TOOLS 13 4 1 DEVELOPERS Most of the open source CC implementation tools reviewed by Hanover Research were developed by collaborations involving two or more organizations. For example, Student Achievement Partners collaborated with the Council of the Great City Schools to launch both the Basal Alignment Project and the Anthology Alignment Project. Similarly, the National Writing Project, with its own set of initiatives, is also a member of the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC).6 Hanover Research also identified numerous developers, publishers, and vendors of non-open source CC implementation tools (i.e., resources available for purchase). Vendors, in turn, often sell a large number and a wide range of implementation tools developed by third parties. For example, Teachers Pay Teachers, which allows users to sell instructional resources online, currently lists over 80,000 non-open source implementation tools associated with the CCSS. The specific non-open source tools referenced in this report (see   “Select   Non-Open Source Common Core-Aligned   Implementation   Tools”)   represent only a small sample of those available nationwide. We identified major non-open source tools produced by non-profit and for-profit entities, as well as best-selling products available through multiple online vendors, including Teachers Pay Teachers, Lakeshore Learning Materials, Really Good Stuff, and 5 6 Hanover Research did not review evidence of CCSS alignment for non-open source CC implementation tools. “What's happening around  the  NWP  with  the  Common  Core?”  National  Writing  Project.   http://connect.nwp.org/lcc/p/7547 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 6 Hanover Research | November 2013 Amazon.com. While our sample demonstrates the diversity of non-open source tools available to educators, it is not intended to serve as a comprehensive or representative list. STATE COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS PREVALENCE OF STATE-DEVELOPED CC IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS As of January 2012, 17 states had completed plans for curriculum guides and instructional materials facilitating implementation of the CCSS.7 Meanwhile, in 18 states, such resources remained in development. Appendix C provides a comprehensive listing of states by CCimplementation planning status as of January 2012. Hanover Research recently reviewed department of education websites for all signatories to the CCSS Initiative, including 45 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, we determined that 16 states had developed and distributed resources intended to facilitate CC implementation. At present, a majority of those states have yet to fully implement the CCSS. Nine states are scheduled for full implementation in 2013-2014, with an additional four states scheduled in 2014-2015. Only three states fully implemented the CCSS in 2012-2013. CCSS ALIGNMENT Several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, and Missouri, offer curriculum frameworks and maps. Districts either use the resources as provided or adapt the resources to meet local needs. A few states, including Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, remain in the process of either updating curriculum frameworks or subjecting such frameworks to field testing. Appendix D contains additional information about the CC alignment of various state-developed implementation tools. CROSSWALK TOOLS Nine   of   the   16   states   with   “homegrown”   CC   implementation   tools   also   offer   “crosswalks.”   “Crosswalks”   demonstrate   how   the   CCSS   differ   from   previous   state   standards.   For   some   states,   such   as   Maryland   and   Missouri,   “crosswalks”   appear   embedded   within the actual model  curriculum  frameworks.  For  other  states,  however,  “crosswalks”  prove  decidedly  less   formal.   For   example,   the   Ohio   Department   of   Education   cautions   that   the   “crosswalk”   is   “[n]ot  intended  to  be  an  exact  match,  rather  to  be  used  as  a  tool  for orienting educators as they  work  on  implementation.”8 REFERENCES TO NATIONAL CC IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS The frequency with which state departments of education and other state educational organizations reference a national CC implementation tool perhaps serves as an informal 7 Porter,  W.,  et  al.  “Preparing  for  Change:  A  National  Perspective  on  Common  Core  State  Standards  Implementation   Planning.”  Education  First  and  EPE  Research  Center, January 2012, p. 7. http://www.edweek.org/media/preparingforchange-17standards.pdf 8 “Ohio’s  New  Learning  Standards:  K-12  English  Arts  Standards.”  Ohio  Department  of  Education,  Slide  28.   http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Academic-ContentStandards/English/Website_ELA_Standards_10121-2.pptx.aspx © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 7 Hanover Research | November 2013 indicator   of   the   tool’s   reputation.   The   following   figure   notes   the   national   tools   cited   most   often by departments of education and other education organizations, such as educator associations and professional development organizations, in states with and without “homegrown”   CC   implementation   resources. Our review examined state educational agencies’   and   related   organizations’   websites,   educator   newsletters,   and   presentation materials for references to national CC implementation tools. With the exception of Common Core 360, each of the tools presented in the following table is open source. Beyond the 16 open source tools listed below, we also searched for references to the CCSS Transition Think Tank (National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center) and the Curriculum Review Tools (American Federation of Teachers). However, we did not find any states referencing these tools in the materials we reviewed. National CC-Aligned Implementation Tools Referenced by States NATIONAL TOOL Illustrative Mathematics Student Achievement Partners Resources LDC MDC/MAP* Inside Mathematics Model Content Frameworks EQuIP/Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics** Basal Alignment Project EduCore Mathematics Common Core Toolbox National Writing Project Resources Understanding Language Project Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools Anthology Alignment Project CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks 9 Common Core 360 ELP Development Framework NUMBER OF REFERENCES “HOMEGROWN” CC ALL OTHER CC STATES STATES 12 24 12 24 9 17 8 17 7 18 9 16 10 11 5 7 5 7 4 7 2 8 2 4 2 4 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERENCES 36 36 26 25 25 25 21 12 12 11 10 6 6 4 3 1 1 *  Includes  states  citing  the  “MDC”  or  “MAP.” ** Includes  states  citing  the  “Tri-State  Quality  Review  Rubrics”  or  “EQuIP.” See the following table, National Common Core-Aligned Implementation Tools, for additional detail. COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION TOOL MATRICES The first matrix displays information about nationally-available open source and non-open source CC implementation tools. The second matrix describes national non-open source tools in greater detail. The third matrix notes state-developed tools, and the fourth matrix catalogs references to national  tools  made  by  states  without  “homegrown”  tools or resources. 9 The Kentucky DoE provides all classrooms with Common Core 360, the only non-open source tool we reviewed and referenced  by  a  state.  See:  “How  Kentucky  Plans  to  Integrate  Common  Core  Training.”  School  Improvement  Network.   http://www.schoolimprovement.com/common-core-360/blog/How-Kentucky-Plans-to-Integrate-Common-Core-Training/ © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 8 Hanover Research | November 2013 National Common Core-Aligned Implementation Tools TOOL NAME FEATURES INDICATORS OF USAGE TARGET STUDENT DELIVERY FORMAT EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL POPULATION ELA AND MATHEMATICS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Atomic TechCore5 Common Core 3606 Common Core Assessment and Remediation Tool7 Professional development videos and workshops for teachers and classroom lessons to prepare students for CCSS technology demands Implementation guidance, lesson plans, alignment tools, and community membership Assessments, instructional materials, and remediation tools Unknown K-12 Online, video - Atomic Learning (for-profit) None Registered users (822,000) K-12 Online, video, webinars, PDF - School Improvement Network (for-profit) KY Unknown K-88 Online - Odysseyware (for-profit) None - The Common Core Institute Products9 Deconstructed standards, lesson planning tools, and curriculum building tools Unknown K-12 Online, PDF, print, interactive template Common Core Standard Reference Kit11 Official  and  “kid-friendly”   descriptions of the CCSS for reference and display Unknown K-5 Print - The Complete Common Core State Standards Kit12 CCSS display for the classroom Unknown K-5 Print - Curriculum Review Tools13 Curriculum review tools in ELA and mathematics that align to CC as well as other key curricular standards Registered users (1.5 million members) K-12 PDF 1 AFT (labor union) None Implementation resources including module examples, LDC modules and examples, and MAP lessons Membership in ASCD (150,000 educators globally)15 Middle and high school students Online or PDF, webinar, web resources, videos 3** ASCD*** (non-profit) AZ, AR, CA, CT, IN, KS, MA, NV, NC, OR, UT, VT EduCore 14 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice The Common Core Institute (partnership involving for- and nonprofit organizations)10 Edupress (publisher); Really Good Stuff (vendor) Carson-Dellosa Publishing (publisher); Really Good Stuff (vendor) None None None 9 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL NAME FEATURES ELP Development Framework16 Implementation guide (framework, alignment protocol, sample models aligned to ELP framework) EQuIP17 Quality Review Rubrics and Response Forms INDICATORS OF USAGE TARGET STUDENT POPULATION DELIVERY FORMAT EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL PDF 3** CCSSO (non-profit) OR 2** Achieve*** (non-profit; built on outcome of tri-state collaborative process with MA, NY, and RI) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, VT* Unknown K-12 ELL students Cross-state EQuIP conventions (22) Mathematics (K-12); ELA/Literacy (3-12); Draft ELA/Literacy (K-2) PDF 3** PARCC*** (non-profit) AL, AZ, AR, DE, DC, FL, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MA, MS, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, WA, WI, WY - Successful Practices Network (non-profit) None 3** Student Achievement Partners*** (non-profit) AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MA, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY 2** Stanford University and other partners*** (nonprofit) CA, FL, ME, NJ, NC, OR 3 CGCS and SAP*** (non-profit) CA, HI, LA, MO 3** CGCS and SAP*** (non-profit) AL, CA, DE, DC, GA, HI, KS, ME, MO, MT, NY, ND Model Content Frameworks18 Model content frameworks State network (22) 3-11 PDF, frameworks browser Next Navigator19 Lesson and task alignment tools, as well as sample assessments and scoring guides Unknown K-12 Online Student Achievement Partners Resources20 Professional Development Modules for CC implementation,  Publisher’s   Criteria for CCSS alignment, sample tasks, assessments, lessons, and alignment tools Unknown K-12 PDF, PowerPoint presentations, video, web resources Understanding Language Project21 Units in ELA, mathematics, and science Unknown Several grades (expanding); ELL students Anthology Alignment Project22 Revised lessons for nine common Anthologies (in development) Basal Alignment Project23 Replacement lessons for Basal reading series/resource bank © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice PDF ELA IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Online library 6-10 Unknown through Urban Edmodo Registered users Online library 3-5 (Over 10,000 through Urban educators)24 Edmodo 10 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL NAME CCSS Language Arts Literacy Assessments and Online Workbooks FEATURES INDICATORS OF USAGE TARGET STUDENT POPULATION DELIVERY FORMAT EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL Online, print - Lumos Learning (vendor) None Assessments and online workbooks Unknown Chit Chat Morning Messages26 Literacy activity packets Up to 3,254 ratings per set Pre-K-1 PDF - The Common Core Companion27 CCSS descriptions, lesson ideas, instructional techniques, student prompts Amazon best seller in  ‘Curricula’28 6-12 Print - Common Core Comprehension Book29 Lessons, passages, textdependent questions Unknown 1-6 Print - The Common Core Guidebook30 CCSS instructional techniques Amazon best seller in  ‘Curricula’31 3-8 Print - Common Core Reproducible Comprehension Activities32 Reproducible activity books Lakeshore Learning Materials best seller33 1-5 Print - The Common Core Lesson Book34 Description of the CCSS and instructional techniques K-5 Print - Daily Comprehension Common Core Practice Journal36 Passages and comprehension activities 1-5 Print - Language Arts 4 Today38 Activities, exercises, and assessments K-5 Print - 3-8 25 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice Amazon best seller in  ‘Educational Professional Development’35 Lakeshore Learning Materials best seller37 Amazon best seller in  ‘Instruction Methods’39 Deanna Jump (developer); Teachers Pay Teachers (vendor) J. Burke and R. James (authors); Corwin Literacy (publisher); Amazon (vendor) Newmark Learning (publisher); Really Good Stuff (vendor) R. Linder (author); The Literacy Initiative (publisher); Amazon (vendor) Newmark Learning (publisher); Lakeshore Learning Materials (vendor) G. Owocki (author); Heinemann (publisher); Amazon (vendor) Lakeshore Learning Materials (publisher and vendor) Carson-Dellosa Publishing (publisher); Amazon (vendor) None None None None None None None None 11 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL NAME Language Teaching Centers for Common Core Standards40 LDC42 National Writing Project Resources44 Research & Respond Comprehension Center45 The Wheatley Portfolio47 CCSS Math Assessments and Online Workbooks48 FEATURES Lessons, writing prompts, and hands-on activities in five centers (foundational skills, language skills, reading informational text, reading literature, and writing) Template-based approach (framework) with sample modules in: ELA; science and technical subjects; history and social studies Teaching models for classroom teachers in writing instruction Interactive reading materials Unit sequences and text studies INDICATORS OF USAGE Lakeshore Learning Materials best seller41 TARGET STUDENT POPULATION K-1 DELIVERY FORMAT EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL Print - Lakeshore Learning Materials (publisher and vendor) None 3** LDC*** (non-profit) AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, NV, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, UT, VT, WA 2 National Writing Project*** (non-profit) AR, FL, ID, IN, KS, KY, NV, NC, RI, WI State network (about 25) Middle and Training (2,706 high school PDF teachers in 19 students states)43 193 national university sites, Resources and 100,000 teacher 6-12 online spaces participants, 3,000 districts Lakeshore Learning Materials 2-5 Print best seller46 Over 100,000 K-12 Online, print users MATHEMATICS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS - Assessments and online workbooks Unknown Common Core Math 4 Today49 Tasks and assessments Amazon best seller in  ‘Instruction   Methods’50 K-5 Print - Common Core Mathematics Book51 Lessons, tasks, and assessments Unknown 1-6 Print - © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 3-8 Online, print - Lakeshore Learning Materials (publisher and vendor) Common Core, Inc.*** (non-profit) Lumos Learning (vendor) E. McCarthy (author); Carson-Dellosa Publishing (publisher); Amazon (vendor) Newmark Learning (publisher); Really Good Stuff (vendor) None None None None None 12 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL NAME FEATURES Common Core Reproducible Math Activities52 CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks54 CCSS Transition Think Tank55 Eureka Math56 Inside Mathematics Interactive Math Journal60 59 TARGET STUDENT POPULATION DELIVERY FORMAT EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) Newmark Learning (publisher); Lakeshore Learning Materials (vendor) Achieve and NASDCTEc (non-profit) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL Reproducible activity books Lakeshore Learning Materials best seller53 1-5 Print - CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks and Workshop Planning Tools ADP state network (35) High school CTE PDF, video, webinar, PowerPoint 3** Unknown 6-12; CTE Students PDF 3** NSTTAC (non-profit) None Unknown Pre-K-12 Online, PDF, video - Common Core, Inc.*** (non-profit) None Provides reviewer-approved lesson examples for each CC standard (not all standards yet represented) Modules, demonstration videos, tools for differentiating instruction Illustrations, practice standards, content standards, and fractions progressions Illustrative Mathematics57 INDICATORS OF USAGE Mathematical Practice Standards videos, exemplary lesson videos, tasks and assessment resources Mathematics journal activities, checklists, reflection pieces, and assessment ideas © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice Registered users (Nearly 8,000 in September 2012)58 Unknown 3,790 ratings K-12 PDF, interactive online tool 3** Institute for Mathematics and Education (University of Arizona)*** (nonprofit) K-12 PDF lessons, standardscorrelated videos 2** Noyce Foundation (non-profit) - J. Runde (developer); Runde’s  Room  Blog   (publisher); Teachers Pay Teachers (vendor) 4-8 PDF None GA, IL, LA AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MA, MO, MT, NV, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY AL, AZ, AR, CA, FL HI, ID, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MT, NV, NH, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, UT, WA, WI None 13 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL NAME 61 MDC /MAP FEATURES 62 Formative Assessments Lessons (FALs), summative tasks and tests, and professional learning modules INDICATORS OF USAGE Training (2,706 teachers in 18 states)63 Mathematics Common Core Toolbox64 Teacher study materials and sample curriculum frameworks Unknown Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools65 Mathematics Standards, Mathematics Practices, and Overarching Considerations (Equity, Formative Assessments, Technology), User’s  Guide TenMarks 66 Transition Tasks for Mathematics67 TARGET STUDENT POPULATION Middle and high school students DELIVERY FORMAT Online, PDF, videos EVIDENCE OF CCSS ALIGNMENT DEVELOPER NAME (AND TYPE) 3 MDC, University of California, Berkeley, and Shell Center for Mathematical Education (University of Nottingham)*** (non-profit) STATE REFERENCES TO TOOL MDC Only: CO, CT, FL, KY, NM, NC, OH**** MAP Only : AL, AZ, HI, ID, IA, KS, MS, MT, OR, PA, WI, WY**** MDC and MAP: AR, CA, GA, LA, MA, NV**** 3** Charles A. Dana Center (University of Texas at Austin) and Agile Mind, Inc.*** (partnership involving non- and for-profit organizations) AZ, CA, IL, IA, KS, MT, NV, NY, TN, VT, WA CA, DE, MA, NH, RI, SC K-12 PDF Piloted at three national locations K-12 Word document, PowerPoint presentation 3 Committee of educators (on behalf of CCSSO and NCSM) (non-profit) Tools for practice, instruction, assessment, and intervention Unknown Elementary, middle, and high school students Online, video - TenMarks Education, Inc. (for-profit) None Task collection with implementation suggestions and strategies Unknown 6-8 Print - Walch Education (publisher); Really Good Stuff (vendor) None *The 21 states listed as citing “EQuIP” reference either the Achieve EQuIP Quality Review Rubrics or the Tri-State Quality Review  Rubrics.  According  to  Achieve,  “EQuIP  builds  on   a collaborative effort of education leaders from Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island that Achieve facilitated. The outcome of that effort was the development of the ‘TriState Rubrics’ and  a  quality  review  process  designed  to  determine  the  quality  and  alignment  of  instructional  lessons  and  units  to  the  CCSS.” Given  EQuIP’s  grounding  in  the  Tri68 State Quality Review Rubrics, we include references to either tool in this cell. 69 **Denotes  the  CCSSO  has  endorsed  this  instrument  in  its  “Common  Core  State  Standards:  Implementation  Tools  and  Resources”  guide ***Denotes the organization received at least partial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support creation of its Common Core implementation tool ****While MAP and MDC reflect the same tools, 19 states referenced either MAP or MDC, and six states referenced both MAP and MDC. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 14 Hanover Research | November 2013 5 “Addressing  Tech  Components  of  Common  Core.”  Atomic  Learning,  Inc.  http://www.atomiclearning.com/k12/techcore   “Common  Core  360:  The  Common  Core  Implementation  Component  in  the  Educator  Effectiveness  System.”  School  Improvement  Network.   http://www.schoolimprovement.com/common-core-360/ 7 “Common  Core  Assessment  &  Remediation  Tool.”  Odysseyware.  http://www.odysseyware.com/products/features/odysseyware-cctools/ 8 Odysseyware. Phone correspondence. 21 October 2013. 9 “Common  Core  Institute  Products.”  The  Common  Core  Institute.  http://commoncoreinstitute.org/Cart.aspx   10 “About  the  Common  Core  Institute.”  The  Common  Core  Institute.  http://commoncoreinstitute.org/about.aspx   11 “Search filter: ’Common  Core  Standard  Reference  Kit’.”  Published by Edupress. Sold through Really Good Stuff. http://results.reallygoodstuff.com/search?asug=&view=grid&SLICARTCOUNT=0&SLICARTTOTAL=0.00&w=common+core+standard+reference+kit 12 “Search filter: ’The  Complete  Common  Core  State  Standards  Kit’.”  Published by Carson-Dellosa Publishing. Sold through Really Good Stuff. http://results.reallygoodstuff.com/search?asug=&view=grid&SLICARTCOUNT=0&SLICARTTOTAL=0.00&w=%22the+complete+common+core+state+standards+kit%22 13 “Common  Core  State  Standards.”  American  Federation  of  Teachers.  http://www.aft.org/issues/standards/nationalstandards/ 14 “About  the  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  EduCore.  http://educore.ascd.org/channels/02d1bb32-0584-4323-908e-df822f4fc68f 15 “About  ASCD  and  the  Bill  &  Melinda  Gates  Foundation.”  EduCore.  http://educore.ascd.org/resource/Content/8c4b3234-6861-407c-a0a0-08cf8302a212 16 “Framework  for  English  Language  Proficiency  Development  Standards  corresponding  to  the  Common  Core  State  Standards and  the  Next  Generation  Science  Standards.”   Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf 17 “Educators  Evaluating  Quality  Instructional  Products.”  Achieve.  http://www.achieve.org/EQuIP   18 “PARCC  Model  Content  Framework.”  Partnership  for  Assessment  of  Readiness  for  College  and  Careers.  http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks 19 [1]  “Next  Navigator.”  Successful  Practices  Network.  http://nextnetwork.org/spn/page/Next-Navigator [2]  “How  should  teachers  adapt  instruction  for  the  more  rigorous  Next  Generation  Assessments?”  Scholastic  Achievement  Partners. http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/scholastic-achievement-partners/next.htm 20 “Steal  These  Tools.”  Student  Achievement  Partners.  http://www.achievethecore.org/ 21 “Understanding  Language:  Language,  Literacy,  and  Learning  in  the  Content  Areas.”  Stanford  University.  http://ell.stanford.edu/ 22 “Anthology  Alignment  Project.”  Student  Achievement  Partners.  http://www.achievethecore.org/ela-literacy-common-core/aligning-materials/anthology-alignment-project 23 “Basal  Alignment  Project.”  Student  Achievement  Partners.  http://www.achievethecore.org/ela-literacy-common-core/aligning-materials/basal-alignment-project 24 “Thousands  of  Educators  Nationwide  Taking  Advantage  Of  Resource  to  Help  Urban  School  Districts  Implement  New  Standards.”  Student Achievement Partners, Jan. 29, 2013. http://www.achievethecore.org/press-release/thousands-educators-nationwide-taking-advantage-resource-hel 25 “Common  Core  Assessments  and  Online  Workbooks  (PARCC  Edition).”  Lumos Learning. http://lumoslearning.com/llwp/resources/access-online-workbooks.html 26 [1] Jump, D. “Chit  Chat  Morning  Messages  Set  1.”  Sold through Teachers Pay Teachers. http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Chit-Chat-Morning-Messages-Set-1aligned-with-Common-Core-Standards-316380 [2] Jump, D. “Chit  Chat  Morning  Messages  Set  2.”  Sold through Teachers Pay Teachers. http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Chit-Chat-Morning-Messages-Set-2aligned-with-Common-Core-Standards-400912 27 [1] Burke, J., and James, R. “The  Common  Core  Companion:  The  Standards  Decoded,  Grades  6-8: What They Say, What They Mean,  How  to  Teach  Them.”  Published by Corwin Literacy. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/The-Common-Core-Companion-Standards/dp/145227603X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383335884&sr=81&keywords=%22the+common+core+companion%3A+the+standards+decoded%22 [2] Burke, J., and James, R. “The  Common  Core  Companion:  The  Standards  Decoded,  Grades  9-12:  What  They  Say,  What  They  Mean,  How  to  Teach  Them.”  Published by Corwin Literacy. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/The-Common-Core-Companion-Standards/dp/145227603X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383335884&sr=81&keywords=%22the+common+core+companion%3A+the+standards+decoded%22 28 “Best  Sellers  in  ‘Curricula’.”  Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Curricula/zgbs/books/266136/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_15959731 6 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 15 Hanover Research | November 2013 29 “Search filter: ’Common  Core  Comprehension  Book’.”  Published by Newmark Learning. Sold through Really Good Stuff. http://results.reallygoodstuff.com/search?asug=&view=grid&SLICARTCOUNT=0&SLICARTTOTAL=0.00&w=common+core+comprehension+book 30 [1] Linder, R. “The  Common  Core  Guidebook:  Informational  Lessons,  Guided  Practice,  Suggested  Book  Lists,  and  Reproducible  Organizers,  Grades 3-5.”  Published by The Literacy Initiative. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/The-Common-Core-Guidebook-Informational/dp/0988950537/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1383337921&sr=82&keywords=%22The+Common+Core+Guidebook%22 [2] Linder, R. “The  Common  Core  Guidebook:  Informational  Lessons,  Guided  Practice,  Suggested  Book  Lists,  and  Reproducible  Organizers,  Grades 6-8.”  Published by The Literacy Initiative. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Common-Core-Guidebook-Grades-Informational/dp/0988950502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383337921&sr=81&keywords=%22The+Common+Core+Guidebook%22 31 “Best  Sellers  in  ‘Curricula’,”  Op. cit. 32 “Common  Core  Reproducible  Comprehension  Activities.”  Published by Newmark Learning. Sold through Lakeshore Learning Materials. http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C107&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383327920875 33 “Search filter: ’Common  Core’,”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.  http://products.lakeshorelearning.com/search#w=%22common%20core%22 34 Owocki, G. “The  Common  Core  Lesson  Book,  K-5:  Working  with  Increasingly  Complex  Literature,  Informational  Text,  and  Foundational  Reading  Skills.”  Published by Heinemann. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Common-Core-Lesson-BookInformational/dp/0325042934/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383335642&sr=1-11&keywords=%22Common+Core%22#_ 35 “Best  Sellers  in  ‘Educational Professional Development’.”  Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/3048961/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last 36 [1]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common Core Practice Journal – Gr. 1-2.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C270&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383328789716 [2]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common Core Practice Journal – Gr. 3-4.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C271&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383331959602 [3]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common Core Practice Journal – Gr. 4-5.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C272&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383332004202 37 “Search filter: ’Common  Core’.”  Op.  cit. 38 “’Language  Arts  4  Today.”  Published by Carson-Dellosa Publishing. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&fieldkeywords=%22language%20arts%204%20today%22 39 “Best  Sellers  in  ‘Instruction Methods’.”  Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/15959731/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_4_last 40 “Language  Teaching  Centers  for  Common  Core  Standards  – Complete  Set.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C253&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383329664858 41 “Search filter: ’Common  Core’.”  Op.  cit. 42 “Literacy  Design  Collaborative.”  Literacy  Design  Collaborative.  http://www.literacydesigncollaborative.org/ 43 “The  Implementation  and  Scale-Up  of  LDC  and  MDC  Tools:  Executive  Summary.”  Research for Action, Sept. 2012, p. 5. http://www.researchforaction.org/wpcontent/uploads/publication-photos/1180/RFA_Executive_Summary_Conditions_for_Scale_and_Sustainability.pdf 44 “NWP  and  the  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  National  Writing  Project,  Oct.  25, 2011. http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3711 45 [1]  “Research  &  Respond  Comprehension  Center  – Grades 2-3.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C925%2C789&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383330843383 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 16 Hanover Research | November 2013 [2]  “Research  &  Respond  Comprehension  Center  – Grades 4-5.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.   http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C925%2C790&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383331402023 46 “Search filter: ’Common  Core’.”  Op.  cit. 47 “The  Wheatley  Portfolio.”  Common  Core,  Inc.  http://commoncore.org/maps/ 48 “Common  Core  Assessments  and  Online  Workbooks  (PARCC  Edition).”  Op. cit. 49 McCarthy, E. “Common Core Math 4 Today.”  Published by Carson-Dellosa Publishing. Sold through Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_sabc?url=searchalias%3Dstripbooks&pageMinusResults=1&suo=1383336757064#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&fieldkeywords=%22common+core+math+4+today%22&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3A%22common+core+math+4+today%22 50 “Best Sellers in ‘Instruction Methods’,”  Op.  cit. 51 “Search filter: ’Common  Core  Mathematics  Book’.”  Published by Newmark Learning. Sold through Really Good Stuff. http://results.reallygoodstuff.com/search?asug=&view=grid&ts=custom&SLICARTCOUNT=0&SLICARTTOTAL=0.00&w=%22common+core+mathematics+book%22 52 “Common  Core  Reproducible  Math  Activities.”  Published by Newmark Learning. Sold through Lakeshore Learning Materials. http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C928%2C102&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmU ID=1383330589195 53 “Search Filter: ’Common  Core’.”  Op.  cit. 54 “CCSS-CTE  Classroom  Tasks.”  Achieve.  http://www.achieve.org/ccss-cte-classroom-tasks 55 “CCSS  Transition  Think  Tank.”  National  Secondary  Transition  Technical  Assistance  Center.  http://www.nsttac.org/content/ccss-transition-think-tank 56 “Eureka  Math.”  Common  Core,  Inc.  http://commoncore.org/maps/math/home 57 “Illustrative  Mathematics.”  Illustrative  Mathematics. http://www.illustrativemathematics.org/ 58 McCallum,  W.  “The  Common  Core  State  Standards  in  Mathematics.”  PowerPoint  presentation  to  the  Arizona  Association  of  Teachers of Mathematics, Sept. 2012, p. 32. 59 “Tools  for  Educators.”  Inside  Mathematics.  http://insidemathematics.org/index.php/tools-for-teachers 60 Runde, J. “Interactive  Math  Journal.”  Published by Runde’s  Room  Blog.  Sold through Teachers Pay Teachers. http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Interactive-MathJournal-315177 61 “Mathematics Design  Collaborative.”  MyGroupGenius.  http://www.mygroupgenius.org/about 62 “What  is  the  Mathematics  Assessment  Project.”  Mathematics  Assessment  Project.  http://map.mathshell.org/materials/background.php 63 “The  Implementation  and  Scale-Up of LDC and MDC Tools:  Executive  Summary.”  Research  for  Action,  Sept.  2012,  p.  5.  http://www.researchforaction.org/wpcontent/uploads/publication-photos/1180/RFA_Executive_Summary_Conditions_for_Scale_and_Sustainability.pdf 64 “Preparing  for  Implementation.” Agile Mind, Inc. and Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin. http://www.ccsstoolbox.com/ 65 “Materials  Analysis  Tools.”  National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. http://www.mathedleadership.org/ccss/materials.html 66 “TenMarks.”  TenMarks  Education,  Inc.  https://www.tenmarks.com/index.html   67 “Search filter: ’Transition  Tasks  for  Mathematics’.”  Published by Walch Education. Sold through Really Good Stuff. http://results.reallygoodstuff.com/search?asug=&view=grid&SLICARTCOUNT=0&SLICARTTOTAL=0.00&w=transition+tasks+for+mathematics 68 “Educators  Evaluating  Quality  Instructional  Products.”  Op.  cit. 69 [1]  “Common  Core  State  Standards:  Implementation  Tools  and  Resources.”  Council  of  Chief  State  School  Officers, pp. 14-20. http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2012/common_core_resources.pdf [2]  “Framework  for  English  Language  Proficiency  Development  Standards  corresponding  to  the  Common  Core  State  Standards  and  the  Next  Generation  Science  Standards.”  Op.   cit. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 17 Hanover Research | November 2013 Select Non-Open Source Common Core-Aligned Implementation Tools ORGANIZATION/ VENDOR PRODUCT 6-12 Print The Common Core Guidebook72 3-8 Print Language Arts 4 Today73 The Common Core Lesson Book74 Common Core Math 4 Today75 Atomic Learning76 DELIVERY FORMAT The Common Core Companion71 Amazon**70 TARGET STUDENT POPULATION K-5 K-5 K-5 Print Print Print Atomic TechCore K-12 Online, video UNIT OF SALE Per grade levels (6-8 and 9-12) Per grade levels (3-5 and 6-8) Per grade level unit Per unit Per grade level unit Per district or building77 COST $30.95 $32.95 $9.99 $36.56 $9.99 Varies by site78 $30.00 (one-year partial access) $90.00 (one-year complete access) $125.00 (lifetime partial access) $375.00 (lifetime complete access) $29.95 (per school-level volume) $150.00 (one-year partial access) $275.00 (one-year complete access) $2,000.00 (per building) $100.00 (per user, per grade level) The Wheatley Portfolio80 Online, print Per unit or user Eureka Math81 Pre-K-12 Online Per unit or user K-12 PDF Per building or user K-12 Online Per district $1,500.00 Expert Lesson Planning Tools K-12 Interactive template Per user $30.00 per user (51 or more users) Common Core Lesson Planner for Math & ELA Common Core, Inc. K-12 K-12 Print Per unit K-12 Print Per unit 1-5 Print 1-5 Print Per grade level (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) Per grade level unit 1-5 Print Per unit or set K-1 Print Per unit $139.00 2-5 Print Per grade levels (2-3 and 4-5) $69.99 79 Deconstructed Common Core State Standards ELA/Mathematics Deconstructed Common Core State Standards for BuildYourOwnCurriculum (BYOC) The Common Core Institute82 Lakeshore Learning Materials**83 Benchmarks and Goals for Implementing Common Core Standards Common Core Reproducible Comprehension Activities84 Common Core Reproducible Math Activities85 Daily Comprehension Common Core Practice Journal86 Language Teaching Centers for Common Core Standards87 Research & Respond Comprehension Center88 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice $25.00 (with five quantity minimum) $20.00 (with five quantity minimum) $19.99 $19.99 $3.99 (per unit) $37.50 (per set of 10) 18 Hanover Research | November 2013 ORGANIZATION/ VENDOR Odysseyware92 Really Good Stuff**94 School Improvement Network100 Successful Practices Network102 Teachers Pay Teachers**103 TenMarks Education, Inc.*106 DELIVERY FORMAT CCSS Language Arts Literacy Assessments and Online Workbooks 90 3-8 Online, Print 3-8 Online, Print Common Core Assessment and Remediation Tool Common Core Standard Reference Kit95 The Complete Common Core State Standards Kit96 Common Core Comprehension Book97 Common Core Mathematics Book98 K-893 K-5 K-5 1-6 1-6 Online Print Print Print Print Per grade level; per building or user Per grade level; per building or user Per building Per grade level unit Per grade level unit Per grade level unit Per grade level unit Transition Tasks for Mathematics99 89 TARGET STUDENT POPULATION CCSS Math Assessments and Online Workbooks 91 Lumos Learning PRODUCT 6-8 Print Per grade level unit Common Core 360 K-12 Online, video, webinars, PDF Per district, building, or user101 Varies by site K-12 Online Per building Varies by site Pre-K-1 4-8 Elementary, middle, and high school PDF PDF Per user Per user $8.00-$9.00 per set $14.99 Online Per student $20.00 Next Navigator 104 Chit Chat Morning Messages Interactive Math Journal105 TenMarks Premium UNIT OF SALE COST Varies by site Varies by site Varies by site $39.92 $19.99 $19.99 $19.99 $25.00 (grade 6) $21.00 (grade 7) $17.00 (grade 8) *Denotes the provision of some resources at no cost **Products listed for these vendors represent best-sellers or recommended selections, not a comprehensive listing of all CCSS implementation tools 70 “Amazon.”  Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/ [1] Burke, J., and James, R. “The  Common  Core  Companion:  The  Standards  Decoded,  Grades  6-8:  What  They  Say,  What  They  Mean,  How  to  Teach  Them.”  Op.  cit. [2] Burke, J., and James, R. “The  Common  Core  Companion:  The  Standards Decoded, Grades 9-12:  What  They  Say,  What  They  Mean,  How  to  Teach  Them.”  Op.  cit. 72 [1] Linder, R. “The  Common  Core  Guidebook:  Informational  Lessons,  Guided  Practice,  Suggested  Book  Lists,  and  Reproducible  Organizers,  Grades 3-5.”  Op.  cit. [2] Linder, R. “The  Common  Core  Guidebook:  Informational  Lessons,  Guided  Practice,  Suggested  Book  Lists,  and  Reproducible  Organizers,  Grades 6-8.”  Op.  cit. 73 “’Language  Arts  4  Today’.”  Op.  cit. 74 Owocki, G. Op. cit. 75 McCarthy, E. Op. cit. 76 “Addressing  Tech  Components  of  Common  Core.”  Op.  cit. 77 Weiss-Pesta, Brenda. Sales Manager, Atomic Learning, Inc. Email correspondence. 22 Oct. 2013. 78 Ibid. 79 “Common  Core.”  Common  Core,  Inc.  http://commoncore.org/   71 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 19 Hanover Research | November 2013 80 “Which  Maps  Do  You  Need?”  Common  Core,  Inc.  https://commoncore.org/maps/order “Get  Access  Now.”  Common  Core,  Inc.  https://commoncore.org/maps/math/order 82 “Common  Core  Institute  Products.”  Op.  cit.   83 “Lakeshore.”  Lakeshore  Learning  Materials.  http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/ 84 “Common  Core  Reproducible  Comprehension  Activities.”  Op. cit. 85 “Common  Core  Reproducible  Math  Activities.”  Op. cit. 86 [1]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common  Core  Practice  Journal  – Gr. 1-2.”  Op.  cit. [2]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common  Core  Practice  Journal  – Gr. 3-4.”  Op.  cit. [3]  “Daily  Comprehension  Common  Core  Practice Journal – Gr. 4-5.”  Op.  cit. 87 “Language  Teaching  Centers  for  Common  Core  Standards  – Complete Set.”  Op. cit. 88 [1]  “Research  &  Respond  Comprehension  Center  – Grades 2-3.”  Op.  cit. [2]  “Research  &  Respond  Comprehension  Center  – Grades 4-5.”  Op.  cit. 89 “Lumos  Learning.”  Lumos  Learning.  http://lumoslearning.com/llwp/ 90 “Common  Core  Assessments  and  Online  Workbooks  (PARCC  Edition).” Op. cit. 91 Ibid. 92 “Common  Core  Assessment  and  Remediation  Tool.”  Op.  cit. 93 Odysseyware. Phone correspondence. 21 Oct. 2013. 94 “CCSS  Resources.”  Really  Good  Stuff.  http://www.reallygoodstuff.com/Category.aspx?sb=SEQUENCE&sd=ASC&c=K3 95 “Search filter: ’Common Core  Standard  Reference  Kit’.”  Op.  cit. 96 “Search  filter:  ’The  Complete  Common  Core  State  Standards  Kit’.”  Op.  cit. 97 “Search  filter:  ’Common  Core  Comprehension  Book’.”  Op.  cit. 98 “Search  filter:  ’Common  Core  Mathematics  Book’.”  Op.  cit. 99 “Search  filter:  ’Transition  Tasks  for  Mathematics’.”  Op.  cit. 100 “Request  More  Information.”  School  Improvement  Network.  http://www.schoolimprovement.com/request-more-information/?p=cc360-price 101 Steffensen, Brian. Area Coordinator, School Improvement Network. Email correspondence. 22 Oct. 2013. 102 “Next  Navigator.”  Op.  cit. 103 “Teachers  Pay  Teachers.”  Teachers  Pay  Teachers.  http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/ 104 [1] Jump, D. “Chit  Chat  Morning  Messages  Set  1.”  Op. cit. [2] Jump, D. “Chit  Chat  Morning  Messages  Set  2.”  Op.  cit. 105 Runde, J. Op. cit. 106 [1]  “Products.”  TenMarks  Education,  Inc.  https://www.tenmarks.com/teacher/upgrade/premium [2] Short, Sandra. Associate Director, TenMarks, Education, Inc. Email correspondence. 21 Oct. 2013. 81 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 20 Hanover Research | November 2013 State Common Core-Aligned Implementation Tools STATE Arizona TOOL 108 109 Colorado 110 Connecticut Delaware Georgia Illinois 111 112 113 Indiana 114 Maryland 115 Educator Instructional Tool Box District Sample Curriculum Project Units of Study Curriculum Development Tools Curriculum Maps and Planning Templates ELA Teaching and Learning Strategies; Mathematics Curriculum Model Units Curriculum Maps Common Core Curriculum Frameworks FEATURES Lessons/tasks and units (Also, references to materials developed by other states and districts: literacy content framework (Chicago Public Schools), curriculum map (Georgia DOE), curriculum map (Maryland DOE), curriculum development (Colorado DOE)) Non-content specific blank curriculum templates, content and grade-level blank curriculum templates, teacher-created curriculum samples, standards graphic organizers K-12 ELA and mathematics curriculum design unit planning organizer, unit correlation, pacing guides, sample lesson plans Literacy concept organizers (reading and writing, history/social studies, science and technical subjects), mathematics learning progression organizer K-12 ELA and mathematics curriculum maps and grade-level templates for lesson planning (four nine-week units) For ELA (K-12): Suggested strategies/lessons and assessments for each grade-level standard; Not intended to be used as a model curriculum For mathematics (6-12): Curriculum units based on the PARCC Model Content Frameworks that districts may adopt or adapt Teachers  build  their  own  curriculum  using  Indiana’s   curriculum-mapping templates and grade-level learning targets for ELA (K-9), mathematics (K-9), and science (K) Frameworks for ELA (PK-12), mathematics (PK-12), literacy in history/social studies (6-12), literacy in science and technical Subjects (6-12), and braille © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice NATIONAL TOOLS REFERENCED* FULL CCSS 107 IMPLEMENTATION CROSSWALK DOCUMENTS EduCore, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox 2013-2014 N Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, MDC, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2013-2014 Y EduCore, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, MDC, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2013-2014 N 2012-2013 N 2012-2013 Y CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox , Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2013-2014 N EduCore, Illustrative Mathematics, Model Content Frameworks, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2014-2015 Y Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, Model Content Frameworks 2013-2014 Y Basal Alignment Project, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Basal Alignment Project, CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks, EQuIP, LDC, MAP, MDC**, Student Achievement Partners Resources 21 Hanover Research | November 2013 TOOL STATE Massachusetts 116 FEATURES NATIONAL TOOLS REFERENCED* FULL CCSS 107 IMPLEMENTATION CROSSWALK DOCUMENTS Curriculum Frameworks, Units, and Templates PK-12 curriculum frameworks for ELA and mathematics that incorporate the CCSS and additional state requirements with accompanying model curriculum units and templates EduCore, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, MDC**, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2013-2014 Y Anthology Alignment Project, Basal Alignment Project, Illustrative Mathematics 2014-2015 Y Basal Alignment Project, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Student Achievement Partners Resources 2013-2014 N Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, LDC, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project 2013-2014 N PK-12 curriculum maps and modules for mathematics and ELA Basal Alignment Project, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox 2013-2014 N Unpacking standards, ELA graphic organizers (e.g., argument, compare and contrast, dialectic response, inquiry, synthesizing, vocabulary), mathematics graphic organizers (e.g., number lines) K-12 ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies frameworks that provide instructional strategies and resources to help design CC-aligned lessons EduCore, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MDC, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MDC, Model Content Frameworks 2012-2013 Y 2014-2015 Y Checklists for standards review and lesson planning None 2014-2015 Y Missouri Model Curriculum Units Montana Curriculum Resources New Jersey Model Curriculum 117 118 New York 119 North Carolina Ohio Curriculum Maps and Modules 120 121 Model Curriculum 122 South Dakota Instructional Support Tools 123 Standards Checklists K-12 ELA and mathematics units with instructional strategies and activities, supportive resources, and formative and summative assessments For ELA: Unpacking standards, alignment guides and templates, gap analysis documents For mathematics: Grade-level suggested scope and sequence documents, units of study, pacing, lesson plans, other resources K-12 ELA and mathematics model curricula organized into five six-week units per grade; Units demonstrate student learning objectives and include formative assessments *Sites may list additional resources. These are strictly CC-aligned tools previously listed in the “National Common Core Implementation Tools” section. **While MAP and MDC represent the same tools, this table indicates whether the state specifically referenced MAP or MDC. Two states (GA and MA) referenced both MAP and MDC. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 22 Hanover Research | November 2013 107 “In  The  States.”  Common  Core  State  Standards  Initiative.  http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states “Educator  Instructional  Tool  Box.”  Arizona  Department  of  Education.  http://www.azed.gov/azcommoncore/instructionaltoolbox/ 109 [1] “Framework  for  Colorado’s  District  Sample  Curriculum  Project.”  Colorado  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.state.co.us/StandardsAndInstruction/SampleCurriculum-framework.asp [2]  “Instructional  Resources  – Reading, Writing,  and  Communicating.”  Colorado  Department  of  Education.  http://www.cde.state.co.us/coreadingwriting/resources [3]  “Colorado Integration Project.”  Colorado  Legacy Foundation. http://colegacy.org/colorado-integration-project/ 110 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards  in  Connecticut.”  Connecticut State Department of Education. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=322592 [2]  “September  Newsletter:  Common  Core  State  Standards  Implementation.”  Connecticut  State  Department  of  Education,  September  6,  2013, p. 2. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/student_assessment/smarter_balanced/2013_Academic_Office_Newsletter_September.pdf [3]  “Materials  Needed  to  Implement  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Connecticut  Education  Association.  http://www.cea.org/commoncore/materials/ 111 [1]  “Curriculum  Development  Tools.”  Delaware  Department  of  Education.  http://www.doe.k12.de.us/commoncore/math/teachertoolkit/curdevtools.shtml [2]  “Curriculum  Development  Tools.”  Delaware  Department  of  Education.  http://www.doe.k12.de.us/commoncore/ela/teachertoolkit/curdevtools.shtml [3] “Common  Core  Resources.”  Delaware  State  Education  Association.  https://www.dsea.org/Accountability/CommonCoreStandards.html [4]  “Common  Core  State  Standards  for  Mathematics:  The  Key  Shifts.”  Delaware  Department  of  Education,  pp. 21, 23. http://www.doe.k12.de.us/commoncore/math/teachertoolkit/hqpd_subpages/High%20School/HSFocus.ppt 112 [1] For  example,  please  see:  “English  Language  Arts  K-5.”  Georgia  Department  of  Education.  https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Pages/ELA-K-5.aspx [2]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative.”  Georgia  Department  of  Education.  https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Pages/LDC.aspx [3]  “Mathematics  Design  Collaborative.”  Georgia  Association  of  Educational  Leaders,  March  28,  2011.   http://www.gael.org/app/webroot/media/useruploads/files/gacis_mdc.pdf [4]  “Common  Core  Georgia  Performance  Standards.”  Georgia  Department of Education, July 2013, pp. 23, 24. https://www.georgiastandards.org/CommonCore/Common%20Core%20Frameworks/CCGPS_Math_9-12_Analytic_Geometry_Course_Overview.pdf [5]  “ELA  Reporter.”  Georgia  Department  of  Education,  October  1,  2013,  p.  1.  https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Documents/October-2013-ELA-Reporter.pdf [6]  “ELA  Reporter.”  Georgia  Department  of  Education,  January  1,  2013,  p.  3.  https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Documents/JanELAReporter.pdf 113 [1] “The  New  Illinois  Learning  Standards  Incorporating  the  Common  Core.”  Illinois  State  Board  of  Education.  http://www.isbe.net/common_core/default.htm [2] “Resources.”  Illinois Board of Higher Education, May 2012, p. 5. http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/TTTS/PDF/IBHE_Resources%20List.pdf 114 [1]  “External  Common  Core  Resources”  Indiana  Department  of  Education.  http://www.doe.in.gov/achievement/curriculum/external-common-core-resources [2]  “Resources  for  Implementing  Indiana’s  Common  Core  Standards.”  Indiana  Department  of  Education.  http://www.doe.in.gov/achievement/curriculum/resourcesimplementing-indianas-common-core-standards [3]  “Math  IN  Forum.”  Indiana  Department  of  Education.  http://media.doe.in.gov/commoncore/2012-11-01-MathINForum.html [4] “Curriculum  Maps.”  Indiana  Department  of  Education.  http://pod.doe.in.gov/groups/learningconnectionhelp/wiki/8bd1c/Curriculum_Maps.html [5]  “Professional  Language  Arts  Organizations.”  Indiana Department of Education. http://www.doe.in.gov/achievement/curriculum/professional-language-arts-organizations 115 [1] “MD  Common  Core  Curriculum  Frameworks.”  School  Improvement  in  Maryland.  http://mdk12.org/instruction/commoncore/ [2] “Grade  1:  Unit  1.OA.A.1-2.”  Maryland  Department  of  Education,  February  22,  2013,  p. 19. http://mdk12.org/instruction/academies/resources_2013/MATH/pdf/Math_unit_resources/Grade1/Gr1Unit1_OA_A_1_2SolveProblems.pdf 116 [1]  “Common  Core  State  Standards  Initiative.”  Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education.  http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/ [2]  “Resources  for  Implementing  The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in 2012-2013.”  Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education.   http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/Implementing.pdf [3]  “Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education  Model  Curriculum  Unit.”  Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary Education, July 2012. http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/model/MCUtemplate.pdf [4]  “Common  Core  &  PARCC.”  Massachusetts  Teachers  Association. http://www.massteacher.org/advocating/toolkits/ccss.aspx 108 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 23 Hanover Research | November 2013 [5]  “Resources  to  Support  Transition  to  the  2011  Massachusetts Curriculum  Framework  for  Mathematics.”  Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education.   http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/mathresources.html 117 [1] “Missouri  Learning  Standards.”  Missouri  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education. http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/Common_Core.html [2]  “Missouri  Mathematics  Core  Academic  Standards  Crosswalk.”  Missouri  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education,  p.  1.   http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/documents/cur-math-comcore-crosswalk-a1-2012.pdf nd [3]  “52 Annual  Cooperative  Conference  for  School  Administrators.”  Missouri  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education,  July  29, 2013, pp. 28-29. http://dese.mo.gov/commissioner/adminconf/documents/MoLearningStandards.pdf 118 [1] “Montana  Content  Standards  and  Assessments.”  Montana  Office  of  Public  Instruction.   http://opi.mt.gov/Curriculum/MontCAS/MCCS/index.php?gpm=1_4&tpm=10_5&tpm=11_3&emp=6_2#gpm1_1 [2]  “Montana  Common  Core  Standards  – Teacher  Fact  Sheet.”  Montana  Office  of  Public Instruction. October 2012. p. 3. http://opi.mt.gov/PDF/CCSSO/teachers/12_11-13Teacher-Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf 119 [1] “Welcome  to  the  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education’s  Model  Curriculum!”  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education.  http://www.state.nj.us/education/modelcurriculum/ [2]  “New  Jersey  CTE  Conference.”  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education,  May  22,  2013, p. 18. http://www.nj.gov/education/cte/conf/booklet.pdf [3]  “Resources  for  the  Common  Core.”  New  Jersey  Education  Association. http://www.njea.org/news-and-publications/njea-review/september-2013/common-core/commoncore-resources [4]  “Common  Core  Standards  Standards  (CCSS)  /  Model  Curriculum.”  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education.  http://www.state.nj.us/education/sca/ccss/ [5] “Shifting  Gears.”  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education.  http://www.state.nj.us/education/sca/ppt/gears/faq.htm 120 [1] “Common  Core  Toolkit.”  New  York  State  Education  Department.  http://www.engageny.org/resource/common-core-toolkit [2]  “PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks.”  New  York  State  Education  Department.  http://www.engageny.org/resource/parcc-model-content-frameworks-for-educators [3]  “Basal  Readers.”  New  York  State  Education  Department.  http://www.engageny.org/resource/basal-readers-common-core-state-standards [4]  “Network  Team  Institute  Materials.”  New  York  State  Education  Department.  http://www.engageny.org/resource/network-team-institute-materials-february-4-7-2013mathematics-6-12-pd-day-one [5]”Mathematics  grades  6-12.”  New  York  State  Education  Department,  February  2013,  p.  93.  http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/nti-february2013-math-6-12-day-one-presenter-version-with-solutions.ppt 121 [1] “Common  Core  State  and  NC  Essential  Standards.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina.  http://www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/standards/   [2]  “Race  to  the  Top  Weekly  Update.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina,  January  9,  2013,  p.  1.   http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/rttt/reports/weekly/2013/20130109/updates.pdf [3]  “Race  to  the  Top  Weekly  Update.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina,  October  10,  2012,  p.  2.   http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/rttt/reports/weekly/2012/20121010/updates.pdf [4]  “Race  to  the  Top  Progress  Updated.”  Public  Schools of North Carolina, February 2013, p. 1. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/rttt/reports/monthly/2013/201302/201302b.pdf [5]  “Principals’  Messages  2012.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina,  September  6,  2012.  http://www.ncpublicschools.org/principalsarchive/messages/2012/20120906?&print=true [6]  “English  Language  Arts  FAQ.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina.  http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/faq/?print=true [7] “Race  to  the  Top  Weekly  Update.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina,  January  9,  2013,  p.  4.   http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/rttt/reports/weekly/2013/20130109/updates.pdf [8]  “Facilitator’s  Guide.”  Public  Schools  of  North  Carolina,  2011,  p.  93.  http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/resources/facilitator-guide.pdf 122 [1] “New  Learning  Standards.”  Ohio  Department  of  Education.  http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Academic-Content-Standards/New-Learning-Standards [2] “Why  use  the  Mathematics  Design  Collaborative  (MDC)  tools?”  Ohio  STEM  Learning  Network.  http://www.osln.org/college-and-career-ready-by-design-mathematics-designcollaborative-mdc/ [3]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative  Networking.”  Ohio  STEM  Learning  Network. http://www.osln.org/event/literacy-design-collaborative-networking-2/ © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 24 Hanover Research | November 2013 [4]  “Ohio’s  Equality  Review  Rubric.”  Ohio  Department  of  Education.  http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Academic-Content-Standards/Science/Resources-Ohio-sNew-Learning-Standards-K-12-Scien/Science-Quality-Review-Rubric.pdf.aspx [5]  “Correlation  of  Inside  Mathematics  Tasks  to  CCSS.”  Ohio  Department  of  Education.  http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Academic-ContentStandards/Mathematics/Model-Curriculum-%E2%80%93-Mathematics-Regional-Teacher-Te/Correlation-of-Inside-Mathematics-Tasks-and-CCSS.pdf.aspx [6]  “Resources:  Ohio’s  New  Learning  Standards.”  Ohio  Department  of  Education.  http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Academic-Content-Standards/Mathematics/Resources-Ohios-New-Learning-Standards-K-12-Mathe 123 “Common  Core  State  Standards  Initiative.”  South  Dakota  Department  of  Education,  February  11,  2013.  http://doe.sd.gov/octe/commoncoreStandards.aspx © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 25 Hanover Research | November 2013 National Tools Referenced  by  States  without  “Homegrown”  CC  Implementation  Tools STATE NATIONAL TOOLS REFERENCED* Alabama 121 Arkansas 122 California 123 District of 124 Columbia Florida 125 Hawaii 126 Idaho Iowa 127 129 Kansas 130 Kentucky 131 Louisiana Maine 132 133 134 Michigan 135 Mississippi Nevada 136 New Hampshire New Mexico 137 138 139 North Dakota Basal Alignment Project, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Model Content Frameworks EduCore, Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, MDC**, Model Content Frameworks, National Writing Project Resources Anthology Alignment Project, Basal Alignment Project, EduCore, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, MDC**, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Understanding Language Project Basal Alignment Project, Illustrative Mathematics, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MDC, Model Content Frameworks, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project Anthology Alignment Project, Basal Alignment Project, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Student Achievement Partners Resources Basal Alignment Project, EduCore, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources Common Core 360, LDC, MDC, Model Content Frameworks, National Writing Project Resources Anthology Alignment Project, CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, MAP , MDC**, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Basal Alignment Project, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project EQuIP MAP, Model Content Frameworks EduCore, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, MAP, MDC**, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, MDC, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Basal Alignment Project, Inside Mathematics, LDC, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice FULL CCSS 120 IMPLEMENTATION CROSSWALK DOCUMENTS 2013-2014 Y 2013-2014 Y 2013-2014 Y 2012-2013 Y 2014-2015 N Unknown Y 2013-2014 N 128 2014-2015 N 2013-2014 N 2011-2012 Y 2014-2015 N 2012-2013 N 2012-2013 2012-2013 Y N 2015-2016 N Unknown Y 2014-2015 Y 2013-2014 Y 26 Hanover Research | November 2013 STATE NATIONAL TOOLS REFERENCED* Oklahoma Oregon 140 141 Pennsylvania 142 South Carolina Rhode Island Tennessee Utah 143 144 145 147 148 Vermont Washington 149 West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 150 151 152 EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, Model Content Frameworks EduCore, ELP Development Framework, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Understanding Language Project EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, MAP , Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tools Tri-State Quality Review Rubrics, Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Tool, Model Content Frameworks, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox EduCore, Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, Student Achievement Partners Resources EduCore, EQuIP, Illustrative Mathematics, LDC, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, LDC, Mathematics Common Core Toolbox, Model Content Frameworks, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Student Achievement Partners Resources Illustrative Mathematics, Inside Mathematics, MAP, National Writing Project Resources, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Model Content Frameworks Illustrative Mathematics, MAP, Student Achievement Partners Resources, Model Content Frameworks FULL CCSS 120 IMPLEMENTATION 2014-2015 CROSSWALK DOCUMENTS N 2014-2015 N 2013-2014 N 2014-2015 Y 2015-2016 N 2014-2015 Y 146 2014-2015 N 2013-2014 N 2013-2014 Y 2014-2015 N 2013-2014 Y Unknown Y *Sites may list additional resources. These are strictly CC-aligned   tools   previously   listed   in   the   “National   Common   Core  Implementation  Tools”  section. **While MAP and MDC represent the same tools, this table indicates whether the state specifically referenced MAP or MDC. Four states (AR, CA, LA, and NV) referenced both MAP and MDC. 120 “In  the  States.”  Op.  cit. [1] “Alabama  College- & Career-Ready  Standards  (CCRS).”  Alabama  Department  of  Education.   http://alex.state.al.us/ccrs/ [2]  “Tri-State  Quality  Review  Rubric  for  Lessons  &  Units.”  Posted  by  Alabama  Department  of  Education.   http://alex.state.al.us/ccrs/sites/alex.state.al.us.ccrs/files/tri-state-ela-rubric.pdf [3] “K-12  Mathematics  Participant  Packet.”  Alabama  Department  of  Education,  November  2012,  pp. 24-27. http://alex.state.al.us/ccrs/sites/alex.state.al.us.ccrs/files/K%205%20Participants%20Packet%20Nov%20QM%20.pdf [4]  “Shifting to Complex Test in K-5.”  Alabama  Reading  Initiative,  2013,  p.  31.   http://alex.state.al.us/ccrs/sites/alex.state.al.us.ccrs/files/K%205%20AM%20MEGA%202013%20Text%20Comple xity.pptx 122 [1] “What  Every  Arkansas  Educator  Needs  to  Know  About  the  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Arkansas   Department of Education, January 16, 2013. http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Curriculum%20and%20Instruction/CCSS/Informat ion_Resource_Guide.pdf [2]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative.”  Arkansas  Department  of  Education.   http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Professional_Development/DLSPD_LDC.pdf 121 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 27 Hanover Research | November 2013 [3]  “Mathematics  Design  Collaborative.”  Arkansas  Department  of  Education.   http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Professional_Development/DLSPD_Mathematics_ Design_Collaborative.pdf [4]  “Newly  Released  Common  Core  Resources  and  Materials…”  Arkansas  Department  of  Education,  April  8,  2013, p. 2. http://www.arkansased.org/public/userfiles/news/2013/PARCC_and_CCSS_Resources_News_Release_CCCR.pdf [5]  “English  Language  Arts  Resources.”  Arkansas  Department  of  Education.   http://www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/curriculum-and-instruction/resource-materials-forlesson-plans/english-language-arts 123 [1]  “CCSS  Mathematics  Resources.”  California  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/mathresources.asp [2]  “CCSS  Update:  Volume  1,  Issue  11,  October  16,  2012.”  California  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ccssupdate16oct2012.asp [3]  “CCSS  English  Language  Arts  Resources.”  California  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/elaresources.asp [4]  “CCSS  Literacy  Resources.”  California  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/literacyresources.asp [5]  “CCSS  Resource  Clearinghouses.”  California  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/clearinghouses.asp [6] “Common  Core  State  Standards  Implementation.”  California  Department  of  Education,  March  2013,  p. 4. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/eccssimplrscs.doc [7]  “Guiding  Strategy  2.”  California  Department  of  Education.  http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/guide2.asp 124 “Common  Core:  Search  Resources.”  Learn  DC,  DC  Office  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Education. http://www.learndc.org/commoncore/resources?keyword=&field_content_area_tid=All&field_topic_tid=All 125 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Florida  Department  of  Education.  http://www.fldoe.org/schools/ccc.asp   [2]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative.”  Florida  Department of Education. http://www.fldoe.org/bii/curriculum/social_studies/ssccs.asp [3]  “Day  2:  Impact  of  the  Common  Core  State  Standards  on  Instruction  for  ELLs.”  Florida  Department  of  Education,  p. 11. http://www.fldoe.org/schools/rtf/g23b.rtf [4]  “Florida  Language  and  Writing  Network.”  Florida  Department  of  Education.  http://www.fldoe.org/BII/flwin/links.asp [5]  “Day  2:  Unpacking  the  Standards.”  Florida  Department  of  Education,  p. 18. http://www.fldoe.org/schools/ppt/221b.ppt 126 [1] “Standards  Toolkit.”  Hawaii  Department  of  Education.  http://standardstoolkit.k12.hi.us/commoncore/language-arts/ [2]“Breakout  Session  #3.”  Hawaii  Department  of  Education,  2013,  p.  25.   http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/ELI/Breakout%20Session%203%20Moving%20ahead%20wit h%20the%20Common%20Core%20State%20Standards.pdf 127 [1] “Idaho  Core  Standards.”  Idaho  State  Department  of  Education.  http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/   [2]  “Summer  Professional  Development  Opportunities  from the State Department of Education. Idaho State Department of Education. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/edsource/2012/aprilMay/summerPDopps.htm [3]  “CCSS  Literacy  in  History/Social  Studies.”  Idaho  State  Department  of  Education.   http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/social_studies/ccssLiteracy.htm [4]  “English  Language  Arts.”  Idaho  State  Department  of  Education.  http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/ELA/ [5]  “Mathematics Idaho  Core  Standards.”  Idaho  State  Department  of  Education.   http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/math/support_materials.htm [6]  “Resources.”  Idaho  State  Department  of  Education,  p.  1.   http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/common/mathCore/docs/Resources/Resources.pdf 128 Although Idaho has performed publicly-available gap analyses in both mathematics and English language arts, the state does not currently provide educators with an explicit crosswalk tool. 129 [1] “Websites.”  Iowa  Department  of  Education.  https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/contentareas/mathematics/iowa-core-mathematics-support-main-page/classroom-resources-iowa-10 [2]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative  with  Iowa  Core  Mathematics.”  Mid-Iowa School Improvement Consortium. http://misiciowa.org/uploads/CrossWalkMath_with_LDC_templates_2.pdf [3]  “Iowa  Core  Mathematics  Support.”  Iowa Department of Education. https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/contentareas/mathematics/iowa-core-mathematics-support-main-page/professional-development-3 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 28 Hanover Research | November 2013 [4]  “Iowa  Core  Mathematics  Support  :  Professional  Development  Resources.”  Iowa  Department  of  Education. https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/content-areas/mathematics/iowa-core-mathematics-support-mainpage/professional-development-8 130 [1] “Communications  Toolkit.”  Kansas  State  Department  of  Education,  September  2013,  pp. 30-31. http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DLj4EajvDzo%3D&tabid=4754&mid=12664 [2]  “General  Reading  and  Writing  Resources.”  Kansas  State  Department  of  Education.   http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5573 [3]  “Writing  Resources.”  Kansas  State  Department  of  Education.  http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=145 [4]  “Kansas  Math  Standards:  General  Resources.”  Kansas  State  Department  of  Education.   http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=5800 131 [1] “CIITS  Overview.”  Kentucky  Department  of  Education.   http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/ciits/Pages/default.aspx [2]  “Integrated  Strategy  Districts.”  Kentucky  Department  of  Education.   http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/lit/pages/integrated-strategy-districts.aspx [3]  “Writing  and  the  KY  Core  Academic  Standards.”  Kentucky  Department  of  Education,  p.  36.   http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/lit/wri/documents/writing%20and%20the%20kcas%20915.pdf [4]  “National  Writing  Project.”  Kentucky  Department  of  Education.   http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/ela/pages/the-national-writing-project.aspx 132 [1] “Summer  Summit  June  12  &  13,  2013.”  Louisiana  Department  of  Education.   http://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/louisiana-teacher-leaders/teacher-leaders-summit-program-%28june2013%29-web.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [2]  “Teacher  Self-Learning Series: Module 2.”  Louisiana  Department  of  Education,  pp. 3-4. http://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/common-core-state-standards-resources/guide---math-ccss-selflearning-module-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4 [3]  “English  Language  Arts  Sample  Unit.”  Louisiana  Department  of  Education,  p.  8.   http://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/teacher-toolbox-resources/unit-plan---english-language-arts-grade-8sample2CE416CFC279.pdf?sfvrsn=6 [4]  “Mathematics  CCSS  Planning  Resources.”  Louisiana  Department  of  Education, pp. 2-4. http://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/common-core-state-standards-resources/guide---ccss-math-planningresources.pdf?sfvrsn=8 [5]  “The  Number  Line.”  Louisiana  Association  of  Teachers  of  Mathematics,  January 2013, p. 13. http://www.lamath.org/numberline/NumberLineJan2013FINAL3.pdf 133 [1] “Resources.”  Maine  Department  of  Education.  http://www.maine.gov/education/lres/ela/resources.html [2]  “Maine  Learning  Results  (Including  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Maine Department of Education. http://www.maine.gov/doe/socialstudies/standards/learningresults.html [3]  “Notices,  Articles,  and  Websites of  Interest.”  Maine  Department  of  Education,  January  2013,  pp. 4-5. http://www.maine.gov/education/esl/guide/January2013Digest.pdf [4]  “Close  Reading/Text  Dependent  Questions.”  Maine  Department  of  Education.   http://www.maine.gov/doe/ela/standards/commoncore/strands/close-reading.html [5]  “Common  Core  Resources.”  Maine  Department  of  Education.   http://www.maine.gov/doe/math/resources/common-core-resources.html 134 “Common  Core  State  Academic  Standards.”  Michigan  Department  of  Education.   http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-28753_64839_64848---,00.html 135 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Mississippi  Department  of  Education.   http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/curriculum-and-instruction/curriculum-and-instruction-other-links/common-corestate-standards [2]  “Common  Core  State  Standards – Mathematics Online Resources.”  Mississippi  Department  of  Education,  2011,  p.   1. http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/curriculum-and-instruction/ccssonlineresources2011.pdf?sfvrsn=0 136 [1]  “Implementing  Nevada  Academic  Content  Standards.”  Nevada  Department  of  Education.   http://www.doe.nv.gov/APAC_Nevada_Academic_Standards_Implementing_Common_Core/ [2] “Implementing the Common Core Standards - CCSSO.”  Nevada  Department  of  Education.  October 3, 2012. www.doe.nv.gov/NDE_Offices/APAC/Nevada_Academic_Standards/Common_Core_Standards/Newsletters_1/20 12_10_03_Issue28/ [3]  “Nevada  Writing  Projects.”  Nevada  Department  of  Education.  2012.   http://www.doe.nv.gov/NDE_Offices/APAC/Striving_Readers/Vendor_Letters/PD_WritingProject_SRCL_2012_Let ter/ © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 29 Hanover Research | November 2013 137 [1] “About  the  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  New  Hampshire  Department  of  Education.   http://www.education.nh.gov/spotlight/ccss/ [2]  “Common  Core  State  Standards:  Implementation  Tools  and  Resources.”  New  Hampshire  Department  of  Education,   p. 2. http://www.education.nh.gov/spotlight/ccss/documents/ccsso_resources.pdf 138 [1] “Teacher  Resources.”  New  Mexico Public Education Department. http://newmexicocommoncore.org/subcategories/view/88/teacher-resources/ [2]  “Instructions  and  Application  for  Renewal  of  Existing  High  Schools…”  New  Mexico  Public  Education  Department, p. 3. https://score.ped.state.nm.us/HSTW/HSTW_Application_2012_2013_Final_Application_April_1.docx [3]  “Math  Resources.”  New  Medico  Public  Education  Department.   http://newmexicocommoncore.org/pages/view/95/math-resources/ 139 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards  (CCSS).”  North  Dakota  Department  of  Public  Instruction.   https://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/common_core.shtm [2]  “Common  Core  Documents.”  North  Dakota  Curriculum  Initiative.  http://ndcurriculuminitiative.org/common_core [3]  “North  Dakota  Common  Core  Standards.”  North  Dakota  Department  of  Public  Instruction, 2012, p. 36. http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/CCSS_ppt.pdf [4]  “Title  I  and  Special  Education.”  North  Dakota  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  June  2012,  p. 5. http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/title1/nwsltrs/1111/june2012.pdf 140 [1] “Oklahoma  Academic  Standards.”  Oklahoma  State  Department  of  Education.  http://ok.gov/sde/oklahoma-c3standards#Resources [2] “Common  Core  Literacy  – Science  Resources.”  Oklahoma  Department  of Education. http://www.ok.gov/sde/common-core-literacy [3]  “PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks.”  Posted  by  Oklahoma  Department  of  Education,  October  2011.   http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/C3PARCC%20MCF%20for%20Mathematics_Fall%202011%20Release.pdf [4]  “REAC3H.”  Oklahoma  Department  of  Education.  http://www.ok.gov/sde/reac3h-network 141 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards  - Resources.”  Oregon  Department  of  Education.   http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3566 [2]  “CCSS  Toolkit:  ELA  &  Literacy.”  Oregon Department of Education. http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3614 142 [1]  “Literacy  Design  Collaborative:  It’s  Time  to  Write!”  Pennsylvania  Department  of  Education.   http://www.pdesas.org/main/news/385170 [2]  “Common  Core  Resources  – English Language Arts.”  Pennsylvania  Department  of  Education.   http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/PACC_Online_ELA_Resources_ELA.pdf [3]  “Common  Core  Resources  – Mathematics.”  Pennsylvania  Department  of  Education.   http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/PACC_Online_Mathematics_Resources.pdf 143 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards.”  South  Carolina  State  Department  of  Education.   http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/190/ [2]  “Common  Core  State  Standards  for  Mathematics Resources.”  South  Carolina  State  Department  of  Education.   http://ed.sc.gov/agency/se/Instructional-Practices-andEvaluations/CommonCoreStateStandardsforMathematicsResources_000.cfm 144 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards  for  Mathematics.”  Rhode  Island  Department of Education. http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/Mathematics/CommonCoreStateStandardsforMathematics.aspx [2]  “Common  Core  State  Standards  for  ELA/Literacy.”  Rhode  Island  Department  of  Education.   http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/Literacy/CommonCoreStateStandardsforELALiteracy.aspx [3]  “Top  25  Educator  Resources  for  the  RICLP.”  Rhode  Island  Department  of  Education,  August  2012,  p.  4.   http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-ClassStandards/Literacy/RICLP/Educator-Resources-for-the-RICLP.pdf 145 [1] “External  Resources.”  TNCore,  Tennessee  Department  of  Education.   http://www.tncore.org/math/external_resources.aspx [2]  “Core  Coach  Application.”  TNCore,  Tennessee  Department  of  Education.   http://tncore.org/apply_to_be_a_core_coach/core_coach_application_literacy_6-12.aspx 146 Only in mathematics for students in grades 3-8. 147 [1] “Utah  Core  Standards  for  Mathematics  and  English  Language  Arts.”  Utah  Education  Network.   http://www.uen.org/commoncore/index.shtml [2] “Social  Studies  Resources.”  Utah  State  Office  of  Education.  http://schools.utah.gov/curr/socialstudies/ [3]  “Elementary  Mathematics  – Instructional  Resources.”  Utah  State  Office  of  Education.   http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/mathelem/Instructional-Resources.aspx © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 30 Hanover Research | November 2013 148 [1] “Common  Core  Resources  for  English  Language  Arts.”  Vermont  Agency  of  Education.   http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum/literacy.html [2]  “Curriculum  &  Assessment:  Mathematics.”  Vermont  Agency  of  Education.   http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pgm_curriculum/mathematics.html [3]  “CCSS  Mathematics.”  Vermont  Education  Exchange.  http://ve2.vermont.gov/c_c_s_s/c_c_s_s_mathematics 149 [1] “Common  Core  State  Standards  Washington.”  State  of  Washington  Office  of  Superintendent  of  Public   Instruction. http://www.k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/Mathematics/default.aspx [2]  “Implementing  the  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Washington  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, p. 2. http://www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/webinar/Handout3-WA-CCSSImplementationResources12-12-12.pdf [3]  “Common  Core  State  Standards  – Mathematics.”  Washington  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. http://www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/pubdocs/K-2clusters.pdf [4]  “Mathematics  Common  Core  Toolbox.”  Washington  Office  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.   http://moodle2.ospi.k12.wa.us/mod/url/view.php?id=764 150 “Mathematics  PK-12.”  West  Virginia  Department  of  Education. http://wvde.state.wv.us/instruction/math.html 151 [1]  “Mathematics  in  Wisconsin.”  Wisconsin  Department  of  Public  Instruction.  http://math.dpi.wi.gov/   [2]  “English  Language  Arts  in  Wisconsin.”  Wisconsin  Department  of  Public  Instruction.  http://ela.dpi.wi.gov/ [3]  “Writing.”  Wisconsin  Department  of  Public  Instruction.  http://ell.dpi.wi.gov/ell_writing [4]  “2013  Quality  Educator  Conference.”  Wisconsin  Department  of  Public  Instruction,  p.  56.   http://math.dpi.wi.gov/files/cal/AWSA%20QE%20Conf_New%20Math%20Standards_%20June%2020%202013%2 81%29.pdf 152 [1] “Wyoming  Content  And  Performance  Standards.”  Wyoming  Department  of  Education.   http://edu.wyoming.gov/programs/standards.aspx [2]  “Wyoming’s  Common  Core  State  Standards.”  Wyoming  Department  of  Education.   http://edu.wyoming.gov/commoncore.aspx [3]  “WDE  Assessment  Update.”  Wyoming  Department  of  Education,  May  13,  2013,  p.  3.   http://www.edu.wyoming.gov/sf-docs/assessments/issue-17.pdf?sfvrsn=2 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 31 Hanover Research | November 2013 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: COMMON CORE ALIGNMENT – NATIONAL TOOLS The following list provides further evidence in support of the CC-alignment ratings indicated in the “National  Common  Core-Aligned Implementation  Tools”  matrix above. Most descriptions are taken verbatim from the sources cited: Achieve: All of the tasks below were developed by high school and postsecondary mathematics and CTE educators, and validated by content experts in the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and the National Career Clusters Knowledge & Skills Statements. They were developed with the purpose of demonstrating how the Common Core and CTE Knowledge & Skills Statements can be integrated into classroom learning – and to provide classroom teachers with a truly authentic task for either mathematics or CTE courses.53 Anthology Alignment Project: Hundreds of teachers worked collaboratively to develop these replacement materials, following deep training on the Common Core by Student Achievement Partners. Each lesson has been authored, edited, and reviewed by a team of teachers.54 Basal Alignment Project: Hundreds of teachers worked collaboratively to develop these replacement materials, following deep training on the Common Core by Student Achievement Partners. Each lesson has been authored, edited, and reviewed by a team of teachers.55 CCSS Transition Think Tank: We will have content experts review the submissions and update the examples at least monthly.56 EQuIP: EQuIP builds on a collaborative effort of education leaders from Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island that Achieve facilitated. The outcome of that effort was the development  of  the  “Tri-State Rubrics”  and  a  quality  review  process  designed  to  determine the quality and alignment of instructional lessons and units to the CCSS.57 Illustrative Mathematics: Each task undergoes a vigorous alignment process through multiple reviewers, some with expertise in Mathematics and others with expertise in classroom practices.58 Reviewers are trained.59 53 Taken  verbatim  from  “CCSS-CTE Classroom Tasks.”  Achieve.  http://www.achieve.org/ccss-cte-classroom-tasks Taken  verbatim  from  “Anthology Alignment Project.”  Student  Achievement  Partners.   http://www.achievethecore.org/ela-literacy-common-core/aligning-materials/anthology-alignment-project 55 “Basal  Alignment  Project.”  Op.  cit. 56 Taken  verbatim  from  “CCSS Transition Think Tank.”  National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. http://www.nsttac.org/content/ccss-transition-think-tank 57 Taken verbatim from “Educators  Evaluating  Quality  Instructional  Products.”  Op. cit. 58 Taken  verbatim  from  “Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.”  Institute  for  Mathematics  and  Education,   University of Arizona. http://ime.math.arizona.edu/commoncore/ 59 “Summary of Reviewer Training Objectives.”  Illustrative  Mathematics.   http://www.illustrativemathematics.org/pages/summary_tm_objectives 54 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 32 Hanover Research | November 2013 Mathematics Assessment Project (MAP): This set of tools is equivalent to that offered through the MDC.60 As illustrated in the tables presented in this report, many states referenced either MAP or MDC, while a handful of states referenced both MAP and MDC. Hanover Research maintained these distinctions in the “State   Common   Core-Aligned Implementation  Tools”  and  “National  Tools  Referenced  by States  without  ‘Homegrown’  CC   Implementation  Tools”  tables  to reflect how states describe the tools. National Writing Project: Teams of teachers from local Writing Project sites throughout California and Massachusetts, as well as from the Louisville, Boise, and Oakland (MI) Writing Projects, are creating teaching tools for teachers in grades 6-12 across content areas. Over the next year, each Writing Project site will create a model for classroom teachers in writing instruction that will support students to achieve the outcomes of the Common Core Standards. To develop the models, the Writing Project teachers will be documenting their own work and their students' work. They will also develop a plan for feedback and revision of the work.61 PARCC: The PARCC Model Content Frameworks were developed through a state-led process that included mathematics and ELA/literacy content experts in PARCC member states and members of the Common Core State Standards writing team. Although the primary purpose of the Model Content Frameworks is to provide a frame for the PARCC assessments, they also are voluntary resources to help educators and those developing curricula and instructional materials. Users are advised to have a copy of the Common Core State Standards available for use in conjunction with the Model Content Frameworks.62 Understanding Language Project: Our team is currently developing sets of teaching resources that exemplify high-quality instruction for ELLs across three content areas. The resources will correspond to the widely-adopted Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics and to the Next Generation Science Standards.63 60 As noted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,  “MAP”  refers  to  the  tools’  website,  while  “MDC”  refers  to  the   collaboration. 61 Taken  verbatim  from  “National Writing Project to Create Teaching Models to Improve Writing Instruction.”  National   Writing Project. http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3337 62 Taken verbatim from  “PARCC  Model  Content  Frameworks.”  Op.  cit. 63 Taken  verbatim  from  “Understanding  Language:  Language, Literacy, and Learning in the Content Areas.”  Op.  cit. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 33 Hanover Research | November 2013 APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS ADP: American Diploma Project AFT: American Federation of Teachers ASCD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development CC: Common Core CCSS: Common Core State Standards CCSSO: Council of Chief State School Officers CGCS: Council of the Great City Schools CTE: Career and technical education DOE: Department of Education ELA: English language arts ELL: English language learner ELP: English Language Proficiency EQuIP: Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products FiMC: First in Mathematics Consortium LCC: Literacy in the Common Core LDC: Literacy Design Collaborative MAP: Mathematics Assessment Project MDC: Mathematics Design Collaborative NASDCTEc: National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education NCSM: National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics NSTTAC: National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers SAP: Student Achievement Partners SVMI: Noyce Foundation's Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 34 Hanover Research | November 2013 APPENDIX C: STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Status of CCSS Implementation Plans for Curriculum Guides or Instructional Materials, January 2012 STATUS STATES Completed California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin In Development Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont No Planning Activity Reported Arizona, District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming Not Available Montana CCSS Not Adopted Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia Source: Education First and EPE Research Center 64 64 Porter, W., et al. Op. cit. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 35 Hanover Research | November 2013 APPENDIX D: COMMON CORE ALIGNMENT – STATE-LEVEL TOOLS The following list provides further evidence in support of the CC alignment of specific state implementation tools. All descriptions are taken verbatim from the sources cited. Arizona: Arizona resources have been created, revised and/or evaluated through committees using the EQuIP rubric.65 Colorado: o Creation   (and   refinement)   of   Colorado’s   district   sample   curriculum   template – To accomplish these aims, the content specialist team in the Office of Standards and Instructional Support consulted internationally respected concept-based curriculum developer Dr. Lynn Erickson. Working with Dr. Erickson, the team produced a template designed   to   address   the   requirements   of   the   CAS   and   the   needs   of   Colorado’s   districts/schools. Here is the current iteration of the template with explanations of its course-at-a-glance and unit overview sections. We also have a crosswalk document that compares template vocabulary with other popular curriculum frameworks. Continuous refinement of both the template and crosswalk will occur throughout the Sample Curriculum Project as the content specialists work with Colorado educators to create curriculum materials and processes that best support the implementation of the CAS.66 o Teacher-created curriculum samples: This fall, over 500 Colorado educators, representing 61 school districts, participated in curriculum design workshops that resulted in the creation of 670 curriculum samples based on the Colorado Academic Standards (CAS). Utilizing a Colorado-designed and refined template, the samples provide organizing structures for addressing the grade-level expectations (GLEs), evidence outcomes (Eos) and 21st Century Skills that build   students’   mastery   of   the   standards at each grade level.67 Georgia: Frameworks are "models of instruction" designed to support teachers in the implementation of the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS). The Georgia Department of Education, Office of Standards, Instruction, and Assessment has provided an example of the Curriculum Map for each grade level and examples of Frameworks aligned with the GPS to illustrate what can be implemented within the grade level. School systems and teachers are free to use these models as is; modify them to better serve classroom needs; or create their own curriculum maps, units and tasks.68 Illinois: The curriculum units were created so districts may choose to adopt or adapt the models in lieu of developing their own mathematics curriculum. Twenty-four (24) middle and 28 high school unit outlines were developed in accordance with the information from the November 2012 PARCC Model Content Frameworks. Each middle school grade level and high school course contains a sequence of units designed to address all standards for that level in a cohesive manner.69 65 “Educator Instructional Tool Box.”  Op.  cit. “Framework for Colorado's District Sample Curriculum Project.”  Op.  cit. 67 “Colorado's District Sample Curriculum Project.”  Colorado  Department  of  Education.   http://www.cde.state.co.us/StandardsAndInstruction/SampleCurriculum-samples.asp 68 “Teachers.”  Georgia  Department  of  Education.  https://www.georgiastandards.org/Pages/teachers.aspx 69 “The New Illinois Learning Standards Incorporating the Common Core: Mathematics Curriculum Model Units - By Grade  Level.”  Illinois  State  Board  of  Education. http://www.isbe.net/common_core/htmls/math-model-units.htm 66 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 36 Hanover Research | November 2013 Indiana (e.g., Kindergarten): This curriculum map includes the Common Core State Standards which have been deconstructed into learning targets and grouped into quarters to create a learning progression for the standards. Written by teams of kindergarten teachers and literacy specialists, the learning targets provide a shared meaning of what needs to be taught to meet the full expectations of each standard and the steps it will take to achieve the standard. This work was then reviewed by other state departments of education and the PARCC consortium to ensure that all states share the same definition of the standards.70 Maryland: Since the adoption of the standards, educators from around the state have met to determine the Essential Skills and Knowledge associated with these standards. The draft frameworks that follow are the result of this work. It is important to view these frameworks in color. The Common Core State Standards appear in black and the Essential Skills and Knowledge added by Maryland educators appear in red. These draft frameworks were introduced to teachers and administrators at the Educator Effectiveness Academies this past summer. Over the next several years, the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum will be developed by Maryland educators to support the implementation of these new standards.71 Massachusetts: Through the Race to the Top Initiative, teams of educators from across the state will develop more than 100 pre-k to grade 12 model curriculum units in English language arts and literacy, history/social science, mathematics, and science and technology/engineering. Four of these draft model curriculum units are now released to the public and all districts for try-out  and  feedback…72 Missouri: These units were created by Missouri educators during late winter/early spring, 2012. Those teachers worked to create draft units as a basis for the curriculum. Each unit contains an alignment to the Missouri Learning Standards and to Grade-level and Courselevel Expectations. Career and Technical Education units will contain alignment to national standards where appropriate. The units also include instructional strategies, instructional activities, supportive resources, and both formative and summative assessments. Use of the units during the 2012-13 school year by Missouri districts will be essentially a field test for the writers and Department content consultants. Feedback and suggested revisions and additions from those who use the units will enable the Department to approach the goal of a comprehensive document.73 70 “Course - 2012-13 NEW! KINDERGARTEN IN COMMON CORE ELA [Being Revised].”  Indiana  Department  of   Education. http://indianadoe.buildyourowncurriculum.com/Public/Course_detail.aspx?ID=50203 71 “MD  Common  Core  Curriculum  Frameworks.”  Op.  cit. 72 “Common Core State Standards Initiative.”  Massachusetts  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education.   http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/ 73 “Model  Curriculum.”  Missouri  Department  of  Elementary  and  Secondary Education. http://dese.mo.gov/ccr/modelcurriculum.html © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 37 Hanover Research | November 2013 New Jersey: The work on the following pages has been the collaborative effort of the Department of Education with teachers, principals, district leaders, higher education faculty, and other experts in New Jersey and from around the country. We invite you to review the documents and look forward to your feedback – both positive and constructive.74 o ELA: ELA writers have assembled units aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects. They are presented here for your review and feedback and we look forward to your responses. The department will use your responses to inform the work as we continue to develop student learning objectives (SLOs) and assessments to measure those SLOs.75 Ohio: The Ohio Department of Education has worked with teams of teachers across Ohio to develop a model curriculum of teaching strategies and resources aligned to the College and Career Ready Standards. The State Board of Education adopted the model curriculum in March 2011.76 74 “Welcome  to  the  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education’s  Model  Curriculum!”  Op.  cit. “Model  Curriculum:  English  Language  Arts  (K-12).”  New  Jersey  Department  of  Education.     http://www.state.nj.us/education/modelcurriculum/ela/ 76 “New  Learning  Standards.”  Op.  cit. 75 © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 38 Hanover Research | November 2013 PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional. © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 39 Hanover Research | November 2013 1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006 P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com © 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 40