Teacher perceptions of CCGPS : findings from Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration : main findings

Teacher Perceptions of CCGPS
Findings from Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration
Thomaesa Brundage Niah Shearer Michael Tully
Governor's Office of Student Achievement 2013

The Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) produced this report as a part of Georgia's statewide evaluation of Race to the Top. GOSA strives to increase student achievement and school completion across Georgia through meaningful, transparent, and objective analysis and communication of statewide data. In addition, GOSA provides policy support to the Governor and, ultimately, to the citizens of Georgia through:
An education scoreboard that forthrightly indicates the effectiveness of Georgia's education institutions, from Pre-K through college;
Research initiatives on education programs in Georgia and corresponding findings to inform policy, budget, and legislative efforts;
Thorough analysis and straightforward communication of education data to stakeholders;
Audits of academic programs to ensure that education institutions are fiscally responsible with state funds and faithful to performance accountability requirements; and
Collaborative work with the Alliance of Education Agency Heads (AEAH) to improve education statewide.
For more information on GOSA's statewide evaluation of Race to the Top implementation in Georgia, please visit gosa.georgia.gov/statewide-evaluation.

In July 2012, Georgia adopted the Common Core State Standards, a set of common performance standards in mathematics and English Language Arts in Kindergarten through twelfth grade. The Common Core State Standards aim to support college and career readiness by ensuring that all students in the country are well-prepared for the future.
Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) began preparing educators for the transition to Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS), Georgia's version of Common Core State Standards, in spring 2011. During school year 2011-2012, GaDOE curriculum staff engaged in a variety of efforts aimed at preparing educators for the transition to CCGPS. These efforts included presenting at over 85 conferences and meetings, providing training through webinars and Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) live-streamed videos, partnering with RESAs to offer face-to-face training, and developing sample unit frameworks and other instructional support materials. GaDOE continues to support educators through newly revised unit frameworks, grade level/course overviews, and updated webinars. Links to all of the aforementioned resources can be found at http://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core.
Teachers fully transitioned to the new standards during school year 2012-2013. GOSA partnered with Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) to administer the Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation (Teacher Survey) to a random sample of teachers in April 2013. The purpose of this survey was to learn about teachers' first year of implementing the standards.
Purpose and methodology
The purpose of this report is to discuss the main findings from the Teacher Survey and identify opportunities for further research. This report is the first in a series as GOSA and GaPSC will administer the Teacher Survey again in fall 2013 and spring 2014. By administering the survey three times, GOSA and GaPSC intend to collect trend data over the first two years of full CCGPS implementation. Findings from these surveys are intended to inform state and local decision-making regarding ongoing implementation of CCGPS. In particular, these findings should help education leaders better understand teachers' perception of the accessibility and utility of CCGPS-related support. Also, these findings should suggest if teachers are making use of the support in their classroom.
GOSA and GaPSC administered the Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation on April 30, 2013 to a random sample of 2,919 teachers across the state. GaPSC employed a stratified random sampling design to select the sample of teachers. GaPSC split the accessible population into subgroups, or strata, based on subjects taught and GaPSC-assigned personnel categories (e.g., certificate level). Then, GaPSC proportionally selected teachers randomly from each subgroup. GaPSC focused the sample design on identifying mathematics teachers of kindergarten through ninth grade and English Language Arts (ELA) teachers of kindergarten through twelfth grade. GaPSC selected these teachers because these were the subjects and grades covered by CCGPS during school year 2012-2013.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |i

1,095 teachers completed the survey. After GOSA removed invalid cases, 987 responses remained, giving a response rate of 33.8%.
Theory of Change
Using guidance from Achieve and U.S. Education Delivery Institute, GOSA based the evaluation of the CCGPS implementation on the following theory of change. 1
If educators at all levels of experience have sufficient access to teaching strategies through professional learning opportunities, instructional materials, and other resources that are aligned with their individual needs; and
If educators find those teaching strategies, instructional materials, and other resources to be useful;
Then educators will implement those teaching strategies, instructional materials, and other resources into their schools and classrooms; and
Then achievement for the students served by these educators will improve.
Overview of major findings
The goal of GOSA's analysis was to determine if teachers' responses supported the theory of change. Responses to the Teacher Survey revealed the following main findings:
Access to CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources: Teachers in this survey had professional development and resources aligned to CCGPS, which supports the first step in the logic model. Responses related to the use of CCGPS-aligned resources were more positive than responses related to professional development aligned to CCGPS.
Utility or usefulness of CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources: Teachers in this survey found utility in the CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources they used, which supports the second step in the logic model. Respondents strongly believed the topics for the CCGPS-aligned professional development they received were relevant, and the CCGPS-aligned resources they used helped them implement CCGPS with fidelity. Respondents most often accessed CCGPS-aligned resources from GaDOE or district websites, and, in general, found access convenient.
1 Implementing Common Core State Standards and Assessments: A Workbook for State and District Leaders (Achieve and US Education Delivery Institute, 2012). Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |ii

Respondents who taught mathematics and respondents who taught in districts labeled "suburb" continue to express a less positive perception of CCGPS-aligned support.
Taking advantage of CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources: Teachers in this survey demonstrated a high level of engagement in CCGPS-aligned professional development. A vast majority of respondents applied what they learned in professional development in their classrooms. However, the percentage of respondents who believed professional development contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity was lower than the percent who applied what they learned from professional development. Understanding CCGPS shifts in mathematics makes a bigger difference on how respondents perceived professional development than understanding ELA shifts. In general, respondents "rarely" or "sometimes" used CCGPS-aligned resources. Upon further investigation, a clear pattern exists showing respondents who believed CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity used resources more than those respondents who did not believe resources helped them with their implementation.
Teacher and student practice change: 2 Respondents used effective practices, often closely related to Common Core State Standards. The CCGPS-related practice most used by respondents was, "asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently." Students engaged in tasks associated with CCGPS more during school year 2012-2013 than in previous academic years.
Based on the findings from this survey, GOSA recommends that state and local education leaders further investigate CCGPS implementation. In particular,
Investigate the quality of support made available to mathematics teachers and teachers in districts labeled "suburb."
Review the ease of access of state and district websites. Review the quality of professional development and instructional resources made available to
educators. Use teacher effectiveness and student achievement data to substantiate the findings from this
study.
GOSA will administer the Teacher Survey in fall 2013 and again in spring 2014.
2 The final step in the theory of change focuses on student achievement. This step is not covered by this study because it is too early to assess the impact CCGPS on student achievement. Instead, this study examines teacher and student practice change that is associated with CCGPS.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |iii

This report was the result of many months of hard work. GOSA would like to thank everyone that contributed to the development and administration of the Teacher Survey, as well as the writing and editing of the final report. We would like to thank Comfort Afolabi and the GaPSC for providing invaluable support during the survey development and administration phases. Comfort led the sampling process, which ensured the protection of teachers' private e-mail addresses. In addition, Comfort provided sound guidance and support during the data analysis phase. We would also like to thank Pamela Smith and Sandi Woodall, as well as the entire GaDOE curriculum team. Pam and Sandi shared insights and provided helpful feedback throughout the survey development process. Additional thanks go out to all the teachers, and GaDOE, RESA, USG, and GOSA staff who provided much-needed feedback during the survey review and piloting stages.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |iv

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables and Figures .............................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 3 Section I: Access to CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources ............................................ 6
Main Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Section II: Utility of CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources .......................................... 13
Main Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Section III: Engagement in CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources ............................... 22
Main Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Section IV: Teacher and student practice change....................................................................................... 36
Main Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 43
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |v

Table 1: Teachers represented by accessible population, sample, and survey respondents....................... 4
Table 2: (Q3) How much of your professional development activities, if any, have been focused on CCGPS implementation? ............................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1: Mean value of CCGPS-aligned professional development by teacher characteristics .................. 7
Table 3: Differences among perception of CCGPS-aligned professional development by teacher characteristics ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 4: (Q9) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have been aligned to CCGPS.......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Mean value of CCGPS-aligned resources by teacher characteristics........................................... 11
Table 5: (Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant............................................................................................. 14
Table 6: (Q5) Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity................................................. 14
Figure 3: Mean values for relevance of professional development topics by prominent teacher characteristics ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4: Mean value for CCGPS-focused professional development's contribution to CCGPS implementation by teacher characteristics ................................................................................................ 15
Table 7: Breakdown of access and convenience to instructional resources, focusing on sources most used to access resources, and convenience of sources used to access resources..................................... 16
Figure 5: Difference in responses regarding convenience of access to resources based on use of CCGPSaligned resources ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Table 8: Differences in perceptions of convenience of access to CCGPS-aligned resources...................... 19
Table9: (Q10) Overall, the CCGPS resources I received over the last two years contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Mean values for CCGPS resources contribution to CCGPS implementation by teacher characteristics ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 10: Differences in perceptions of CCGPS-aligned resources' contribution to fidelity of implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 11: (Q6) Overall, I applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom. ................................... 23
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |vi

Figure 7: Mean values for application of professional development by teacher characteristics............... 23 Table 12: Differences in perceptions of application of professional development in the classroom ........ 24 Table13: Comparisons of responses regarding application of professional development and professional development's contribution to fidelity of implementation........................................................................ 25 Table14: Differences in perceptions of professional development for ELA teachers (includes any respondent that teaches ELA)..................................................................................................................... 27 Table15: Differences in perceptions of relevance of professional development for mathematics teachers (includes any respondent that teaches mathematics) ............................................................................... 28 Table16: (Q8) How often are you using the CCGPS-resources that you accessed over the last two school years in your classroom? ............................................................................................................................ 30 Table17: Mean values for frequency of use of CCGPS resources by teacher characteristics..................... 31 Figure 8: Difference in responses regarding frequency of use of resources based on resources' contribution to fidelity of implementation................................................................................................. 34 Table18: (Q11) What practices are you implementing in your CCGPS classroom? Check all that apply. . 37 Table19: Differences in implementation of CCGPS-related practices ........................................................ 38 Table20: Differences in implementation of CCGPS-related teacher practices ........................................... 38 Table21: Differences in student engagement in CCGPS-related tasks in ELA ............................................ 41 Table22: Differences in student engagement in CCGPS-related tasks in mathematics ............................. 41
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |vii

In July 2012, Georgia adopted the Common Core State Standards, a set of common performance standards in mathematics and English Language Arts in Kindergarten through twelfth grade. To date, every state and territory, with the exclusion of Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia adopted the standards. 3 The Common Core State Standards aim to support college and career readiness by ensuring "students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad." 4
Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) began preparing educators for the transition to Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS), Georgia's version of Common Core State Standards in spring 2011. During school year 2011-2012, GaDOE curriculum staff presented at over 85 conferences and meetings to inform educators about CCGPS. Also, in September 2011, GaDOE, in concert with Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB), publicized the upcoming transition to CCGPS via a statewide orientation video. In January 2012, GaDOE started to provide training through webinars and GPB livestreamed videos. During summer 2012, GaDOE worked with RESAs to offer face-to-face training on a first come, first served basis. GaDOE also developed sample unit frameworks and other instructional support materials during the pre-implementation phase of the transition. GaDOE continues to support educators through newly revised unit frameworks, grade level/course overviews, and updated webinars. Links to all the aforementioned resources can be found at http://www.georgiastandards.org/CommonCore.
The Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) performed a comprehensive investigation of the instructional support that GaDOE provided educators in November 2012. 5 In this analysis, GOSA surveyed curriculum leaders at the state, regional, and district levels to examine their perception of GaDOE's support and implementation of CCGPS. GOSA also asked respondents their opinion of their educators' level of understanding of CCGPS. This study indicated that educators needed additional support to be more comfortable with and confident about the transition to CCGPS. Refer to http://gosa.georgia.gov/statewide-evaluation-goal-3#Eval Reports for the executive summary of this report.
Based on the findings from GOSA's first study of CCGPS, GOSA decided to survey teachers to learn about their experience implementing CCGPS. Teachers fully transitioned to the new standards during school year 2012-2013. GOSA partnered with Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) to administer the Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation (Teacher Survey) to a random sample of
3 "In the States," Common Core State Standards Initiative, 10 Sept. 2013 <http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states>. 4 "Frequently Asked Questions," Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012, 16 May 2013 <http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions>. 5 Shearer Niah, Roll-out and Early Implementation of CCGPS: Analysis of the CCGPS Supports Inventory Survey, Rep. (Atlanta: Governor's Office of Student Achievement, 2013).
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |1

teachers in April 2013. The purpose of the survey was to learn about their first year of implementing the standards.
The goal of the Teacher Survey is to provide state and local education leaders and stakeholders with perceptual data from teachers regarding CCGPS implementation. GOSA believes formative feedback from those on the front line of this statewide education reform will strengthen implementation.
Using guidance from Achieve and U.S. Education Delivery Institute, GOSA based the evaluation of the CCGPS implementation on the following theory of change. 6
If educators at all levels of experience have sufficient access to teaching strategies through professional learning opportunities, instructional materials, and other resources that are aligned with their individual needs; and
If educators find those teaching strategies, instructional materials, and other resources to be useful;
Then educators will implement those teaching strategies, instructional materials, and other resources into their schools and classrooms; and
Then achievement for the students served by these educators will improve.
Perceptual data from teachers who responded to the Teacher Survey supported each step in the theory of change. Based on findings from the survey, respondents:
Had professional development and resources aligned to CCGPS; Found utility in the CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources they used; Demonstrated engagement in CCGPS-aligned professional and resources; and Used strong practices, often closely related to Common Core State Standards, and their students
engaged in tasks associated with CCGPS more during school year 2012-2013 than in previous academic years.
The final step in the theory of change focuses on student achievement. This step is not covered by this study because it is too early to assess the impact CCGPS on student achievement.
The purpose of this report is to discuss the main findings from the Teacher Survey and identify opportunities for further research. This report is the first in a series as GOSA and GaPSC will administer the Teacher Survey again in fall 2013 and spring 2014. By administering the survey three times, GOSA and GaPSC intend to collect trend data over the first two years of full CCGPS implementation. Findings from these surveys are intended to inform state and local decision-making regarding ongoing implementation of CCGPS. In particular, these findings should help education leaders better understand how teachers feel regarding the accessibility and utility of CCGPS-related support, and if teachers are making use of the support in their classroom.
6 Implementing Common Core State Standards and Assessments: A Workbook for State and District Leaders (Achieve and US Education Delivery Institute, 2012).
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |2

GOSA and GaPSC administered the Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation through Survey Monkey on April 30, 2013 to a random sample of 2,919 teachers across the state. Since GOSA and GaPSC needed to administer the survey electronically, the organizations could only derive a random sample from teachers who shared their e-mail addresses with GaPSC. GaPSC collects teacher e-mail addresses through registration in the myPSC database. Therefore, the accessible population for the survey was teachers who registered in the database. Teachers register in the myPSC database to view or print their GaPSC certificate, update personal information on file with GaPSC and read correspondence from the agency. 7 Approximately 75% of all teachers in the state are registered in the myPSC database. During school year 2012-2013, the myPSC database included 50,996 mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) teachers.
From this population of 50,996 teachers, GaPSC employed a stratified random sampling design to select the sample of teachers. Stratified sampling first separates the target population into "mutually exclusive, homogeneous segments (strata). Then a simple random sample is selected from each segment (stratum).8 GaPSC split the accessible population into subgroups, or strata, based on subjects taught and GaPSC-assigned personnel categories (e. g., certificate level). Then, GaPSC used SPSS to proportionally select teachers randomly from each subgroup. GaPSC focused the sample design on identifying mathematics teachers of kindergarten through ninth grade and English Language Arts (ELA) teachers of kindergarten through twelfth grade. GaPSC selected these teachers because these were the subjects and grades covered by CCGPS during school year 2012-2013.
Although GOSA and GaPSC sent the survey to all 3,000 teachers, only 2,919 successfully received the message. Eighty-one teachers selected for the sample did not receive the survey due to challenges with e-mail addresses and blocked access to Survey Monkey. 1,095 teachers completed the survey.
Following the conclusion of the survey administration period, GOSA performed manual data cleaning. First, GOSA removed duplicate cases (ten cases) from the original 1,095 respondents indicated by Survey Monkey. In these instances, GOSA retained the most recent case and excluded the earlier case. Second, because this analysis focused on comparing responses between and within groups, GOSA excluded cases without a verifiable subject-area or district (four cases). Third, GOSA removed cases where the respondent did not provide answers to the survey after the second survey question (94 cases). In the end, GOSA excluded 108 cases from the analysis, resulting in a final number of 987 valid cases.
GaPSC's use of a stratified random sampling design ensured that the sample of teachers surveyed would be representative of the accessible population. GOSA then ensured the respondents were
7 "Homepage," MyPSC, 04 Oct. 2013 <https://mypsc.gapsc.org/>. 8 Johnnie Daniel, "Chapter 5. Choosing the Type of Probability Sampling," Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2012) 131.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |3

representative by reviewing responses and targeting follow-up to under-represented subgroups. These efforts resulted in a response rate of 33.8% for the first administration of the Teacher Survey. Not only is the response rate considered average for online survey administration, but as shown in Table 1 below, the respondents are reflective of the accessible and sample populations. 9

GaPSC-assigned personnel categories10

Accessible Population

Sample

Number Percent Number Percent

Respondents Number Percent

Difference in Proportions

K-5 mathematics

1,156 11%

68

11%

28

14%

-3

Middle grades mathematics

3,836 37%

226

37%

74

36%

1

High school mathematics

3,739 36%

220

36%

76

37%

-1

SPED/other mathematics

1,549 15%

91

15%

28

14%

1

TOTAL MATHEMATICS 10,280 100% 605 100% 206 100%

K-5 ELA

2,497 20%

147

20%

35

15%

5

Middle grades ELA

3,525 29%

207

29%

67

28%

1

High school ELA

3,184 26%

187

26%

68

29%

-3

SPED/other ELA

3,148 25%

185

25%

66

28%

-3

TOTAL ELA

12,354 100% 727 100% 236 100%

K-8 elementary

24,736 87% 1456 87%

499

92%

-5

SPED/other elementary 3,596 13%

212

13%

46

8%

5

TOTAL ELEMENTARY

28,332 100% 1668 100% 545 100%

TOTAL MATHEMATICS 10,280 20%

605

20%

206

21%

-1

TOTAL ELA

12,354 24%

727

24%

236

24%

0

TOTAL ELEMENTARY

28,332 56% 1668 56%

545

55%

1

TOTAL

50,966 100% 3000 100% 987 100%

As shown in Table 1, the difference in the proportion of teachers represented in the survey is within five percentage points of the proportions in the accessible population and sample.

The Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation is based on suggested implementation practices from Achieve and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute (EDI). 11 In addition, GOSA and GaPSC used valid and

9 McNulty, Darren. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 301 314. 10 GaPSC-assigned personnel categories are only used for sampling purposes. Throughout the report, GOSA provides results based on subjects taught (math, ELA, or both math and ELA). These groupings are based on how teachers responded to Question 1: What subject(s) do you teach?
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |4

reliable tools, as well as evidence- and research-based practices, to develop the survey. 12 13 14 GaDOE curriculum and Race to the Top (RT3) staff, as well as a small group of teachers, vetted the survey questions. GOSA and GaPSC piloted the instrument with a group of teachers. Data are presented throughout the report in charts, tables and direct quotes. For ease of discussion purposes, GOSA rounded the percentages throughout the report to the nearest whole number. Additionally, GOSA presented question texts and/or scales in an abbreviated manner when data results are presented in charts or tables. All results from the survey are shown, along with the full text for questions and open-ended responses, in Appendix A: All Results. The next section discusses the results and findings from the survey.
11 Implementing Common Core State Standards and Assessments: A Workbook for State and District Leaders, Publication (Achieve and US Education Delivery Institute, 2012). 12 "Survey item bank," Feedback Loops for Common Core State Standards Implementation | U.S. Education Delivery Institute, 5 June 2012, U.S. Education Delivery Institute, 10 Mar. 2013 <http://www.deliveryinstitute.org/publications/feedback-loopscommon-core-state-standards-implementation>. 13 Cathy J. Lassiter, "Teaching Strategies for Reading for Information in the English Language Arts Common Core," Navigating the English language arts common core state standards, by Angela B. Peery (Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn P, 2011) 145-59. 14 Cathy J. Lassiter, "Strategies for Addressing Rigor in Mathematics Common Core," Navigating the mathematics common core state standards, by Jan Christinson (Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn P, 2012) 77-90. Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |5

Teachers in this survey had professional development and resources aligned to CCGPS, which supports the first step in the logic model.
Responses related to the use of CCGPS-aligned resources were more positive than responses related to professional development aligned to CCGPS.
Data suggest that mathematics-only and suburb teachers did not have as much CCGPS-aligned professional development as other teachers.
The Teacher Survey asked respondents to estimate the amount of professional development focused on CCGPS implementation they received and whether they used CCGPS-aligned resources. In the survey, GOSA and GaPSC used words to label the scales in the survey questions and added number labels during the data analysis stage. The theory of change for which GOSA's evaluation of CCGPS implementation is based upon states that teachers will have sufficient professional development opportunities and instructional resources. Therefore, the survey asked respondents to rate their professional development on a scale that ranged from 0, where none of the professional development focused on CCGPS, to 4, where all the professional development focused on CCGPS. Also, the survey asked respondents to state whether they used instructional resources on a scale that ranged from 1, where they strongly disagreed, to 4, where they strongly agreed.
Findings related to professional development
In general, respondents indicated that much of the professional development they received over the last two school years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013) focused on CCGPS implementation. As shown in Table 2, on average, respondents indicated that more than "some," but not a "substantial" amount of their training focused on CCGPS implementation. Approximately 60% of the respondents said that a "substantial" amount or "all" of their training focused on CCGPS implementation.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |6

N

Mean15

None

Very little

Some

Substantial

All

(0)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

985

2.59

1% (10)

10%

29%

49%

11%

(99)

(285)

(480)

(111)

A mean of three would indicate that on average, a "substantial" amount of the respondents' professional development focused on CCGPS. Considering the undertaking of transitioning to new performance standards, GOSA set the optimal value at "substantial" or three. Since the mean for all respondents was below the optimal value of three, GOSA investigated further to determine if respondents differed based on prominent demographic characteristics. Figure 1 displays the average response for teachers by content-area, years of experience, and locale.

Content-area cluster

2.39

2.55

2.69

Years of experience cluster
2.80 2.75 2.65 2.50 2.52 2.57

Locale cluster
2.73 2.70 2.66 2.45

Math Only ELA Only Math and ELA
Range in means: 0.30

Range in means: 0.30

City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.28

As demonstrated by the range in means for each cluster, average responses by teacher characteristic were not widely spread. In general, the spread of average responses was a little more than a quarter of a point on the five-point Likert scale, were zero equals "none" and four equals "all." Like the overall mean, none of the means for specific teacher characteristics met or exceeded the optimal value of three. Therefore, GOSA concluded that teachers, regardless of subject taught, years of experience or district locale, had more than "some," but not a "substantial," amount of training focused on CCGPS implementation.
GOSA compared the means within each teacher characteristic cluster to determine if the average amount of professional development differed based on specific teacher characteristics. GOSA used an analysis of variance, or ANOVA, to compare the means within each cluster because each cluster had more than one teacher characteristic, or independent variable. This test showed that statistically significant differences existed within each cluster; however, ANOVA tests do not specify which

15 The median value was 3.00. Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |7

independent variables differ from each other. Therefore, GOSA used a post-hoc multiple comparison test to identify which characteristics differed from the others. Table 3 displays the results from this test.

Content-area subgroups Mathematics Only ELA Only
Mathematics and ELA Years of experience subgroups
0-3 Years
4-9 Years
10-14 Years
15-20 Years
21-24 Years

Characteristic Mean 2.39 2.55 2.69 2.65
2.50
2.52
2.57
2.80

Significance
Mathematics and ELA:.000** ELA Only:.149
Mathematics and ELA:.094 Mathematics Only:.149 ELA Only:.094 Mathematics Only:.000**
4-9 Years:.714 10-14 Years:.825 15-20 Years:.978 21-24 Years:.902 25+ Years:.959 0-3 Years:.714 10-14 Years: 1.000 15-20 Years:.938 21-24 Years:.088 25+ Years:.049* 0-3 Years:.825 4-9 Years: 1.000 15-20 Years:.985 21-24 Years:.145 25+ Years:.104 0-3 Years:.978 4-9 Years:.938 10-14 Years:.985 21-24 Years:.366 25+ Years:.352 0-3 Years:.902 4-9 Years:.088 10-14 Years:.145 15-20 Years:.366 25+ Years:.999

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |8

Table 3: continued

Characteristic Mean

Significance

0-3 Years:.959

25+ Years

4-9 Years:.049*

2.75

10-14 Years:.104

15-20 Years:.352

Locale subgroups

21-24 Years:.999

Rural:.810

City

2.73

Suburb:.002**

Town:.996

Rural

City:.810

2.66

Suburb:.007**

Town:.972

Suburb

City:.002**

2.45

Rural:.007**

Town:.074

Town

City:.996

2.70

Rural:.972

Suburb:.074
Tukey's multiple comparison test (also called Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) test), p-value:** p<.01, *p<.05

As shown in Table 3,

Each cluster included at least one group that differed significantly from the other groups. These

statistically significant differences mean that we can reject the null

hypothesis. The null hypothesis states that all the groups within each

"I am teaching accelerated 8th grade math for the 4th year. ...This year, I feel that we were given a new curriculum with no
help from the state or the county. Just figuring out what the standards meant was an issue. Trying to put together cohesive units with a reasonable sequence was very difficult."

cluster had professional development focused on CCGPS in the same amount. Instead, this data suggest that:
o Respondents who taught only mathematics and those who taught both mathematics and ELA differed. Mathematics and ELA teachers indicated that they had more professional development focused on CCGPS than teachers who taught only mathematics.
o Respondents with four through nine years of teaching experience differed from those with more than 25 years of experience. The more veteran respondents indicated that they had more professional development focused on CCGPS than their counterparts with four through nine years of experience.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |9

o Respondents teaching in school districts labeled "suburb" differed from those teaching in districts labeled "city" and "rural." Teachers in "city" and "rural" districts indicated that they had more CCGPS-focused professional development.
GOSA used data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to assign a locale type to each school district represented in this survey. The locale designation for every school district represented in the survey is provided in Appendix B: Locale Designation. 16
Findings related to instructional resources
Respondents also stated whether they used resources aligned to CCGPS over the last two school years. An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that they had access to CCGPS-aligned resources. As shown in the Table 4, approximately 90% of teachers in this survey agreed or strongly agreed that they used resources aligned to CCGPS over the last two years.

N

Mean17

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

906

3.14

1% (13)

8% (74)

Agree (3)
65% (589)

Strongly agree (4)
25% (230)

The scale used for question nine ranged from strongly disagree,

or one, to strongly agree, or four. This four-point scale did not include a neutral option, thus "forcing" respondents to indicate a level of agreement or disagreement. Using the logic model as the foundation for this study, respondents should have CCGPSaligned resources. Therefore, a mean response of "agree" would demonstrate that not only did respondents have CCGPS-aligned resources, but they also used resources. The overall mean of 3.14 exceeded the optimal value of three, thus supporting the

"I found Learn Zillion, used Smart exchange, used Go Math
examples for references of content, and DOE frameworks for ideas and references. I also
made my own tests, smart

logic model.

notebook files, participated in

Although nearly all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they used CCGPS-aligned resources, many respondents provided open-ended comments, which pointed to various challenges

guided math fluency and a word problem of the day everyday this school year."

regarding their use of resources. At least one-third of the

challenges mentioned by respondents focused on resources. 18 Respondents frequently referenced a

lack of adequate resources and time required to develop and/or find appropriate resources. The major

challenges as referenced by respondents are included in Appendix D: Major Challenges.

16 Teachers from Gwinnett County Public Schools, Cobb County School District, and DeKalb County Schools comprised 60% of all responses in the "suburb" category.
17 Median value was 3.00.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |10

GOSA looked at average responses broken down by subgroups to determine where additional support might be needed. Figure 2 displays the average response for teachers by content-area, years of experience, and locale.

Content-area cluster

3.15

3.16

3.11

Math ELA Only Math and

Only

ELA

Range in means: 0.05

Years of experience cluster

3.24

3.24

3.18 3.13 3.11 3.10

Range in means: 0.14

Locale cluster
3.27

3.17

3.16

3.09

City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.18

"My biggest challenge has been the inadequate resources
provided to all teachers to teach the Common Core Standards. Besides being provided the standards, electronically, math teachers were not given any
other resources provided by our county to teach the actual
standards. As a result, we have had to constantly search for materials to use with our
students to teach the required concepts."

Teacher characteristic means were not widespread. The differences between the highest and lowest mean in each cluster were smaller for question nine than question three. This shows that responses varied even less in regard to the use of CCGPSaligned resources, as compared to participation in CCGPS-focused professional development.
While statistically significant differences did not exist19 across clusters, means for each characteristic exceeded the optimal value of three. Therefore, GOSA concluded that on average teachers, regardless of subject, experience, or locale, used CCGPS-aligned resources over the last two years. Teachers in the survey who taught only mathematics and those teaching in districts labeled "suburb" had the lowest means. Like with professional development participation, the lower level of agreement in regard to use of CCGPS-aligned resources suggest that mathematics and "suburban" teachers had lower degree of engagement with CCGPS-aligned support.

18 610 respondents provided a response to Q19: Please share the biggest challenge that you have had with implementing CCGPS this school year. Of those 610 responses, approximately 33% focused exclusively on a resource-related challenge. About 9% of the challenges fell into multiple categories, which often included a resource-related challenge combined with other challenges. Therefore, more than 33% of the challenges focused on resources. 19 For ease of discussion purposes, the test and p-values are presented in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs. Refer to pages 49-51 for information on Q9.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |11

These data provide strong evidence that teachers used resources aligned to CCGPS. However, further investigation is needed to determine if the quantity and quality of resources met teachers' needs. As previously stated, many of the open-ended comments suggested that access to and availability of appropriate resources was a major challenge. Refer to Appendix D for a full list of the respondents' major challenges. The next linkage in the logic model focuses on the utility of professional development and resources. Section II discusses respondents' perception of the utility of their CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |12

Teachers in this survey found utility in the CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources they used, which supports the second step in the logic model.
Respondents strongly believed the topics for the CCGPS-aligned professional development they received were relevant, and the CCGPS-aligned resources they used helped them implement CCGPS with fidelity.
Respondents most often accessed CCGPS-aligned resources from GaDOE or district websites, and, in general, found access convenient.
Respondents who taught mathematics and respondents who taught in districts labeled "suburb" continue to express a less positive perception of CCGPS-aligned support.
GOSA used four survey questions to assess the utility respondents found in the CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources used over the last two academic years. Through these questions, GOSA aimed to learn about respondents' perception of the relevance of professional development and how professional development contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. GOSA also sought to learn about respondents' perception of how CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. In addition, the survey collected feedback on how teachers accessed resources and whether access was convenient.
Findings related to professional development
Starting with perceptions of professional development, the vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that professional development topics were relevant. However, a smaller majority felt the CCGPS professional development they received contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. Tables 5 and 6 show how teachers in the survey responded to the two survey questions about the utility of CCGPS-professional development.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |13

N

Mean20

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

984

2.98

2% (16)

17% (164)

Agree (3)
64% (632)

Strongly agree (4)
18% (172)

N

Mean21

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

983

2.79

4% (41)

25% (242)

Agree (3)
59% (582)

Strongly agree (4)
12% (118)

As shown in Table 5, about 82% of the teachers in this survey agreed or strongly agreed that the topics for which they had CCGPS-focused professional development on were relevant. However, the percent that agreed or strongly agreed their CCGPS-focused professional development helped them implement the new standards with fidelity dropped by about ten percentage points.
The logic model for this study requires that teachers not only have CCGPS-aligned support, but also find the support useful. Therefore, the optimal mean response for questions four and five is three, or "agree." While the mean values for both questions fell slightly below the optimal value, the vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. This finding suggests that most respondents found utility in their CCGPS-focused professional development.
Next, GOSA looked for differences among subgroups to identify groups of respondents who might have experiences that differ from the rest of the respondents. Figures 3 and 4 show the differences in subgroup means for each cluster.

20 Median value was 3.00. 21 Median value was 3.00.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |14

Content-area cluster

2.99

3.00

2.89

Math ELA Only Math and

Only

ELA

Range in means: 0.11

Yrs of experience cluster
3.04 2.99 3.00 3.01
2.96 2.92
Range in means: 0.12

Locale cluster
3.06 3.01
2.97 2.95
City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.11

Content-area cluster
2.83 2.80
2.72

Math ELA Only Math and

Only

ELA

Range in means: 0.11

Yrs of experience cluster

2.86 2.81

2.82 2.81

2.76 2.75

Range in means: 0.11

Locale cluster
2.88 2.82
2.79 2.75
City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.13

Teacher characteristic means were nearly identical across clusters for both questions. Thus, the range in responses to statements related to relevance of survey topics and professional development's contribution to implementation was very small. The differences between individual means within each cluster were not statistically significant. 22
Although the average responses based on teacher characteristics did not differ, a pattern is becoming apparent among teachers in the survey who taught only mathematics and those that work in districts considered suburban. As with the questions in Section I, respondents in the "mathematics only" and "suburb" subgroups continue to have the lowest average response, meaning, these teachers had a greater proportion of "disagree" or "strongly disagree" responses to the questions examined thus far.

22 For ease of discussion purposes, the test and p-values are presented in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs. Refer to pages 8-11 for information regarding Q4 and pages 16-19 for information regarding Q5.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |15

Throughout the survey, respondents who taught only mathematics and respondents in "suburban" districts had generally the same teacher characteristics as other respondents.

"The biggest success has been when my coworkers and I have been given time to collaborate

However, the group that included respondents who only taught mathematics had a higher proportion of newer teachers. 23 Further investigation is needed to determine why some teachers of only mathematics and teachers in "suburban" districts felt less positive about their CCGPS supports than other teachers.

and develop our own understanding of the CCGPS. By
taking time to research and create lesson plans we were given the opportunity to really

Findings related to instructional resources

understand the meaning behind what we were asking our

GOSA based the perception of utility in CCGPS-aligned resources on how teachers surveyed responded to questions about

students to do."

contribution to implementation and access to CCGPS-aligned

resources. Starting with access to resources, GOSA found that respondents most often accessed

resources from GaDOE or district websites. Table 7 shows how respondents accessed CCGPS resources

and how they felt about the convenience of access.

Curriculum exemplars
Teaching guides, curriculum maps, unit frameworks

Most used source for accessing each resource
District or GaDOE website 53% (421)
District or GaDOE website 69% (611)

Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that the most used source for each
resource was convenient
78% (318)

Source of resource with highest percentage of "agree" or "strongly agree" responses for convenience of access to each resource
Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)
80% (53)

82% (478)

At my school or shared by a colleague 87% (157)

23 The percentages of respondents with 1-9 years of teaching experience by content-area are as follows: Math Only: 42.6%; ELA Only: 30%; and Math and ELA: 31.2%.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |16

Table 7 continued

Most used source for accessing each resource

Assessment tools

District or GaDOE website 39% (317)
At my school or shared by a colleague 39% (317)

Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that the most used source for each
resource was convenient
78% (224)
78% (234)

Source of resource with highest percentage of "agree" or "strongly agree" responses for convenience of access to each resource
Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)
81% (56)

Digital lessons and activities

Google or other internet search engine
42% (301)

69% (200)

At my school or shared by a colleague 81% (111)

Overall, respondents most often accessed curriculum exemplars, teaching guides, curriculum maps, and unit frameworks from GaDOE or district websites. They also commonly accessed assessment tools from GaDOE or district websites, as well as at their school or through a colleague. The resources respondents most often searched for on the internet were digital lessons and activities.
While 69-82% of respondents found it convenient to access resources from the most used sources, about 10% of the comments related to major challenges focused on availability of resources. Respondents discussed difficulties with accessing and finding resources.
GOSA examined how teachers in the survey responded to the statement about the convenience of accessing each material by breaking the respondents into two groups based on their use of CCGPSaligned resources. The purpose of this test was to determine if a pattern existed among use of CCGPSaligned resources and convenience of access to resources. The purpose of this test was not to establish a causal relationship, but to determine if a pattern existed. The results of this analysis are displayed in Figure 5.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |17

Respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed that they used CCGPS-aligned resources Accessing this material was convenient.

65% 60%

66% 60%

40%

40%

35%

34%

Strongly Agree

and Agree

Strongly Disagree and Disagree

Curriculum exemplars

Teaching guides, Assessment tools Digital lessons and

curriculum maps, or (e.g., sample test

activities

unit frameworks items, benchmark

assessments, etc.)

Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that they used CCGPS-aligned resources

Accessing this material was convenient.

83%

76%

74%

75%

26%

26%

25%

17%

Curriculum exemplars

Teaching guides, Assessment tools Digital lessons and

curriculum maps, (e.g., sample test

activities

or unit frameworks items, benchmark

assessments, etc.)

Strongly Agree and Agree
Strongly Disagree and Disagree

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |18

"The DOE frameworks activities are really helping the students to dive deeper into real-world
problems solving. We have enjoyed using the frameworks in
class."

Figure 5 provides a visual representation of the existence of a pattern between convenience of access and use of resources. Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they used resources aligned to CCGPS had much higher rates of agreement on the access of each material being convenient. The reverse holds true for respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed that they used resources. As shown in Table 8, the differences in how the two groups responded were statistically significant.

Group 1 Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that they
used resources Group 2
Respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed that
they used resources
Significance
ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.0524

Average response for convenience of access

(4 point scale - Strongly Disagree = 1 and Strongly Agree =4)

Curriculum exemplars

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, unit frameworks

Assessment tools

Digital lessons and activities

Mean: 2.86 (723)

Mean: 3.01 (773)

Mean: 2.81 (733)

Mean: 2.84 (657)

Mean: 2.13 (68)
.000**

Mean: 2.52 (77)
.000**

Mean: 2.21 (70)
.000**

Mean: 2.11 (64)
.000**

State and local education leaders should further investigate this pattern to ensure barriers to accessing resources do not prohibit teachers from taking advantage of potentially useful tools.
The last survey question GOSA used to gauge utility of CCGPS-aligned resources focused on the contribution CCGPS-aligned resources had on implementation. Table 9 displays the results to this question.

24 In all cases where an ANOVA was used to compare means, GOSA selected this test because the variables are categorical, and therefore, the ANOVA is the appropriate test to compare the means.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |19

N

Mean25

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

908

2.97

2% (22)

17% (150)

Agree (3)
62% (566)

Strongly agree (4)
19% (170)

A little more than 80% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. The average response fell slightly below
the optimal value of three.

"I like the way that the ELA curriculum maps and
frameworks are set up. It helps give a clear direction as to what
we should be teaching."

Given the high level of agreement that resources contributed to respondents' ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity, GOSA examined the mean responses by subgroups to determine if any groups of teachers deviated from the overall mean of 2.97. In line with previous findings, respondents who taught only mathematics and respondents teaching in suburban districts had the lowest means. Figure 6 displays the results from this analysis.

Content-area cluster
3.00 2.97
2.95

Yrs of experience cluster

3.07

3.07

2.98 2.95

2.95

2.92

Locale cluster
3.03 3.01
2.99 2.93

Math Only ELA Only Math and ELA
Range in means: 0.05

Range in means: 0.15

City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.10

As depicted above, means were very close within each cluster of teacher characteristics. The range across clusters was approximately one-tenth of a point on the four-point Likert scale. The narrow dispersion of responses and lack of statistically significant differences shows that regardless of content-

25 Median value was 3.00. Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |20

area, years of experience, or locale, teachers surveyed agreed

CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. 26

"I wish I had more assessments that were created by the state

GOSA examined how teachers responded to the statement about to help me assess the students fidelity of implementation based on whether they used CCGPS- instead of teachers having to

aligned resources. As shown in Table 10, respondents who used make their own benchmarks."

CCGPS-aligned resources also had a high level of agreement about

the resources' contribution to their ability to implement CCGPS

with fidelity. This pattern shows that in this survey, the perceived likelihood that resources contributed

to a teacher's ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity increased as the teacher's use of CCGPS-aligned

resources increased.

Group1 Respondents who strongly agreed or
agreed that they used resources Group 2
Respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed that they used resources
ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

Strongly disagree
1% (8)
16% (14)

Disagree Agree
11% 68% (89) (550)

Strongly agree
21% (168)

N Mean 815 3.08

69% 14%

1%

(59) (12)

(1)

86 2.00

Significance .000**

Overall, respondents found utility in the CCGPS-aligned professional development and resources they encountered over the last two years. Respondents commented on CCGPS-aligned resources more than professional development. Difference in opinion of quality, availability, and utility of resources in openended comments suggest this is an area for further investigation.

The next link in the logic model to establish is how much respondents made use of CCGPS-aligned resources and skills and knowledge gained from CCGPS-aligned professional development. Section III explores respondents' engagement with professional development and resources.

26 For ease of discussion purposes, the test and p-values are presented in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs. Refer to pages 73-76 for information regarding the means test for Q10.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |21

Teachers in this survey demonstrated a high level of engagement in CCGPS-aligned professional development. A vast majority of respondents applied what they learned in professional development in their classrooms. However, the percentage of respondents who believed professional development contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity was lower than the percent who applied what they learned from professional development.
Understanding CCGPS shifts in mathematics makes a bigger difference on how respondents perceived professional development than understanding ELA shifts.
In general, respondents "rarely" or "sometimes" used CCGPS-aligned resources. Upon further investigation, a clear pattern exists showing respondents who believed CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity used resources more than those respondents who did not believe resources helped them with their implementation.
GOSA determined that teachers surveyed took advantage of available supports after examining their perception of application of skills or knowledge gained from professional development and, frequency of use of CCGPS resources. Findings related to professional development Over 85% of the teachers in this survey agreed or strongly agreed that they applied what they learned from professional development in their classrooms. The mean response of 3.05 exceeded the optimal value of three, or "agree." The results are presented in Table 11.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |22

N

Mean27

Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

958

3.05

2% (20)

12% (118)

Agree (3)
64% (614)

Strongly agree (4)
22% (206)

Respondents did not differ significantly based on subjects taught, years of experience, or locale. Figure 7 illustrates the narrow spread of teacher characteristic means. 28

Content-area cluster
3.09 3.05
3.00

Math ELA Only Math and

Only

ELA

Range in means: 0.09

Yrs of experience cluster
3.17 3.07 3.04 3.03 3.03 2.99
Range in means: 0.18

Locale cluster
3.15 3.06 3.04
3.01
City Town Rural Suburb
Range in means: 0.14

Like with the other survey questions, average responses across clusters varied very little. The cluster

with the most variability was years of experience. This could be

attributed to teachers with zero to three years of teaching

experience being an outlier. In addition, teachers with more than
25 years of experience were the only subgroup that did not meet "I am seeing the importance of

or exceed the optimal value of three, or "agree." However, the

presenting materials in a

"suburb" characteristic no longer had the lowest mean value manner that forces students to

among locale cluster. The differences in means within each cluster were not statistically significant.

become more independent thinkers. Students need more

Given that differences in responses did not exist among teachers based on teacher characteristics, GOSA explored trends among other factors. Over 80% of respondents said the topics for which they had professional development were relevant. Examining

hands on activities and problem solving practice. The CCGPS is designed to provide this for the
students."

27 Median value was 3.00. 28 For ease of discussion purposes, the test and p-values are presented in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs. Refer to pages 24-27 for information regarding the means test for Q6.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |23

application of professional development based on perceived relevance of professional development topics showed that a pattern exists between these two factors. Table 12 presents these findings.

Group1 High agreement on PD relevance
Group 2 Low agreement on
PD relevance

Strongly disagree
0% (2)
11% (18)

ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

Disagree
5% (38)
48% (80)

Agree
70% (548)
38% (64)

Strongly agree N Mean

25% (200)

790 3.20

4% (6)
Significance

168 2.35 .000**

As shown in Table 12, when analyzing responses to question six (application of professional development) based on how respondents answered question four (relevance of professional development topics) it is clear that these two groups of respondents differ. Respondents who perceived professional development topics as being relevant had a higher level of agreement regarding the application of professional development. Therefore, in this survey, a pattern existed between application of skills and knowledge gained from professional development and perceived relevance of professional development topics. This finding is in line with the basis of this evaluation. The logic model hypothesizes that if teachers find professional development useful, they will implement what they learned in their classrooms.
The logic model hypothesizes that if teachers have high-quality professional development, and they use the skills and knowledge gained from this professional development, then both the teachers and students will benefit from the training. Teachers will experience improved instruction and practice. Students will experience improved learning and achievement. Therefore, GOSA examined the pattern between the application of professional development and professional development's contribution to CCGPS implementation.

As shown in Table 13, respondents agreed that they applied what they learned from professional development more than they agreed that professional development aided them in implementing CCGPS with fidelity.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |24

Application of professional development

N

Mean Agree & Strongly agree

958

3.05

86% (820)

Contribution to fidelity of implementation

N

Mean Agree & Strongly agree

983

2.79

71% (700)

The percentage of agree and strongly agree responses dropped by almost 15 percentage points. To better understand this finding, GOSA sought to determine if patterns existed among respondents' perception of the quality of professional development.

The survey did not ask respondents to rate the quality or their

satisfaction with professional development. However, the survey asked respondents to demonstrate their understanding of CCGPS. Since the purpose of CCGPS-aligned professional development is to help educators better understand the new standards, examining perceptions of professional development based on whether respondents understood CCGPS provided a preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of professional development.

"I began this school year with NO training on CCGPS. I had no idea what I needed to do. I had
to download everything and start from scratch...we had no training on this until the middle

The transition to Common Core State Standards requires teachers

of the year."

to make three central shifts in their instruction of mathematics

and ELA. 29 The survey asked respondents to identify these shifts. Respondents could select as many

options as they thought were appropriate from a list of five possible shifts. Refer to the full data set

included in Appendix A: All Results for the responses to the two survey questions on CCGPS shifts.

GaDOE communicated these shifts in all their professional development efforts starting from fall 2011 and continuing through their unit-by-unit webinars in spring 2013. Teachers were expected to watch these online professional development sessions. However, GaDOE could not mandate participation as teachers are employees of local education agencies (LEAs).

Since GaDOE offered professional development to all teachers, and expected teachers to participate, then it is possible that respondents learned about the shifts from GaDOE's professional development. GOSA did not conduct statistical tests to establish correlations or causality. Further investigation is necessary to fully determine the quality of professional development and its effect on teachers' understanding of CCGPS.

In this study, GOSA examined the differences in perceptions of professional development based on understanding of CCGPS to determine if respondents differed significantly. Significant differences would

29 "Understanding the CCSS: The Shifts in Practice," Achievethecore.org, 2012, Student Achievement Partners, 13 July 2013 <http://www.achievethecore.org/ela-literacy-common-core/shifts-practice/>.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |25

suggest that teachers who "understood" CCGPS had a different experience than other teachers, and would provide opportunities for deeper analysis. GOSA grouped participants based on the number of central shifts they selected in their response to question 11. GOSA considered respondents who only selected the three central shifts in their respective content-area as those that "understood" CCGPS. Respondents who only included one central shift in their response to question 11 were considered those who "did not understand" CCGPS as well. Tables 14 and 15 compare the two groups' perceptions of professional development relevance, application of professional development and contribution to fidelity of implementation. Tables 14 and 15 do not include responses from all respondents. Only respondents who selected only the three central shifts or only one central shift (and possibly other non-central shifts) are represented in the tables 14 and 15.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |26

Differences in perceptions of relevance of professional development topics

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 0% (0)
3% (2)

Disagree 15% (8) 22% (12)

Agree 58% (32)

Strongly agree
27% (15)

N Mean 55 3.13

62% (39)

16% (10) Significance

63 2.90 .073

Differences in perceptions of professional development's contribution to fidelity of implementation

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 4% (2)
10% (6)

Disagree 24% (13)

Agree 56% (31)

Strongly agree
16% (9)

N Mean 118 3.01

29% (18)

49% (31)

13% (8) Significance

55 2.85 .161

Differences in application of professional development

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 0% (0)
7% (4)

Disagree 9% (5)

Agree 65% (35)

Strongly agree
26% (14)

N Mean 54 3.17

20% (12)

59% (36)

15% (9) Significance

61 2.82 .007**

ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 14 shows that respondents only differed in their application of professional development based on their "understanding" of CCGPS. Respondents who "understood" CCGPS, or selected only the three central shifts in ELA, said they applied what the learned from professional development more than respondents who did not "understand" CCGPS as well.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |27

Differences in perceptions of relevance of professional development topics

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 1% (2)
6% (3)

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

N Mean

11% (20) 66% (121) 22% (41) 184 3.09

20% (11)

61% (33) 13% (7) 54 2.81

Significance

.005**

Differences in perceptions of professional development's contribution to fidelity of implementation

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 3% (5)
11% (6)

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

N Mean

19% (35) 65% (120) 13% (24) 184 2.89

35% (19)

49% (27) 6% (3) 55 2.49

Significance

.000**

Differences in application of professional development

Group1 Understands CCGPS
Group 2 Does not understand CCGPS

Strongly disagree 2% (3)
8% (4)

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

N Mean

10% (17) 64% (115) 25% (44) 179 3.12

15% (8)

69% (36) 8% (4) 52 2.77

Significance

.001**

ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

Table 15 shows that mathematics teachers differed significantly based on their "understanding" of CCGPS for all three professional development questions. While both groups of respondents tended to have a high level of agreement on the professional development questions; mathematics teachers who "understood" CCGPS had a higher level of agreement than those who did not "understand" CCGPS as well.
Still, the percentage of mathematics teachers who believed professional development contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity decreased. For both groups of respondents, the level of agreement for application of professional development was higher than the level of agreement with professional development's contribution to fidelity of implementation.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |28

While mathematics teachers differed significantly based on their "understanding" of CCGPS, ELA teachers did not differ in their perceptions of professional development topics or professional development's effect on implementation. Although ELA teachers who "understood" CCGPS had a higher level of agreement on these two questions, the differences were not statistically significant. This means that regardless of "understanding" CCGPS, respondents had the same perception of professional development topics and professional development's contribution to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Understanding CCGPS made a difference for both ELA and "The biggest challenge has been

mathematics teachers when it came to their application of skills

trying to infer what the

and knowledge gained in professional development. However, like the group as a whole, the level of agreement for application of professional development remained higher for mathematics and ELA teachers, regardless of their understanding of CCGPS, than the level of agreement with professional development's contribution to fidelity of implementation.

standards mean. It took a lot of time outside of the regular
classroom day to research and try to figure out what was intended to be taught. The
vagueness of the standards is

Overall, these tests show that "understanding" CCGPS made a

very frustrating."

bigger difference for mathematics teachers than ELA teachers.

While this study did not seek to explain why this is, state and

local education leaders should determine if more analysis is needed. Future studies could examine:

Communication of shifts and whether shifts were better communicated in mathematics than ELA, resulting in respondents who taught mathematics selecting the three central shifts more than respondents who taught ELA.

Shifts in standards and whether differences in CCGPS for mathematics are more obvious, pronounced, or easier to identify then differences in CCGPS for ELA.

Teacher qualities and whether mathematics and ELA teachers have different innate characteristics that affect their perceptions of professional development.

It is possible that other explanations exist. However, the purpose of this report is to explain the findings and suggest opportunities for future analysis. Further investigation is needed to better understand the difference in experiences for mathematics and ELA teachers.

These tests also show that regardless of understanding CCGPS, teachers applied strategies and knowledge gained from professional development but did not think that the strategies and knowledge helped them implement CCGPS at the same rate. Further investigation is needed to better understand why respondents applied what they learned but did not attribute professional development to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity at the same rate.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |29

"I feel the biggest challenge with CCGPS is knowing how deep to go with the standards and how people interpret the standards
very differently."

In addition, open-ended comments suggested that understanding the meaning and requirements of the standards, particularly the necessary depth of rigor, was a major challenge for many respondents. This study only used one measure to assess understanding of CCGPS. While respondents selected the three correct shifts in the top three responses for questions

13 and 16, further investigation is needed to better assess how

well respondents understand CCGPS. Data related to teacher effectiveness and student achievement

will be helpful in assessing how well teachers understand and implement the standards. State and local

education leaders can use this kind of data when they become available.

Findings related to instructional resources

Next, GOSA examined the level of engagement with CCGPS-aligned resources. The survey asked respondents to indicate how frequently they used CCGPS-aligned resources. Table 16 shows how teachers surveyed responded to this question.

N

Mean

Never (0)

Rarely (1)

Sometimes (2)

Very Often (3)

Always (4)

Curriculum exemplars

860 2.28

7% (61)

12% (106)

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks

898 3.13

1% (8)

4% (33)

Assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark 877 2.63 assessments, etc.)

4% (38)

7% (65)

Digital lessons and activities

835 2.35

9% (73)

11% (91)

37% (321) 16% (139)
30% (260)
31% (261)

32% (271) 42% (375)
38% (331)
35% (293)

12% (101) 38% (343)
21% (183)
14% (117)

Overall, the majority of respondents used CCGPS-aligned resources at least "sometimes." Respondents used teaching guides, curriculum maps, and unit frameworks the most, with 80% of them using these resources "very often" or "always." GOSA did not establish expectations for use of resources because educators should use resources as frequently as they deem necessary. However, it is important to note that when "sometimes" responses are omitted, the percentage of respondents who said they were using resources frequently dropped considerably. It is possible that the use of an odd-numbered scale with a middle value of "sometimes" inflated the data because this option is fairly broad and more neutral than the other, more extreme options. Neutral or mid-point options tend to lead to more

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |30

"social desirability bias, arising from respondents' desires to please the interviewer or appear helpful or not be seen to give what they perceive to be a socially unacceptable answer."30
GOSA then investigated the frequency of use by prominent teacher characteristics. Refer to the statistical results in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs for the means, standard deviations, and results of ANOVA and post hoc tests. Table 17 displays the means by teacher characteristic for each cluster.

Content-area cluster

Both ELA only Math only

Range in means

0 - 3 years

Years of teaching experience cluster

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years

25+ years

Range in means

City

Locale cluster

Rural Suburb Town

Range in means

Curriculum exemplars
2.35 2.28 2.11 0.24 2.18 2.07 2.46 2.26 2.35 2.43 0.39 2.40 2.25 2.21 2.58 0.37

Teaching guides, curriculum maps,
etc.
3.17 2.98 3.16 0.19
3.19 3.14 3.15 3.05 3.00 3.19 0.14
3.30 3.16 2.99 3.30 0.31

Assessment Digital lessons

tools

and activities

2.73

2.48

2.44

2.11

2.57

2.24

0.29

0.37

2.64

2.30

2.55

2.29

2.75

2.51

2.57

2.32

2.52

2.22

2.75

2.32

0.23

0.29

2.72

2.41

2.57

2.31

2.62

2.33

2.76

2.43

0.19

0.12

In general, teacher characteristic means were close to the overall mean for each resource. Although frequency of use by teacher characteristics remained in between "sometimes" and "very often," the range in means shows a greater degree of variation than in other survey questions. Average responses varied the greatest for use of curriculum exemplars for teachers by years of experience and locale. Responses for teachers by content-area varied the most for use of digital lessons and activities.

30 Ron Garland, "The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable?" Marketing Bulletin (1991): 70, 5 Nov. 2013 <http://marketingbulletin.massey.ac.nz/v2/mb_v2_n3_garland.pdf>.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |31

Respondents used curriculum exemplars least out of the four resources. Responses by subgroups of teachers showed that teachers used curriculum exemplars "sometimes." Post hoc comparisons using Tukey's multiple comparisons test revealed the following significant differences: 31
Respondents who taught both mathematics and ELA used curriculum exemplars more than respondents who taught only mathematics.
Respondents with 10-14 years of experience and more than 25 years of experience used curriculum exemplars more than respondents with 4-9 years of experience.
Respondents teaching in districts labeled "town" used curriculum exemplars more than respondents teaching in districts labeled "suburban."

Respondents used teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks more than other types of resources. On average, respondents used these resources "very often." Post hoc comparisons using Tukey's multiple comparisons test revealed the following significant differences:

Respondents who taught both mathematics and ELA used teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks more than respondents who taught only ELA.
Respondents who taught in districts labeled "city," "rural," and "town" used teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks more than respondents who taught in districts labeled "suburb."

"Once I made it through Unit 1, and I figured out what I was doing, I have really enjoyed teaching with CCGPS. The students and I have enjoyed working with the ELA units."

Assessment tools were the second most used resource among all respondents. Responses indicated that teachers in this survey used assessment tools more than "sometimes," but not quite "very often." Only one pair of subgroups differed significantly. Again, post hoc test revealed that teachers who taught both mathematics and ELA used assessment tools significantly more than teachers who only taught ELA.

Qualitative data from respondents helped to explain the similarities in use of assessment tools. Many of the respondents' biggest challenges in implementing CCGPS had to do with assessment. Respondents explained that a lack of quality assessment items and clear information regarding future state assessments created great difficulty in implementation. It is possible that the lack of difference among responses by teacher characteristic stemmed from respondents not believing that they had quality assessment items to use.

31 For ease of discussion purposes, the test and p-values are presented in Appendix E: SPSS Outputs. Refer to pages 39-64 for information regarding the means test for question 8.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |32

Usage of digital lessons and activities by prominent demographic characteristic also resembled the overall group mean. Most of the individual means showed that respondents by demographic characteristic used these resources in between "sometimes" and "very often." Post hoc tests revealed that respondents who taught both mathematics and ELA, and those who taught only mathematics, used digital lessons and tools more than respondents who taught only ELA. These tests showed that in this survey, teachers who taught ELA and teachers with 21-24 years of teaching experience tended to use resources less than other teachers. Also, teachers in "suburban" districts used curriculum exemplars and teaching guides less than other teachers, while "rural" teachers used assessment tools and digital lessons less. State and local education leaders should investigate the quality of materials made available to these teachers to ensure poor quality or lack of access to resources did not limit usage. Next, GOSA wanted to determine if patterns existed among frequency of use of CCGPS-aligned resources and perception that these resources aided in CCGPS implementation. The logic model establishes that if teachers have resources that they find valuable, then they will use them, and eventually the use of these valued resources will impact their practice and students' learning. Therefore, GOSA compared responses regarding frequency of use based on resources' contribution to fidelity of implementation. By comparing respondents based on their level of agreement that CCGPSaligned resources aided them in implementing the new standards, GOSA found that those who were more agreeable also used resources more frequently. To conduct this assessment, GOSA omitted the "sometimes" response option to focus only on respondents who used resources more frequently ("very often" or "always") and respondents who used resources less frequently ("never" or "rarely"). Figure 8 compares the frequency of use for CCGPS-aligned resources for the two groups of respondents.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |33

Respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed that CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity
How often are you using CCGPS resources in your classroom?
57%

47% 39%

22% 16%

28% 30%

29% Never and rarely Very often and always

Curriculum exemplars

Teaching guides, Assessment tools Digital lessons and

curriculum maps,

activities

etc.

Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that CCGPS-aligned resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity

How often are you using CCGPS resources in your classroom?
85%

65%
54% 48%

13%
Curriculum exemplars

15%
8% 2%

Teaching guides, Assessment tools Digital lessons and

curriculum maps,

activities

etc.

Never and rarely Very often and always

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |34

By omitting the "sometimes" responses, the difference in frequency of use for each resource is more pronounced. Across resources, respondents who believed CCGPS-resources contributed to their ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity used resources significantly more frequently than others. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the groups. 32

This finding shows that teachers in this survey did not frequently use resources that they did not find helpful. It also demonstrates the need for resources that teachers will find helps them implement
CCGPS with fidelity.

"Common Core leaves less room for guesswork and requires students to know and
understand the content better. I like that! I love the open
ended feedback from students and the discussions that arise from this teaching strategy."

Based on the data presented so far, GOSA can conclude that teachers in this survey had access to professional development and resources aligned to CCGPS and, they found utility in these supports. In addition, there is evidence to support that these teachers used what they learned from professional development and the resources they accessed in their classroom. The final step in the logic model proposes that positive outcomes will be seen if the first three steps are met. The next and final section discusses teacher and student practice change.

32 Curriculum exemplars: F (1, 853) = 87.573, p=.000. Teaching guides: F (1, 854) = 76.890, p=.000. Assessment tools: F (1, 869) = 86.613, p=.000. Digital lessons: F (1, 829) = 63.800, p=.000. Refer to Appendix E: SPSS Outputs for full results.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |35

Respondents used strong practices, often closely related to Common Core State Standards. The CCGPS-related practice most used by respondents was, "asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently."
Students engaged in tasks associated with CCGPS more during school year 2012-2013 than in previous academic years.
Findings related to teacher practice change Achieve, U.S. Education Delivery Institute (EDI) and Education First collaborated on an item bank of survey questions states could use to assess their transition to the Common Core State Standards. GOSA adapted several of the questions in this item bank for the Teacher Survey. In the item bank, Achieve, U.S. EDI, and Education First included a question which provided six practices, with three of them being closely related to Common Core State Standards implementation. The collaborators consider all the practices to be strong; however, the three highlighted practices are more closely related to the new standards. 33 Table 18 shows how teachers surveyed responded to this question.
33 "Survey item bank," Feedback Loops for Common Core State Standards Implementation | U.S. Education Delivery Institute, 5 June 2012, U.S. Education Delivery Institute, 10 Mar. 2013 <http://www.deliveryinstitute.org/publications/feedback-loopscommon-core-state-standards-implementation>. Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |36

Practice 1: Incorporating new curricular materials and instructional strategies in my teaching.
Practice 2: Asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently.
Practice 3: Structuring opportunities for students to develop and solve their own problems. Practice 4: Increasing my use of out-of-state teaching resources. Practice 5: Diversifying the ways I assess student learning and providing feedback.
Practice 6: Increasing my collaboration with colleagues within my school and in other schools.

Percent 82% 83% 70% 35% 67% 75%

Frequency 807 817 692 343 662 735

The majority of respondents indicated that they implemented most of the practices listed in question 11. The only practice that less than 50% of the respondents said they implemented was increasing their use of out-of-state resources. Although respondents said they are implementing strong practices, the top three selected practices included only one of the practices closely related to Common Core implementation. State and local education leaders should determine if additional training and/or support is needed to help ensure teachers are implementing proper practices.

The logic model implies that if teachers have CCGPS-related supports that they find helpful, then they

will use these supports and eventually, their practice will improve. The logic model concludes with the

belief that strong teacher practice will contribute to improved

outcomes for students. Therefore, GOSA examined the pattern

between perception of professional development and implementation of CCGPS-related practices. GOSA grouped respondents based on their responses to the professional development questions to examine how the two groups differed on implementation of CCGPS-related teacher practices. Tables 19 and 20 display the results of these comparisons.

"I believe that I have been my biggest challenge. When you've been teaching a certain way for so long, it takes a lot of practice to do things that were routine a
different way."

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |37

Implemented Practice 1
Implemented Practice 2
Implemented Practice 3
Implemented Practice 4
Implemented Practice 5
Implemented Practice 6

Group 1 Applied PD
Group 2 Did not apply PD
Significance
ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

85% (722) 62% (85)
.000**

86% (731) 62% (86)
.000**

73% (617) 54% (75)
.000**

35% (296) 34% (47)
.854

70% (593) 50% (69)
.000**

76% (649) 62% (86)
.000**

Implemented Practice 1
Implemented Practice 2
Implemented Practice 3
Implemented Practice 4
Implemented Practice 5
Implemented Practice 6

Group 1 PD contributed to fidelity
of implementation Group 2
PD did not contribute to fidelity of implementation
Significance
ANOVA, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

86% (604)
71% (202)
.000**

88% (613)
72% (203)
.000**

74% (521)
60% (169)
.000**

35% (244)
35% (98)
.946

73% (514)
52% (147)
.000**

79% (552)
64% (181)
.000**

As previously mentioned, GOSA did not conduct statistical tests to establish correlations or causality. Therefore, further investigation is needed to determine if relationships exist between teacher practice change and professional development. However, a one-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the groups. In this study, GOSA found that teachers who had a more positive perception of professional development were more apt to implement Common Core related practices than other teachers. With the exception of one practice, respondents differed significantly in their implementation of every practice.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |38

Although the group of respondents who had a higher level of agreement to the professional development statements selected the three CCGPS-practices at a higher rate than the other group, it is important to note the top three selected practices remained practices 1, 2 and 6. Practice 2 was the only CCGPS-related practice in the top three. Further investigation is needed to determine if teachers need additional support or guidance related to structuring opportunities for students to develop and solve their own problems and diversifying the ways they assess student learning and give feedback.

"One of the biggest things that I have done this year is ask the questions `Why?' all the time. I
have had them draw, solve, and explain word problems to help
them better understand the concept."

As evidenced by the data, teachers that benefitted from professional development also implemented practices aligned to CCGPS more than those who did not benefit as much. Ultimately, the purpose of CCGPS is to improve education in Georgia and lead to positive student outcomes. However, the standards by themselves cannot effect change. According to the Fordham Institute, "standards describe the destination that schools and students are supposed to reach, but by themselves have little power to effect change. Much else needs to happen to successfully journey toward the destination."34 In order to truly achieve the goals of Common Core - higher levels of learning and achievement for all students there must "close alignment of the written, taught, tested, and attained curriculum." 35

Findings related to student practice change

Although it is too early to assess the standards' impact on student learning, this survey produced evidence that showed students are starting to think and learn differently, which is necessary to meet the rigor of CCGPS. The Teacher Survey asked respondents to state how frequently their students behaved in ways aligned to CCGPS. The change in how frequently students exhibit behaviors aligned with CCGPS is an interim measure of student outcomes. If students are learning in a way that is aligned with CCGPS, then it is more likely that they will be prepared for the summative assessments based upon these standards.

Some of the requirements of the Common Core State Standards for K-12 ELA and literacy are:

Expand the quality and volume of what "students read in order for students to become proficient at higher levels of thinking and comprehension." 36
Reading content "should include, but not be limited to, classic and contemporary literature, myths and poems, dramas, stories from diverse cultures, U.S. founding documents, and American literature." 37

34 Maryann D. Wiggs, "Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the Common Core State Standards: The Big Picture," Navigating implementation of the common core state standards, by Douglas B. Reeves (Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn P, 2011) 25. 35 (Wiggs 25) 36 (Wiggs, 31)
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |39

A "deliberate shift toward a focus on nonfiction writing as evidenced by the emphasis on arguments and informational /explanatory text types." 38
Students must be able to "conduct research that results in both short and more substantial formal writing projects." 39
Some of the requirements of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics are:

"In grades K-5, students gain a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, and decimals." 40

"In grades 6-8, students continue to build upon the strong foundation formed in grades K-5 through hands-on learning in geometry, algebra, probability, and statistics." 41

High school students are expected to master the conceptual categories of "modeling," "number and quantity," "algebra," "functions," "geometry," and "statistics and probability." 42

"My students really enjoyed the literature we read. I had
students who didn't like to read aloud. Now they love it and it has increased their ability to read with fluency and recognize
words."

Students "to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real-world issues and challenges" at the high school level. 43
Findings from the Teacher Survey suggest that students engaged in tasks associated with CCGPS more after the state transitioned to the new standards during school year 2012-2013. Across the board, the number of respondents who said their students "never" or "a few times a year" engaged in various mathematics and ELA learning tasks related to CCGPS decreased. The number of respondents who said their students engaged in these tasks "daily" increased. These differences were statistically significant.44 Tables 21 and 22 display the comparisons.

37 (Wiggs, 33) 38 (Wiggs, 38) 39 (Wiggs, 38) 40 (Wiggs, 49) 41 (Wiggs, 50) 42 (Wiggs, 51) 43 (Wiggs, 53) 44 GOSA used a paired samples t-test to determine differences in frequency of student engagement in CCGPS-aligned tasks. Paired samples t-test are used to measure differences in a set of paired observations. This was the appropriate test because GOSA wanted to measure differences in student engagement before the implementation of CCGPS and after the implementation of CCGPS.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |40

Monitoring reading by slowing down, rereading sentences, and using context clues to determine meaning Comparing and contrasting, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, judging, and defending ideas they encounter in informational reading
Writing quality first drafts under time constraints
Acquiring knowledge of vocabulary by encountering words in context more than once

BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS 3.42
2.80
2.16 3.20

Reading increasingly complex texts with increasing independence

2.82

Drawing evidence from texts to support written responses

2.49

Paired Samples T-Test, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

AFTER transitioning to CCGPS 3.65
3.36
2.56 3.50 3.28 3.15

Mean Difference

Significance

-.230

.000**

-.558 -.395 -.297 -.458 -.658

.000** .000** .000** .000** .000**

Problem-solving that goes beyond story or word problems
Effectively struggling with problems to deepen their understanding Using various approaches and drawing on knowledge to justify ideas when solving problems Using real data and current events to create problems and solutions Using tables, graphs, words, symbols and pictures to determine which representations of data are best in certain circumstances Offering speculations and assumptions regarding open-ended questions
Paired Samples T-Test, p-value: **p<.01, *p<.05

BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS 2.40 2.53 2.87 2.04
2.49
2.34

AFTER transitioning to CCGPS 3.13 3.24 3.46 2.64
2.89
3.06

Mean Difference
-.729 -.711 -.594 -.599
-.401
-.722

Significance .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** .000**

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |41

While this data showed students represented by teachers in this survey engaged in CCGPS-related tasks more after the state transitioned to CCGPS, it is important to note the design of these

"I had a class that was ready for the change in how we do

questions. GOSA used a "retrospective pretest-posttest" survey mathematics. They liked the

design for questions 14 and 17. This design allows researchers to challenge of going beyond the

collect information through one survey administration. However, this design is also subject to several weaknesses. For example, some respondents might try to provide responses that they think are

computation and understanding why it makes sense."

aligned with what the researcher wants to know. This is called "a

good subject effect." 45 Also, respondents are more prone to "threats to validity such as memory recall,

history, and regression to the mean." 46

However, open-ended comments also indicated that students engaged in practices associated with CCGPS more during school year 2012-2013 than previous years. Several respondents listed positive accomplishments with students as their biggest success over the school year. Teachers described improvements in their students' critical and independent thinking abilities, as well as achievement gains. A few respondents shared that their students enjoyed CCGPS and that the new standards led to the creating of more enjoyable learning environments for some students. Refer to Appendix C: Major Successes for a full list of the major successes referenced by respondents.

Still, numerous respondents shared challenges related to student ability as well. Many respondents explained that their students were not prepared for the rigor of CCGPS. A few respondents discussed challenges with their special education and English Language Learner (ELL) students in particular.

45 Theodore Lamb, "The Retrospective Pretest: An Imperfect but Useful Tool," The Evaluation Exchange Summer 2005 XI (2005): Harvard Family Research Project, 10 Sept. 2013 <http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issuearchive/evaluation-methodology/the-retrospective-pretest-an-imperfect-but-useful-tool>. 46 Ibid.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |42

Findings from the first administration of the Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation showed that respondents had resources and professional development to help them implement CCGPS. Overall, these supports aided teachers in their implementation of the new standards. In turn, teachers and students changed practice. Teachers engaged in practices associated with CCGPS, like asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently. Teachers reported that students worked independently, questioned, and thought critically more during school year 2012-2013
than in previous school years.

Open-ended comments contextualized survey statements. A

"Students are exploring different ways to come up with the correct answer. Confidence
is soaring!"

large number of respondents provided positive feedback about their implementation. As shown in C, respondents most often shared major successes related to changes in their students' ability, improved teacher practice, and an overall approval of CCGPS. Still, challenges remain. According to the challenges

discussed in Appendix D, access and availability of resources

made CCGPS implementation difficult for many respondents. Also, respondents expressed a need for

more information and guidance related to implementing the standards. While some respondents

applauded the new standards for pushing teachers and students to increase expectations and work with

heightened rigor, other respondents felt the new standards were too challenging for students who often

entered their classes behind grade level.

Based on the findings from this survey, GOSA recommends state and local education leaders further investigate CCGPS implementation. In particular,

Investigate the quality of support being made available to mathematics teachers and teachers in districts labeled "suburb." The mathematics and "suburban" teachers in this survey tended to display a lower level of satisfaction with the supports being made available to them. A review of other measures, like student achievement data, could help pinpoint specific grade-levels or districts in need of additional support.
Review the ease of access of state and district websites. While respondents generally found access to resources on GaDOE and district websites convenient, there were alternative methods that some respondents found more convenient. Also, many respondents commented on a general frustration related to finding appropriate resources. Since this study found that teachers who struggled with accessing resources also used resources less than other teachers, state and local education leaders should consider exploring options to improve access to highquality resources for teachers.

Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |43

Review the quality of professional development and resources being made available to educators. Several of the findings demonstrate a pattern among teachers' practices and their perception of the support they receive. Respondents who implemented practices aligned with CCGPS frequently used resources and attributed CCGPS supports to their ability to implement CCPGS with fidelity were also the respondents with more positive perceptions of CCGPS supports.
Use teacher effectiveness and student achievement data to substantiate the findings from this study. The first administration of the Teacher Survey suggested that teacher and student practice aligned with CCGPS. In the future, data from Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) and state assessments can help to further demonstrate how teachers and students are adapting to CCGPS. State and education leaders should ensure systems are in place to review this data in conjunction with qualitative measures, like surveys and focus groups, once the data are available.
GOSA will administer the Teacher Survey in fall 2013 and again in spring 2014.
Governor's Office of Student Achievement |Race to the Top Statewide Evaluation |CCGPS Implementation |44

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Mathematics English Language Arts (ELA) Both
1 year 23 years 49 years 1014 years 1520 years 2124 years 25+ years

Frequency
552 216 219

Percent 55.9

Valid Percent
55.9

21.9

21.9

22.2

22.2

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 55.9
77.8
100.0 987
0 987

Frequency
29 52 248 215 218 74 147

Percent 2.9

Valid Percent
3.0

5.3

5.3

25.1

25.2

21.8

21.9

22.1

22.2

7.5

7.5

14.9

15.0

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 3.0
8.3
33.5
55.4
77.6
85.1
100.0 983
4 987

1

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

None Very Little Some Substantial All
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency
10 99 285 480 111

Percent 1.0

Valid Percent
1.0

10.0

10.1

28.9

28.9

48.6

48.7

11.2

11.3

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 1.0
11.1
40.0
88.7
100.0 985
2 987

Frequency
16 164 632 172

Percent 1.6

Valid Percent
1.6

16.6

16.7

64.0

64.2

17.4

17.5

Total answered question Skipped question

Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 1.6
18.3
82.5
100.0 984
3 987

2

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency
41 242 582 118

Percent 4.2

Valid Percent
4.2

24.5

24.6

59.0

59.2

12.0

12.0

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 4.2
28.8
88.0
100.0 983
4 987

Frequency
20 118 614 206

Percent 2.0

Valid Percent
2.1

12.0

12.3

62.2

64.1

20.9

21.5

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 2.1
14.4
78.5
100.0 958 29 987

3

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Generally, how did you access curriculum exemplars over the last two school years?

Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)

Frequency 70

Percent 7.1

Valid Percent
8.9

District or GaDOE website

421

42.7

53.4

Cumulative Percent 8.9
62.2

Google or other internet search engine

92

9.3

11.7

73.9

At my school or shared by a colleague

206

20.9

26.1

100.0

Total answered question

789

Skipped question

198

Total respondents

987

Accessing this material was convenient [via] online data sharing tools (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.).

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Strongly Disagree

3

4.3

4.5

4.5

Disagree

10

14.3

15.2

19.7

Agree

38

54.3

57.6

77.3

Strongly Agree

15

21.4

22.7

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Accessing this material was convenient [via] district or GaDOE website.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 20

Percent 4.8

Valid Percent
4.9

Disagree

68

16.2

16.7

Agree

257

61.0

63.3

Strongly Agree

61

14.5

15.0

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

100.0 66 4 70
Cumulative Percent 4.9 21.7 85.0 100.0 406 15 421

4

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Curriculum exemplars continued

Accessing this material was convenient [via] Google or other internet search engine.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 12

Percent 13.0

Valid Percent
13.3

Cumulative Percent
13.3

Disagree

30

32.6

33.3

46.7

Agree

42

45.7

46.7

93.3

Strongly Agree

6

6.5

6.7

100.0

Total answered question

90

Skipped question

2

Total respondents

92

Accessing this material was convenient [via] at my school or shared by a colleague.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 7

Percent 3.4

Valid Percent
3.6

Cumulative Percent
3.6

Disagree

32

15.5

16.4

20.0

Agree

128

62.1

65.6

85.6

Strongly Agree

28

13.6

14.4

100.0

Total answered question

195

Skipped question

11

Total respondents

206

Generally, how did you access teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks over the last two school years?

Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)

Frequency 47

Percent 4.8

Valid Percent
5.3

Cumulative Percent
5.3

District or GaDOE website

611

61.9

69.3

74.6

Google or other internet search engine

32

3.2

3.6

78.2

At my school or shared by a colleague

192

19.5

21.8

100.0

Total answered question

882

Skipped question

105

Total respondents

987

5

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, and unit frameworks continued

Accessing this material was convenient [via] online data sharing tools (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.).

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 4

Percent 8.5

Valid Percent
8.9

Cumulative Percent
8.9

Disagree

5

10.6

11.1

20.0

Agree

23

48.9

51.1

71.1

Strongly Agree

13

27.7

28.9

100.0

Total answered question

45

Skipped question

2

Total respondents

47

Accessing this material was convenient [via] district or GaDOE website.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 21

Percent 3.4

Valid Percent
3.6

Cumulative Percent
3.6

Disagree

86

14.1

14.7

18.3

Agree

370

60.6

63.2

81.5

Strongly Agree

108

17.7

18.5

100.0

Total answered question

585

Skipped question

26

Total respondents

611

Accessing this material was convenient [via] Google or other internet search engine.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 5

Percent 15.6

Valid Percent
16.7

Cumulative Percent
16.7

Disagree

10

31.3

33.3

50.0

Agree

12

37.5

40.0

90.0

Strongly Agree

3

9.4

10.0

100.0

Total answered question

30

Skipped question

2

Total respondents

32

6

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, and unit frameworks continued

Accessing this material was convenient [via] at my school or shared by a colleague.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 6

Percent 3.1

Valid Percent
3.3

Disagree

18

9.4

9.9

Agree

112

58.3

61.9

Strongly Agree

45

23.4

24.9

Total answered question

Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 3.3
13.3
75.1
100.0 181 11 192

Generally, how did you access assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.) over the last two school years?

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)

72

7.3

8.8

8.8

District or GaDOE website

317

32.1

38.9

47.8

Google or other internet search engine

108

10.9

13.3

61.1

At my school or shared by a colleague

317

32.1

38.9

100.0

Total answered question

814

Skipped question

173

Total respondents

987

Accessing this material was convenient [via] online data sharing tools (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.).

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 6

Percent 8.3

Valid Percent
8.7

Cumulative Percent
8.7

Disagree

7

9.7

10.1

18.8

Agree

40

55.6

58.0

76.8

Strongly Agree

16

22.2

23.2

100.0

Total answered question

69

Skipped question

3

Total respondents

72

7

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.)

Accessing this material was convenient [via] district or GaDOE website.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 17

Percent 5.4

Valid Percent
5.7

Disagree

58

18.3

19.4

Agree

174

54.9

58.2

Strongly Agree

50

15.8

16.7

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Accessing this material was convenient [via] Google or other internet search engine.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 19

Percent 17.6

Valid Percent
17.9

Disagree

37

34.3

34.9

Agree

44

40.7

41.5

Strongly Agree

6

5.6

5.7

Total answered question Skipped question

Total respondents

Accessing this material was convenient [via] at my school or shared by a colleague.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 17

Percent 5.4

Valid Percent
5.7

Disagree

48

15.1

16.1

Agree

191

60.3

63.9

Strongly Agree

43

13.6

14.4

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 5.7 25.1 83.3 100.0 299 18 317
Cumulative Percent 17.9 52.8 94.3 100.0 106 2 108
Cumulative Percent 5.7 21.7 85.6 100.0 299 18 317

8

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Generally, how did you access digital lessons and activities over the last two school years?

Online data sharing tool (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.)
District or GaDOE website

Frequency 89 184

Percent 9.0 18.6

Valid Percent
12.3
25.5

Cumulative Percent 12.3
37.8

Google or other internet search engine

301

30.5

41.7

79.5

At my school or shared by a colleague

148

15.0

20.5

100.0

Total answered question

722

Skipped question

265

Total respondents

987

Accessing this material was convenient [via] online data sharing tools (e.g., Dropbox, Wiki, etc.).

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 2

Percent 2.2

Valid Percent
2.4

Cumulative Percent
2.4

Disagree

14

15.7

16.7

19.0

Agree

45

50.6

53.6

72.6

Strongly Agree

23

25.8

27.4

100.0

Total answered question

84

Skipped question

5

Total respondents

89

Accessing this material was convenient [via] district or GaDOE website.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 7

Percent 3.8

Valid Percent
4.1

Cumulative Percent
4.1

Disagree

32

17.4

18.9

23.1

Agree

104

56.5

61.5

84.6

Strongly Agree

26

14.1

15.4

100.0

Total answered question

169

Skipped question

15

Total respondents

184

9

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Digital lessons and activities

Accessing this material was convenient [via] Google or other internet search engine.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 22

Percent 7.3

Valid Percent
7.6

Cumulative Percent
7.6

Disagree

69

22.9

23.7

31.3

Agree

173

57.5

59.5

90.7

Strongly Agree

27

9.0

9.3

100.0

Total answered question

291

Skipped question

10

Total respondents

301

Accessing this material was convenient [via] at my school or shared by a colleague.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 3

Percent 2.0

Valid Percent
2.2

Cumulative Percent
2.2

Disagree

23

15.5

16.8

19.0

Agree

97

65.5

70.8

89.8

Strongly Agree

14

9.5

10.2

100.0

Total answered question

137

Skipped question

11

Total respondents

148

10

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Curriculum exemplars

Never

Frequency 61

Percent 6.2

Valid Percent
7.1

Cumulative Percent
7.1

Rarely

106

10.7

12.3

19.4

Sometimes

321

32.5

37.3

56.7

Very Often

271

27.5

31.5

88.3

Always

101

10.2

11.7

100.0

Total answered question

860

Skipped question

127

Total respondents

987

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks

Never

Frequency 8

Percent .8

Valid Percent
.9

Cumulative Percent
.9

Rarely

33

3.3

3.7

4.6

Sometimes

139

14.1

15.5

20.0

Very Often

375

38.0

41.8

61.8

Always

343

34.8

38.2

100.0

Total answered question

898

Skipped question

89

Total respondents

987

Assessment tools (e.g. sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.)

Never

Frequency 38

Percent 3.9

Valid Percent
4.3

Cumulative Percent
4.3

Rarely

65

6.6

7.4

11.7

Sometimes

260

26.3

29.6

41.4

Very Often

331

33.5

37.7

79.1

Always

183

18.5

20.9

100.0

Total answered question

877

Skipped question

110

Total respondents

987

11

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Question 8 continued

Digital lessons and activities
Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always

Frequency
73 91 261 293 117

Percent 7.4

Valid Percent
8.7

9.2

10.9

26.4

31.3

29.7

35.1

11.9

14.0

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 8.7
19.6
50.9
86.0
100.0 835 152 987

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency
13 74 589 230

Percent 1.3

Valid Percent
1.4

7.5

8.2

59.7

65.0

23.3

25.4

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 1.4
9.6
74.6
100.0 906 81 987

12

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Frequency
22 150 566 170

Percent 2.2

Valid Percent
2.4

15.2

16.5

57.3

62.3

17.2

18.7

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 2.4
18.9
81.3
100.0 908 79 987

Incorporating new curricular materials and instructional strategies in my teaching. Asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently. Structuring opportunities for students to develop and solve their own problems.
Increasing my use of out-of-state teaching resources.

Frequency 807 817 692 343

Diversifying the ways I assess student learning and providing feedback.

662

Increasing my collaboration with colleagues within my school and in other schools.

735

Common Core practices are highlighted

Percent 81.8 82.8 70.1 34.8 67.1 74.5

13

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Yes, I teach ELA No, I do not teach ELA

Frequency 688 21.8

Percent 69.7

Valid Percent
75.9

22.1

24.1

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 75.9
100.0 906 81 987

Building students' knowledge through content-rich non-fiction
Providing students reading and writing experiences grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational Strengthening students' understanding of narrative text by making meaningful connections to their personal experiences
Providing students different levels of text based on their reading abilities.
Providing regular opportunities for students to practice with complex grade-level text and its academic language
Central shifts are highlighted

Frequency 551 583 447 431 487

Percent 80.1 84.7 65.0 62.6 70.8

14

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12- AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY

13)

12-13)

Not a teacher Never
A few times a year
Once or twice a year
Once or twice a week
Almost daily I don't know
Never A few times a
year Once or twice
a year Once or twice
a week Almost daily I don't know

Monitoring their reading by slowing down, rereading certain sentences, and using context clues to determine the meaning of what they are reading Comparing and contrasting, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, judging, and defending ideas they encounter in their informational reading and presentations
Writing quality first drafts under time constraints (e.g., a class period or two)

1.0 .8 5.4 7.3 21.3 60.5 3.7 .3 2.0 5.9 15.3 72.8 3.6 (6) (5) (34) (46) (134) (380) (23) (2) (13) (38) (98) (465) (23)
.8 2.1 10.9 19.6 34.1 29.7 3.0 .3 2.6 10.0 34.5 51.8 .8 (5) (13) (69) (124) (216) (188) (19) (2) (16) (62) (215) (323) (5)
.9 6.2 22.1 28.4 27.5 12.0 2.8 4.6 10.6 27.4 37.8 18.1 1.4 (6) (39) (140) (180) (174) (76) (18) (29) (66) (171) (236) (113) (9)

Acquiring knowledge of vocabulary by encountering words in context more than once.

.9 .3 4.1 12.0 38.4 41.3 2.8 .2 1.3 7.7 30.4 58.7 1.8 (6) (2) (26) (76) (243) (261) (18) (1) (8) (48) (190) (366) (11)

Reading increasingly complex texts with increasing 1.0 1.9 10.8 21.3 29.8 32.1 3.2 .3 4.8 11.6 32.8 49.2 1.3

independence

(6) (12) (68) (134) (188) (202) (20) (2) (30) (72) (204) (306) (8)

Drawing evidence from texts to support written responses

.8 5.4 13.2 25.9 30.6 21.0 3.2 1.1 3.5 14.6 39.1 40.2 1.4 (5) (34) (83) (163) (193) (132) (20) (7) (22) (91) (243) (250) (9)

15

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Yes, I teach mathematics. No, I do not teach mathematics.

Frequency 670 198

Percent 67.9

Valid Percent
77.2

20.1

22.8

Total answered question Skipped question Total respondents

Cumulative Percent 77.2
100.0 868 119 987

Frequency

Focusing deeply on the concepts emphasized in the

standards to help students build strong foundations for

550

learning.

Creating coherent progressions within the standards

from grade to grade so student knowledge and skills

520

build onto previous learning.

Introducing multiplication and division earlier in

students' learning as foundations for math concepts

255

taught in later years.

Developing students' conceptual understanding,

procedural fluency, and their ability to apply math in

563

context.

Teaching each math topic as an independent, new

concept that is distinct from topics taught earlier or

188

later.

Central shifts are highlighted

Percent 82.1 77.6 38.1 84.0 28.1

16

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12- AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY

13)

12-13)

Not a teacher Never
A few times a year
Once or twice a year
Once or twice a week
Almost daily I don't know
Never A few times a
year Once or twice
a year Once or twice
a week Almost daily I don't know

Problem-solving that goes beyond story or word 2.2 5.2 15.8 24.3 32.9 16.0 3.6 1.3 6.2 13.4 34.6 41.9 2.6

problems

(14) (33) (100) (154) (208) (101) (23) (8) (39) (84) (216) (262) (16)

Effectively struggling with problems to deepen their understanding

2.2 4.0 13.7 24.4 30.5 21.2 3.8 .6 4.2 11.2 36.5 44.6 2.9 (14) (25) (86) (153) (191) (133) (24) (4) (26) (69) (225) (275) (18)

Using various approaches and drawing on any knowledge they have to justify their ideas when solving problems

2.2 3.0 8.8 18.6 29.9 33.9 3.5 .5 2.9 7.6 27.3 59.7 2.1 (14) (19) (55) (117) (188) (213) (22) (3) (18) (47) (169) (370) (13)

Using real data and current events to create their 2.4 .9 25.9 29.2 23.3 14.4 3.8 4.2 12.2 24.0 30.5 26.5 2.6

own problems and solutions

(14) (5) (149) (168) (134) (83) (22) (26) (75) (148) (188) (163) (16)

Using tables, graphs, words, symbols and pictures to determine which representations of data are best in certain circumstances

2.2 2.5 15.4 27.6 30.6 18.9 2.7 2.3 6.8 21.1 36.7 31.6 1.6 (14) (16) (97) (174) (193) (119) (17) (14) (42) (131) (228) (196) (10)

Offering speculations and assumptions regarding 2.2 7.6 15.7 23.2 28.3 17.0 5.9 3.1 5.2 14.6 33.5 39.9 3.7

open-ended questions

(14) (48) (99) (146) (178) (107) (37) (19) (32) (90) (207) (246) (23)

17

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results

Resources to address the needs of special education students Resources to address the needs of economically disadvantaged students Resources to address the needs of gifted and talented students Resources to address the needs of general education students Resources to address the needs of students with behavioral issues Resources to address the needs of English Language Learners (ELL) Curricula and learning tools aligned to the CCGPS in English and mathematics Resources to aid in implementing the CGGPS literacy standards in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Formative assessments that measure how well students are learning the standards Sample questions aligned with new state standardized assessments (i.e., PARCC) Professional development focused on changes to my instructional practice based on CCGPS instructional shifts Student-centered technology and resources to help students best learn the new standards
Parent guides and resources
I am effectively teaching to the new standards and I don't need additional resources
Other (please specify)
Comments below
Comments
More specific webinars on how to teach the standards

Frequency 494 452 481 512 419 317 567
370
617 677
386 604 417 22 75

Percent 50.1 45.8 48.7 51.9 42.5 32.1 57.4
37.5
62.5 68.6
39.1 61.2 42.2 2.2 7.6

A textbook!!!

Fewer standards, because not enough time to implement all of them for student mastery. Less is more.

Our IDMS system to access standards is terribly user-unfriendly. I have wasted so much time trying to find what I need. Thank God I have learned to download to my flash drive once I miraculously find the info I need.
18

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results
Sample questions for benchmarks and SLOS I always feel that human resources are the greatest asset. A lower student/ teacher ratio always enriches the learning. Pre-kindergarten should follow CCGPS implementation. GOOD units- the state units are not effective Items we can use immediately in the classroom. Peer reviewed textbooks written for CCGPS More Computers/Internet access Promethean Board Textbooks, textbooks, textbooks Teacher samples and answer keys with explanations for the teacher to teach herself how to switch from traditional math to cc models Math manipulatives Supplies to complete the given performance tasks for students Math books aligned with the standards. It is very expensive trying to print out Framework material on a daily basis. Also, parents don't refer to the website at home -- they need something concrete to see when helping their children with homework. Uninterrupted task planning/prep time greater than 45 minutes on most days of the week SmartBoard in the classroom Concrete examples of expectations -found in one place-with a time frame to implement-with resources that are usable Teachers guides ELA and Mathematics TEXTBOOKS!!!! Better formative assessments with rubrics that make sense. SLO's that don't have errors in them. Resources for Kindergarten--Teacher friendly website Better understanding of the ELA expectations through the tasks that are hard to understand and difficult to follow. Math and ELA tasks DID NOT prepare students for CRCT this year. There are many things (especially in math) that we have never taught at our grade level. Although we were given units, they did not teach all the required standards. As first grade teachers we felt like fish
19

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results
out of water trying to find resources and materials to teach the new standards. Please help us! Although textbooks seem to be frowned upon, we need more guidance on how to teach equations to first graders! Textbooks!!! Support for lowering functioning Autistic Students Well-written units that connect to assessment Resources that provide examples of activities that increase rigor Notebook with Paper copies of CCCGPS Units, Assessments, and Frameworks Text book resources Resources that correctly correlate to the CCGPS Smaller classrooms; more planning time, more autonomy Textbooks aligned to the standards. TIME Electronic assessment tools such as webcams or document cams Programs to lower pupil -teacher ratio with small children. Until this problem is addressed students will continue to struggle. Too many children are being taught by one teacher...To differentiate well there needs to be more manpower. Resources that address the issue of multiculturalism Resources for ELL parents Administrative support for calculators in every classroom Resources need to be of high quality. Many resources that are somewhat aligned are still not useful (i.e., practice exercises not mixed, etc.) I don't need more resources or courses. I need help in the classroom and support from administrators when behavior issues stand in the way of other students' learning. These "new" standards are nothing new to most of us. As a matter of fact, the core seems vague and often is a step backward for my school. Text books that align with the standards More solid ELA frameworks, tasks, assessments Adopted Textbook to teach the Common Core Curriculum
20

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results
Units were created throughout our district and for both ELA and Math books were selected to correspond with the units. We did not have access to any of the materials that were incorporated in the units. Resources to address students (and whole classes!) in need of severe remediation Better units with books that are still in print!!!! More assistance for students...smaller classes!!!! Textbooks for reference and self study Smart Board More resources for the Math frameworks Practice books that can enhance mastery of the standards especially for homework. More resources for language arts skills (nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, proper nouns, etc.) Access to Curriculum Exemplars for each unit or standard Manipulatives Better clarification on the standards More than just school-based monitoring of implementation (outside professionals must monitor too) Much better training Textbooks and teacher's guides Books, workbooks, RESOURCES that we might be able to pull information from to teach these new standards!! Differentiated resources that give students more than one or two opportunities to practice skills being taught for the week. Time to plan an evaluate Hands-on manipulatives would greatly enhance the curriculum Better explanation and clarification for each individual standard Coach crosswalk books...or other coach books like when GPS was implemented More OAS items; capability of adding problems to OAS TEXTBOOKS
21

Appendix A: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 Administration Results State Aligned Benchmark tests CCGPS was very difficult to use with students who have significant cognitive impairments. Even with accommodations and modifications it seemed to be an extraordinary waste of their time and the teachers' time. A more functional and life skills oriented curriculum would be more beneficial and help the students acquire skills that are useful for a lifetime. Collecting and using formative data to drive instruction...how to effectively remediate while sustaining appropriate pacing. The question that often arises is how long to re-teach before moving forward. CCGPS resources for Alternative Assessment Smart files Checklists to see how well we are covering the standards, suggestions for informal one-on-one assessments Please see Appendix X & X for: Q19: Please share the biggest success that you have had with implementing CCGPS this school year. Q20: Please share the biggest challenge that you have had with implementing CCGPS this school year.
22

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

NCES Code(s):i

City, Large - Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more.
City, Midsize - Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
City, Small - Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000.

Atlanta Heights Charter School

Liberty County

Atlanta Public Schools

Marietta City

Bibb County Public Schools

Muscogee County

Chatham County

Northwest Georgia RESA

Clarke County

Peachtree Hope Charter School

Dalton City

Richmond County

Dougherty County

Rome City

Gainesville City

Valdosta City

Houston County Highlighted districts were not represented in the survey respondents

District Name Atlanta Public Schools Bibb County Public Schools
Chatham County Clarke County School District
Dalton City School District Dougherty County School System
Gainesville City School District Houston County Schools
Liberty County School District Marietta City School District Muscogee County School District Richmond County School System Valdosta City School District

Total

Number of Respondents 27 11 23 9 6 16 2 33 5 11 11 14 4 172

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

NCES Code(s):

Rural, Fringe - Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster.
Rural, Distant- Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Rural, Remote Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Atkinson County School District Fayette County School System Oconee County School District

Bacon County School District Baker County School District Baldwin County School District

Floyd County School District Franklin County School District Gilmer County School District

Odyssey School
Oglethorpe County School District
Pataula Charter Academy

Banks County School District Glascock County School District Paulding County School District

Barrow County Schools

Glynn County School District

Peach County School District

Bartow County School District Gordon County School District Pickens County School District

Ben Hill County School District Berrien County School District Bleckley County School District

Greene County School District
Habersham County School District
Hall County School District

Pierce County School District Pike County School District Putnam County School District

Brantley County School District Hancock County School District Rabun County School District

Bremen City School District

Haralson County School District Schley County School District

Brooks County School District

Harris County School District Screven County School District

Burke County School District

Heard County School District Seminole County School District

Butts County School District

Henry County School District Social Circle City School District

Calhoun County School District

Irwin County School District

Spalding County School District

Camden County School District Jackson County School District Stephens County School District

Candler County School District Jasper County School District Stewart County School District

Carroll County School District

Jefferson City School District

Sumter County School District

Central Savannah River RESA Jefferson County School District Talbot County School District

Charlton County School District
Chattahoochee County School District

Jenkins County School District Johnson County School District

Taliaferro County School District Tattnall County School District

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

GOSA code: rural continued

Chattooga County School District Jones County School District

Taylor County School District

Clay County School District Clinch County School District Coffee County School District

Lanier County School District Laurens County School District
Lee County School District

Thomas County School District
Thomaston-Upson County School District
Towns County School District

Columbia County School System Lincoln County School District Treutlen County School District

Cook County School District

Long County School District

Twiggs County School District

Coweta Charter Academy

Lowndes County School District Union County School District

Coweta County School System Madison County School District Walker County School District

Crawford County School District Marion County School District Walton County School District

Crisp County School District McDuffie County School District Warren County School District

Dawson County School District Dodge County School District Dooly County School District

McIntosh County School District
Meriwether County School District
Miller County School District

Wayne County School District Webster County School District Wheeler County School District

Echols County School District Mitchell County School District White County School District

Effingham County School District Monroe County School District Whitfield County School District

Emanuel County School District

Montgomery County School District

Wilcox County School District

Evans County School District

Morgan County School District

Wilkes County School District

Fannin County School District

Mountain Education Center School

Wilkinson County School District

Highlighted districts were not represented in the survey respondents

District Name
Atkinson County School District Baldwin County School District Banks County School District
Barrow County Schools Bartow County School District Ben Hill County School District Berrien County School District Brantley County School District Brooks County School District

Number of Respondents
2 1 2 10 7 4 1 1 2

District Name
Jenkins County School District Johnson County School District
Jones County School District Laurens County School District Lincoln County School District Lowndes County School District Madison County School District Marion County School District McDuffie County School District

Number of Respondents
1 1 3 8 1 13 6 1 5

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

Respondents in "rural" districts continued

Burke County School District Butts County School District Camden County School District Candler County School District
Carroll County School District
Central Savannah River RESA Chattahoochee County School
District Clinch County School District Coffee County School District Columbia County School System Cook County School District Coweta County School System Crisp County School District Dodge County School District Dooly County School District Effingham County School District Emanuel County School District Evans County School District Fayette County School System Floyd County School District Franklin County School District Gilmer County School District Glynn County School District Gordon County School District Greene County School District
Habersham County School District
Hall County School District Haralson County School District
Harris County School District Heard County School District Henry County School District Irwin County School District Jackson County School District Jefferson City School District Jefferson County School District

1

McIntosh County School District

2

1

Meriwether County School District

2

2

Mitchell County School District

2

2

Monroe County School District

3

9

Montgomery County School District

1

1

Morgan County School District

1

1

Mountain Education Center School

1

2

Odyssey School

4

8

Oglethorpe County School District

5

11

Paulding County School District

9

1

Peach County School District

1

20

Pickens County School District

3

4

Pike County School District

3

3

Putnam County School District

3

1

Rabun County School District

2

1

Schley County School District

2

2

Screven County School District

1

1

Seminole County School District

2

10

Social Circle City School District

2

8

Spalding County School District

5

3

Stephens County School District

4

2

Sumter County School District

3

5

Talbot County School District

1

3

Taylor County School District

1

1

Thomas County School District

3

4

Thomaston-Upson County School District

1

13

Treutlen County School District

1

1

Twiggs County School District

1

3

Union County School District

1

2

Walker County School District

16

26

Walton County School District

11

1

Wayne County School District

1

4

White County School District

4

1

Whitfield County School District

2

1

Wilkinson County School District

3

Total

335

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

NCES Code(s):

Suburb, Large - Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more.
Suburb, Midsize - Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
Suburb, Small - Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000.

Buford City School District

Forsyth County Schools

Catoosa County School District

Fulton County School System

Cherokee County School District

Fulton Leadership Academy

Chickamauga City School District

Gwinnett County Public Schools

Clayton County Public Schools

Ivy Prep Academy

Cobb County Public Schools

Museum School Avondale Estates

Decatur City School District

Newton County School District

DeKalb County School System

Rockdale County School District

Douglas County School District

Scholars Academy Charter School

Highlighted districts were not represented in the survey respondents

District Name Buford City School District Catoosa County School District Cherokee County School District Clayton County Public Schools Cobb County Public Schools Decatur City School District DeKalb County School System Douglas County School District
Forsyth County Schools Fulton County School System Gwinnett County Public Schools Newton County School District Rockdale County School District Scholars Academy Charter School

Total

Number of Respondents 2 2 35 26 55 2 59 8 25 31
123 12 17 1 398

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

NCES Code(s):

Town, Fringe - Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area.
Town, Distant - Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area.
Town, Remote- Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles of an urbanized area.

Appling County School District

Macon County School District

Bryan County School District

Murray County School District

Bulloch County School District

Pelham City School District

Calhoun City School District

Polk County School District

Carrollton City School District

Pulaski County School District

Cartersville City School District

Quitman County School District

CCAT

Randolph County School District

Colquitt County School District

Telfair County School District

Commerce City School District

Terrell County School District

Dade County School District

Thomasville City School District

Decatur County School District

Tift County School District

Dublin City School District

Toombs County School District

Early County School District

Trion City School District

Elbert County School District

Troup County School District

Grady County School District

Turner County School District

Hart County School District

Vidalia City School District

Jeff Davis County School District

Ware County School District

Lamar County School District

Washington County School District

Lumpkin County School District

Worth County School District

Highlighted districts were not represented in the survey respondents

District Name Appling County School District Bulloch County School District Carrollton City School District Cartersville City School District

Number of Respondents 6 6 6 3

Appendix B: Georgia School Districts by Locale Type

Number of "town" respondents continued
Colquitt County School District Dade County School District
Decatur County School District Dublin City School District
Elbert County School District Grady County School District Jeff Davis County School District Lamar County School District Lumpkin County School District Murray County School District Pelham City School District Polk County School District Randolph County School District Telfair County School District Thomasville City School District
Tift County School District Toombs County School District Troup County School District Turner County School District
Vidalia City School District Ware County School District Washington County School District Worth County School District

4

1

2

3

1

6

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

6

1

9

3

2

4

1

2

Total

80

Cherokee Charter Academy

1

Georgia Connections Academy

1

i http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
APPENDIX C: Please share the biggest success that you have had with implementing CCGPS this school year.
Total number of respondents to provide a success
523
Responses by Locale
Town Suburb Rural City N/A
1

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year

Responses by Content-area

48%
Math

ELA

Both

Percent of respondents

who provided both a

success and challenge

Responses by Years of Experience

6
Number of respondents who only provided a success

1 year 2-3 years 4-9 years 10-14 years 15-20 years 21-24 years 25+ years No answer given

2

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year

Bar graph of successes by category

158 160

140

120

105

100

80

63

60

43

40

31

32

20

20 11

20

14

19 8

0

3

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Successes organized by category
Changes in student ability The students have shown great growth with the new rigor. My students [are] learning to think outside the box. Independent learning has increased. Students more active learners............ My biggest success has been in ELA. My students have a much deeper understanding of text. My students have made tremendous improvement with written responses to open ended questions throughout the year. Students are becoming more efficient in selecting ways to model solutions to word problems in math. Students have been able to explain concepts rather than provide an answer. They are able to effectively explain through writing and words the process and answer "why". Students have begun using the "new" terminology attached to the CCGPS. The students have become more independent and aware of their learning. My students are better writers and better at supporting their thoughts with evidence. Students are learning to expand their thoughts and express themselves better in writing. I have more students using more strategies to solve math word problems than before. In reading, more of my students have been reading nonfiction books than my classes in the past. Students conducted a research project, and the end result was a website they constructed in groups. Watching my students' writing improve using varied sentence structure, transitions, and evidence to support their ideas. Students have learned to provide evidence of learning by citing references using various genres of text. My students have a better grasp of real world math problems, and how to solve them. Students are more able to express how they understand math and how they solve problems. I have seen growth in students' conceptual learning. Students have made significant gains in all areas of reading and writing.
4

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Increased student ownership of learning. Students understand concepts better through authentic assessment. The students have done well with close reading and analysis of complex non-fiction texts. The children's language abilities to explain their learning as well as the abilities they have shown with the rigor they were expected to achieve. My students have become better writers. Though it has been a struggle, my students have practiced writing much more frequently and have improved more as writers. My students are taking a more active role in learning. Students are thinking independently and asking more complex questions. Students being able to inference in mathematics and not just work problems. Students have acquired a stronger number sense in Math. They use much higher order thinking strategies during Reading. The students are making connections across all concepts taught and they are seeing the connections without me having to point them out. They are also comfortable using multiple strategies to solve mathematical situations. I believe that CCGPS provides opportunities for ELLs to increase their talk time about a subject and thus expands their academic vocabulary. I can see the students opening up and taking risks. They are taking more responsibility in their learning. Reading literature and writing (citing from the literature and comparing literature). My biggest success was getting the students to think outside the box. Students being active learners and feeling successful. For 3rd graders, success motivates their desire to learn more. They were able to cite their work better. The students are progressing in their writing SO much faster than before. Their quality of work has also improved. The biggest success I have experienced is seeing students use textual evidence to justify their answers.
5

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Having students be more successful with working multi-step problems, in a real-world context. My ELL students are beginning to be able to use those higher order thinking and reasoning skills, even though there is still quite a language barrier. My students are excited about math and can use the math vocabulary taught in class. My students have grown significantly in their ability to solve problems. They work individually and with their peers to solve a problem before coming to me for help. My kindergarten students are writing much more successfully. Depth of questioning has improved and seeing the kids respond to various levels is motivating as an educator. The students significantly improved their critical thinking skills, reading and math skills. Finding evidence in the text to answer questions. Students had become better at answering open-ended questions and have become more independent thinkers. Students are taking their time to read more complex texts and are underlining, highlighting, and paying closer attention to the overall meaning of the text. As a result, they are becoming better equipped to answer questions about the information with increased confidence. I have more students wanting to read more complex texts. They are referring to previous texts more when discussing and sharing connections. Students are beginning to think critically. Students are using evidence to prove or disprove solutions. Students are having literature and mathematical arguments. Students exhibit more confidence in their mathematical abilities. :) Students are getting more comfortable with constructive responses as oppose to multiple choice questions. Students are exploring different ways to come up with the correct answer. Confidence is soaring! Students have a greater understanding in regards to math concepts (i.e. why the algorithms work). Students having the ability to utilize more nonfictional text to respond their open-ended constructive questioning.
6

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest success that I had this year was that students gained a deeper understanding of concepts that were taught and were able to transfer information learned from one subject to another.
Students are better able to seamlessly relate one concept to another when problem solving.
I am very proud of how comfortable my students have become [with] "thinking outside the box" and willingly share their ideas with each other as they work on various tasks.
Intermediate to advanced level readers in Reader's Workshop have really taken off.
The students' ability to think outside the box and apply what they are learning in the classroom to everyday activities.
I have truly felt that the students have been able to go deeper which in turn has caused them to master the concepts rather than learning them and forgetting them after the test.
Students have had a better grasp of multiplication because it was introduced earlier in the year.
It has been very rewarding to see some of the students problem-solving independently or with a group more often than before.
My students have a much deeper understanding of mathematical concepts and are beginning to understand that not everyone thinks the same way; therefore, they are highly encouraged to solve problems the way they know how. Seeing 9th graders gradually become more and more successful writing functions that model real-world scenarios.
Students making the connection between what we are teaching and how it can affect the type of success they have after their school years.
I'm amazed at how well my students have tackled the higher level questioning. In addition, they have done very well citing evidence from the text to support their answers.
Having students to write stories successfully.
Students being able to explain how and why they know.
I have seen a growth in reading nonfiction texts with my kids. I have also seen a growth of interest in nonfiction texts.
Students have improved their ability to state an opinion and support their opinion with evidence.
Students took well to the CCGPS model used this year. Saw lots of growth overall.
7

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Seeing the growth in student's writing has been the biggest success. Of course, this is the first year we have kept our students the entire school year. Past years, we received new students at the semester change in January.
Seeing my students thinking deeper and seeing how well they adapt to the new standards.
Much deeper thinking in math and much success with problem-solving.
Over time, all students have improved their independent reading skills and close analysis reading skills.
Students had a better understanding of number sense through the use of a number line more than rules.
Students are beginning to take more risks.
I noticed that my children did better in Math when I introduced multiplication facts at the beginning of the year (From day 1).
I believe the students are more engaged and have a much greater sense of accomplishment when they realize they have achieved mastery!
Students are talking and journaling math and persevering through difficult multi-step problems.
I can see a lot of growth in my students' success implementing the CCGPS in all subjects.
The depth of understanding of addition and subtraction and when/how/why to use it.
The biggest success would be in the area of mathematics. I really think that students were able to explain their thinking and strategies used to solve problems. It was nice to hear how they thought about problems and arrived at answers using a variety of strategies. Critical thinking skills were also enhanced.
Increasing students' ability to explain (in writing) mathematical solutions from multiple strategies.
When the students answer with confidence because they have evidence to support their thinking, I know instruction has been successful!
By concentrating on increased rigor, some students (although they have done it kicking and screaming) have risen to the occasion.
Deeper understandings in mathematics for my students
I feel very confident with my students understanding of math. I was so pleased with their overall ability to "think" mathematically, particularly in the areas of addition and subtraction.
One huge gain for students was the value of communicating about text and math problems.
8

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
The math has been extremely successful for my students with special needs especially with ten frame grid.
Students are thinking critically and are more engaged in their learning.
My students began to understand the important details of the word problems that we practiced in class. This helped them solve the problems effectively.
Student engagement has been high with one particular novel we've been reading.
Students are able to explain how they formulated an answer by using words/pictures.
The students are learning more.
My Special Education students have tried to understand the concepts being taught in the CCGPS.
My students are better readers this year. They are better problem solvers in math because they've had to struggle thru many problems.
Students being able to give in depth answers. Giving how or why.
Students have learned to think critically about the mathematics involved in CCGPS and to make connections that eliminate many of the misconceptions that they have about mathematics.
I teach kindergarten and the students really had a great understanding of number concepts this year. Their mathematical fluency is much better!
I feel that the students are challenged with their work. They are learning to support answers with evidence and defend their beliefs.
My students have developed better and quicker reasoning skills. They are having to explain their answers, which provides evidence of learning. In addition, they are learning a variety of ways to solve problems and to use which works best for them. Better thinkers for those undiscovered jobs of the future!
I have witnessed a couple of students grow and get beyond the level I thought they would go.
My biggest success has been in the area of Math. My students can now explain their thinking when solving problems which allows me to clearly assess their knowledge and understanding of the standard being taught.
The biggest success that I've had with implementing common core was seeing my students construct knowledge and applying it to various situations across the curriculum.
Seeing students learn basics like reading charts and following directions
9

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
My ELL students have met with tremendous gains. I have also send struggling students go from being resistant to learning to becoming more involved in the learning process. They are willing to take risks in the classroom.
My students are learning to use higher order thinking skills regularly.
One "biggie" has been for students to consistently cite the text with evidence to support their opinions.
The students have embraced the written responses to literature and developed strong writing skills.
The students are sharing their learning, ideas, and strategies which have turned into great teachable moments. They are more able to explain their learning and knowledge.
I was surprised that my students could read and understand the higher level reading texts.
The biggest success would be students realizing that there is no one finite way to calculate, solve, or answer algorithms, word problems, etc.
Students reading better.
The biggest success I had with implementing CCGPS this year was with the students building their conceptual understanding behind the solving of the problems. Instead of just solve the problem and finding the answer, they were able to identify each step of the problem, how and why the completed each step, and the knowledge/understanding being the complexity of the problem.
Seeing students work independently to complete performance tasks in math and being successful with it!
My students enjoy reading text at a higher level of complexity. They have learned how to compare and contrast various elements within different forms of literature. The biggest success is my students' improvement with answering text dependent questions. They are able to cite evidence from the text to construct and support their written responses. They are often able to extend their responses by making text- to-self and text-to-text connections across content areas.
Students are thinking more effectively and deeply as they solve real world problems.
Seeing students who are able to find answers to questions in the text.
Math and the way the children are thinking and solving math problems.
Watching the students really think about their reading and understanding how it relates to many other areas. They really learned to analyze their reading of new materials.
Watching students struggle over problems, but finally make connections.
10

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I've noticed a lot of the children that I teach have higher thinking skills. I've noticed that some of the children are able to think more critically.
Developing deeper and richer thinkers, problem solvers, and independent learners.
Student's willingness to accept new ways of achieving.
Students were able to unpack the standards and use grade appropriate vocabulary.
I saw my student's reading comprehension improve tremendously using the CCGPS in regards to questioning, vocabulary, & writing.
My students' thinking skills have improved.
Students have better number sense than ever before.
Students are beginning to write more.
Student reading levels have increased significantly and students are more willing to read outside of the classroom.
My first graders are reading both fiction and nonfiction on the same reading level, thus eliminating the gap between their reading ability in fiction vs. nonfiction.
Students are learning how to analyze questions and explain why choices are or are not correct. It makes a big difference when they slow down and actually pay attention to details.
Writing power and deep thinking has developed.
Several math concepts that have been more difficult for students to grasps have come easier after developing a more complete understanding of numbers.
Children understanding information but much later than required.
Students have started to look at math differently by thinking more critically and by becoming better problem solvers.
Students now not only know how to solve a problem; they know how to explain and justify their whole thinking process. Therefore, they are more confident learners.
Students did a wonderful job working together as a group to create a project on information shared in class. Then students did a wonderful job presenting the projects to the class.
It was not a major change for the students, but they really enjoy drawing representations of problems during mathematics and using real-life situations in ELA to learn new vocabulary.
11

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
My kindergarteners can write five sentences about one nonfiction topic that they have researched themselves.
Having students think about what they're reading and being able to write about, transfer it, and respond to it. They're independent thinking and creativity has had a rebirth.
Since there are many opportunities to address word problems, I used the end of 1st grade Math time to have the students reflect in journals, solve word problems, and share the process of solving a word problem during their student-led conferences with parents.
Greater conceptual understanding demonstrated by students.
Students are motivated to find evidence in the text to support their views regarding what they read.
Constant feedback from the students, allowing students to be more responsible for their learning.
In general, my students' increased ability to support their ideas/positions with data from the text is my biggest "success".
My students are becoming much better problem solvers.
Many of the students have become more critical thinkers.
I felt like my students really increased their vocabulary by reading novels that were above their gradelevel
Helping students learn to support answers with evidence from text.
Success is the higher level thinking that I am getting from my students.
Higher ordered/rigorous conversation.
My students in spite of the behaviors seem to enjoy the use of the strategies that I have implemented. The growth and willing to work cooperative have proven to be an asset when they are mainstreamed into the regular education setting. In addition, they are learning life skills that will bring a greater success in the workforce.
My students were very excited with the books that accompanied the Reading curriculum. They were able to better understand a variety of concepts, (comparing/contrasting, visualization) and I felt satisfied that they are better equipped for their next grade level.
I feel my students have benefited from the "deep conversations" we were able to establish in our classroom through accountable talking.
My students are much better writers.
12

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Students have learned the standards.
Student achievement gains
My students have had high scores on the benchmarks.
Writing scores improved by 15.1%!!!
Our EOCT scores were the highest they have been in years.
Our biggest success with CCGPS was the increase in writing scores. As CCGPS focuses more on writing than GPS, our students were more fully prepared for the writing test.
Phenomenal CRCT scores!!!
The improved scores from CRCT.
An increase in the number of my students who exceeded on the math portion of the CRCT. My students supporting their answers when reading and writing with evidence from the text.
One of my ELL students that failed the Third Grade Reading CRCT last year scored an 850 this year in the Fourth Grade. My students usually do well on the CRCT, but I felt very proud of them, given the new curriculum, as we achieved more exceeds than meets in every subject but SS - where we evened out.
My students reading scores have shown a growth of 2 years in a 1 year span.
From a total of 68 gifted, 66 exceeded on CRCT reading. From a total of 68 gifted, 61 exceeded on CRCT ELA.
Having almost all students pass the CRCT
All students improved their math score compared to last year. We were not yet doing common core in the school last year.
Increased reading equals higher reading scores!!
Student learning and being able to effectively use in real world situations.
I teach students with Specific Learning Disabilities in reading. This year, we have really concentrated on exposing these students to more complex text that is well above each student's Lexile level. I have used audiobooks as a tool to help students access complex text. Over half of these students are currently reading above grade-level and the rest have made significant progress.
Students are being challenged more academically with more rigorous curriculum and they are rising to that challenge. It is exciting to see how much progress they have made since the beginning of the year.
13

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Students' increase in critical thinking skills and performance on the EOCT. I moved with my students from 6th grade to 7th grade, and I have seen my students GROW with their writing abilities this year!!! I am truly proud of their achievements on their standardized test!!! Students did well this year. Closing the learning gap with students who are below grade level. Positive perceptions of CCGPS on behalf of students Students love the student centered lessons. They seem to have a real understanding of the concepts by doing and figuring out the different ways to come up with an answer. Students love the addition of the non-fiction elements and are very engaged with them. I had a class that was ready for the change in how we do math. They liked the challenge of going beyond the computation and understanding why it makes sense. Students enjoy the nonfiction curricula. The biggest success was students' enthusiasm and participation for some of the new text. My greatest success has been seen in my students' excitement about partner games within the math cc units. They are highly motivated to engage in the learning process. The students have remained engaged and excited about learning after the 1st ELA Kindergarten Unit on friendship. Students are excited about reading nonfiction texts. Students enjoy being able to discover ideas and concepts and use them in real world applications. Students love reading themed chapter books each 9 weeks! They really connect to most of the themes & relate them to everyday life. My students really enjoyed the literature that we read. I had students who didn't like to read aloud. Now they love it and it has increased their ability to read with fluency and recognize words. Positive teacher practices aligned with CCGPS The most significant success would be modeling mathematics in various ways in order to differentiate. I find giving more feedback encourages kids [them] to go farther in their math thinking.
14

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Allowing students to discover new material (an "aha" moment) has been quite powerful. My favorite approach has been giving students a problem and an answer then, have them tell me different ways to solve the problem, relate math to real world situations, and find errors in different calculation and problem solving methods. It seems they learn more prerequisite skills by doing error analysis and catch on to new skills by breaking down problems into pieces they can articulate with each other.
Integrating the social studies curriculum with the reading curriculum through appropriate novels.
It has really made me stop and look at the standards more.
I have enjoyed implementing CCGPS this year. It has given me an opportunity to make my lessons more relevant and realistic and the students have an opportunity to see the importance of the content they are learning and how the content is being used in other courses as well as the real world. CCGPS has always made me get out of my comfort zone and try more group and begin the process of becoming a student centered classroom.
I feel that I have been successful in teaching students how to explain their thinking in their writing and to effectively support their responses with evidence from the text.
I feel that this year I focused a lot more on non-fiction and also paired text. I feel that this has pushed my students into more wondering and thinking.
I get to build a stronger foundation since I teach Kindergarten.
Introducing new texts to students that is challenging but high interest. The students really enjoyed the books that I was able to read aloud to them.
CCGPS has kept me from being "too easy" on my on-level students. I have them read much more independently than I used to.
Due to our school re-aligning our English course sequence, I was the only teacher teaching Honors 11th grade American Lit/Comp. I enjoyed not having the pressure of teaching the course as a rushed survey course, but instead delving deep into thematic units. Students liked reading more nonfiction than fiction and passionately engaged in discussions, finding many more avenues to approach writing topics because of the depth of the reading and discussions. I mostly teach AP English Language/Comp, so the transition seemed natural for me.
I have had many students that have moved into my classroom this year from various parts of the nation. I am glad to see more consistency in their learning. I teach near and air force base so our children often move several times during their childhood and a national curriculum will be very beneficial to them!
One of the biggest things that I have done this year is ask the questions "Why?" all the time. I have had them draw, solve, and explain word problems to help them better understand the concept.
15

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Being able to teach deeper into curriculum.
I have seen that by slowing down and not having to teach as many standards allowed me to focus on more of what the students need.
Being able to reach some students that in previous years did not put forth any effort at all. This year they have shown that they do know a little bit more than I thought.
I am seeing the importance of presenting materials in a manner that forces students to become more independent thinkers. Students need more hands on activities and problem solving practice. The CCGPS is designed to provide this for the students.
I started implementing a math journal.
In third grade, the students have more standards on fractions. I saw success in this area after creating many games that applied the standards.
Modifying the task to develop the student learning as the CCGPS is requiring.
The biggest success I had was getting my students to properly respond to short answer questions, including citing evidence from the text.
Increasing the amount of open-ended questions in the classroom led to more project-based instruction.
My biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year would have been using more graphic organizers to deepen the understand and connecting subjects across curriculum.
The CCGPS has made me aware of focusing and implementing extensive writing activities with support more than I have before. I feel that my students writing skills will be more improved at the end of this school year than other classes I have had in years past. Additionally, I have had to shift my focus on implementing non-fiction texts and analyzing them more than ever before.
Teaching/analyzing new vocabulary that is associated with new standards.
Being able to stray from the basal series to incorporate literature into my reading program.
Teaching across the curriculum.
My teaching experience helps me to "read between the lines" of the CCGPS to identify the concepts that may be embedded that must be taught, but not specifically outlined.
Learning new ways to instruct my students in the overall concepts of math.
Teaching students how to use evidence from the text to support their answers to questions.
16

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
My questioning skills have gotten better.
I have learned much more about how to keep my students engaged when the whole class is leaning new material, discussing or working through a context together, etc. They usually stay with the group now.
Teaching my students to view revising as a constant part of the writing process.
Teaching students different strategies to solve multiplication and division problems and having them explain how they arrived at that answer.
I have had great success with using nonfiction texts.
I have fully implemented the CCGPS Math Frameworks for Grade 1. I have written many activities to extend or supplement the units in order to have a cohesive Math Workshop for my students. In fact I took all my old math textbooks and materials back to the bookroom. My students have done great! I love the hands-on constructivist approach to math instruction.
I have enjoyed working more with nonfiction text and deeper thinking with vocabulary enrichment.
The breakdown of the math. We are able to focus more on fluency of facts to ready the student for the next grade level.
I have embraced the rigor of the standards and it has been extremely helpful having our entire grade level teachers planning, sharing, and holding all of our students to the same expectations.
I was able to conceptually develop number sense (base-ten system) much better this year.
Providing the appropriate amount of support to allow my students with disabilities to successfully read and understand complex nonfiction texts
Asking guiding questions rather than showing students has proven to increase the depth of knowledge the students are able to retain.
The biggest success has been engaging students in open-ended questioning and critical thinking skills. They enjoy learning that is expansive and global as well as learning that related to their personal experiences.
Stronger writing activities.
Learning new ways to look at problem-solving in mathematics.
Helping students begin to think through solving the problem instead of just doing the math, having students do procedural writing in math and having develop multiple ways to solve problems thereby broadening their comprehension of each math concept they learn in class.
17

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I think the biggest success that I have is when I recently obtained my reading specialist certification which gave me new knowledge aligned with the CCGPS in reading and writing that I can implement in my classroom and/or curriculum
I have done better with differentiation.
My biggest success was in the area of problem-solving in math by making sure my students could "tell me their math thinking" when solving problems.
My biggest success I had with implementing the CCGPS was using the different teaching strategies provided to teach the different standards.
Deeper and more meaningful involvement with the text, the addition of non-fiction to my students' reading lists, and greater vocabulary development.
Using more problem-solving and real-world application in my classroom.
I have been teaching with more rigor. My students are better thinkers and I have had success in areas where I thought we would struggle. I am using so much more non-fiction in my room.
We grade by standards in our math dept., so we have tried to use CCGPS standards to help guide students to mastery and take responsibility for their strengths and weaknesses. We have tried to teach some of the concepts with a higher level of rigor, which has proved successful.
My biggest success was teaching in small groups and teaching the math strategies.
I have enjoyed using the chapter books and writing daily in journals.
Using multiple texts and difficult texts. Using different questioning strategies.
My dramatic personality has come in handy this year because the curriculum is so full I have captured the students' interest quickly and the dramatics used in the lesson helped them recall and learn/understand quickly.
My biggest success with implementing CCGPS this year was teaching the economically disadvantaged students. This year, I really listened and observed the way they communicate with each other, both socially and academically. It helped me to go deeper with them. I used the knowledge gained to successfully plan for whole group instruction, organize pairs, groups, and modify tasks and games. I let them talk more, sing more, and move more as long as they used LOTS! I didn't answer all of the questions, they did. I didn't do all of the presentations at the SMART Board, they did. I didn't dash around from station to station on math lab days, they helped each other. I didn't take the test, they did. Did most pass, THEY DID!
18

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I had my students to participate in a Close Reading activity each week. I included at least two questions in which students had to cite evidence from the text when writing their answers.
Increasing use of non-fiction text with literature students enjoy.
Getting students to delve deeper into texts.
Giving the students multiple ways of problem solving, providing strategies.
Use of small groups and lots of hands-on activities.
The biggest success I have had this school year is my ability to create an environment where students promote higher-order thinking skills. I was able to be a facilitator as students debated the issues in mathematics. This task was very difficult at first, however; students began to take ownership of their own work with very little teacher input.
I think the biggest success was teaching students how to find evidence from the text independently, and teaching them how to discuss their findings in a small group.
Incorporating the use of textual evidence into our writing prompts. We are better able to explain how the "real world" fits into the classroom with the use of evidence to back up statements. We also like having our grades categorized by the standards, both for our purposes and the students'.
My fifth graders worked very hard with the multiplication using the models to work the problem and show their answers. I am effectively teaching the new standards, but having more resources always helps.
Straying away from the lesson plans the county forced us to use, and tailored the lessons for "my students" and their understanding and work performance increased drastically.
I feel like with common core it helped me to focus on bringing in more ways to create a hands on approach to learning in the math classroom.
I feel the CCGPS validates my normal teaching style. In the past ten years with such high stakes attached to standardized tests results, I feel I have become a less effective teacher each year. With the CCGPS I feel hopeful and free to teach in a manner that I believe is better for students and more effective for fostering critical thinking skills for life.
Having students use novels (ESOL/Language Arts class).
Helping students to become critical thinker and problem solvers. Helping them explain their thinking and knowledge.
Digging into the math curriculum and making assessments that match the depth and rigor of common core.
19

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Implementing the in depth writing standards and truly linking regarding and writing. The biggest success that I have had with implementing CCGPS this school year was using technology to enhance instruction and the hands-on tasks to deepen understanding. My students continued to stay engaged in the many activities which allowed them to grow academically. The numerous resources from the GADOE and School District made it easier for me implement all of the CCGPS. All of my instructional approach, differentiation, and formative and summative assessments were all standards based. Allowing my students to read whatever books they want in my classroom and check out from the media center. I include Highlights Magazines, calendars, authentic literature and nonfiction on many topics. All of my students are on or above grade level in reading. Engaging students and increasing their critical thinking skills. I added "Math Meeting" in my first grade classroom this year, and really focused on developing beginning number sense. It was amazing to see how quickly the students developed number sense and caught on to the concept. Great experience! Focusing on student writing. I spent much time teaching my K kids number sense and they are having an easier time with addition and subtraction as a result. Getting the students to think deeper when answering questions. No longer were we looking for a right or wrong but a Why??? and How???? It made for great lessons and discussions. Getting students to think more independently. More questioning and critical thinking used in the classroom. The ability to intersperse instruction with relevant informational texts that promote student engagement. Using Marzano question stems to promote critical thinking and questioning at higher levels. Although it did take the entire year, my biggest success is that I was able to cover all the mandated state standards. I was even able to go into discovery activities. Getting kids to think more critically about texts.
20

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I think I have come up with some very good LA lessons. I really like comparing and contrasting different books. I did a lot with various Gingerbread Man, Boy, Girl, Family, Baby books around Christmas, and my class loved that. We all enjoyed exploring various fairy tales from our culture and other cultures. Some unit ideas opened my mind to new things. We spent some time reading several books that were related to The Three Little Pigs ( The Three Little Aliens and the Big Bad Wolf, The True Story of the Big Bad Wolf, and others I do not have in front of me here at home. Creating plans is fun, but only if time allows it and time is very scarce. I am retiring, but I hope to be able to help some of my former colleagues with plans next year.
I have successfully created and implemented digital student portfolios that focus on CCGPS standards and elements.
Tracking and observing student growth more clearly.
My greatest success has to do with the fact that I am having more time to teach as I believe math should be taught. That is deeper with a better understanding and making the student think, discover on their own the patterns and relationships within the mathematics subject. I do not have a specific event to describe but just an overall better feeling of success working with the students this year.
Deepening students' understanding on problems.
Increasing student academic discourse.
Biggest success: making students think more critically about their reading by requiring them to pull evidence from the text.
I think the use of math manipulatives was the biggest success when implementing CCGPS.
The new math strategies have worked very well for many of my students.
Allowing students to grapple with problems and come up with varying strategies to solve.
Using more manipulatives for math.
Using manipulatives and observations instead of having all assessments written.
Text-based questioning.
Using more opportunities for routine writing.
Using more varieties of visual aids and hands-on activities to enhance the learning of special needs children.
Increasing non-fiction resources in the classroom.
21

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Successes that combine teacher practices, student practices, and other categories
Students collaborated more and used the PARCCs activities. Students' fear of presenting was lowered. Presentations and knowledge of concepts showed tremendous improvement. Students liked the common core videos on given concepts. Great job! Overall the curriculum was manageable.
I have enjoyed implementing guided reading, Read-a-louds, Shared Reading, and Literacy Centers as part of my day. The children have made gains according to the Rigby and STAR Reading test.
I see students developing more in depth, working knowledge in subject areas. I also see more teachers using content (SS and SC) across subject areas (Reading and math) so students stronger and better equipped to master the content.
I was impressed with the textbook and the quality of the selections - both fiction and related non-fiction. I spent more time in close reading and was able to see students improve their critical thinking abilities as well as their writing skills.
Kids able to think independently on their own and able to use strategies in reading and math. Teaching kids how to think and what to think.
The integration of social studies and science through ELA has been evident while teaching social studies and science separately. Also the students have much better fluency with facts and a greater percentage of students have mastered the basic operations of addition and subtraction.
My students have read more nonfiction this year, which was due to my effort to align with the new standards. I didn't remove any major pieces of literature; I just added nonfiction pieces that related thematically. Students are more adept at using textual evidence in their responses, both written and oral.
I feel that my students have gotten better at writing while I have also gotten better at teaching writing.
With the shift, I have found myself asking more open-ended questions and challenging my students to prove their answer verbally instead of coming to the board and modeling the answer. This has helped my students think how to grammatically formulate sentences for all students to understand their comments.
Implementation has caused my students to read more nonfiction text and so I have pushed them more and have seen greater gains in comprehension.
I believe the children have a better understanding of number sense. I believe this was my learning year and I will do a better job next year. I noticed more change in the math curriculum than the language arts curriculum. I was already doing an excellent job teaching reading, phonics and writing.
22

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Integration of Social Studies and Science into Language Arts. Allowing students the opportunity to read grade-level nonfiction text and respond to the text. My students have all improved 5-6 reading levels.
The standards are easier to implement within the classroom, but we need more materials available from the DOE.
We have a math coach who has researched other states already implementing CC. We started implementing this last school year and test scores were fabulous.
The biggest success that I have had this year with implementing the CCGPS was allowing my students to be more hands-on and creative thinkers. Instead of figuring out one way to solve a problem, the students challenge their brains by figuring out many ways to solve a problem.
To finally get students engaged in their own learning. Focusing on becoming a life-long learner. Using what I have learned in everyday situations. Students have become excited to share how they solved a problem without help.
I teach special education and I really worked hard to modify the work for my students. Everything had to be modified, so it was a lot of work on my part, but the students grasped many important concepts. They are pretty well-rounded.
I saw a difference in my students how they learned and understand mathematics. I myself developed a deeper understanding about math.
Our district's many framework tasks are fantastic. The students are learning a lot more content when reading nonfiction more frequently.
Once I made it through unit 1 and I figured out what I was doing I have really enjoyed teaching with CCGPS. The students and I have enjoyed working with the ELA units.
Positive perceptions of transition to CCGPS on behalf of teachers
Having the training to implement them.
The implementation of math has been very smooth. The unit maps and materials have been just the guiding hand that we needed.
Being able to implement the standards with more ease then I first expected.
I had much success with the implementation and use of the Georgia Frameworks.
A majority of my students transitioned into CCGPS without any struggles.
The biggest success I've had is feeling more confident in my implementation of the standards.
23

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
The shift has actually been pretty smooth. I enjoy that we are covering fewer skills but more in depth. I'm still learning the CCGPS, but it is easy to follow the lessons. Mathematics has been a smooth transition, not difficult to implement. The Math Framework lessons have been well written and have been thoroughly effective for my students. Using the state frameworks to add depth to mathematical concepts. Allowing special needs students the opportunity for more independence in their learning. My district has had Math Exemplars as an initiative for a number of years now, so extending and explaining problem solving in writing was an easy adjustment with my students. It wasn't as hard as I thought, however I did have to change the way I taught a few things. Teaching Math with CCGPS has been a huge success. Positive perceptions of CCGPS on behalf of teachers Implementing CGI word problems. Common core allowed me to see exactly what students should do. Singapore math model. The new standards appear to align with Georgia's GPS with some exceptions. They are not as detailed as our GAGPS, but are reasonable. Unit development is more focused. More higher-level thinking skills. A better understanding in math of the progression of the basic math skills for kindergarteners. Building the basic knowledge and the challenging the students with above grade level skills. Instruction was more specific because CC standards required a deeper understanding & response from students. Encourages students to think deeper and more analytically. Incorporates more complex text. Teaches multiple strategies and encourages students to pick and choose based on the mathematical situation. We had more time to focus on topics that students struggle with. Being able to spend more time on one concept.
24

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I have enjoyed the common concepts that have permeated throughout the year. I teach 7th grade and ratio and proportion was used in almost all concepts.
The biggest success has to be when most of the units pushed my students to use higher-order thinking skills.
The higher-order thinking skills and constructed response assessments have been successful this past year.
They align well with our report card.
Organizational use of time and focus on skills.
Increasing the focus on justifying conclusions with concrete, logical evidence.
The mathematics have been a major help for my students this year.
The biggest success was teaching one strand over the curriculum.
Integrating Math and Science.
Critical-thinking, teacher-based instruction.
Math has been more in-depth and making teaching it more fun and successful for all students.
Sharing written work and focusing on editing writing.
Clear guidelines on Picasso and Michelle Mikes.
I love all the modeling of concepts to strengthen number sense.
The curriculum is more student-centered. The student is challenged more, but not to the point of frustration and shutting down.
The success has been with the different types of literature that has been added to the curriculum. The CCGPS pushes the students to listen to books that are above their level and to build comprehension strategies on that material.
The CCGPS lends itself to hands-on learning. Students have a deeper understanding because we can focus on each standard for a longer amount of time.
The variety of strategies in mathematics that help the learner deepen their understanding of mathematics.
Seeing the development of the thinking process. I really loved how the math curriculum was organized this year and how each new concept built on a prior concept.
25

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Paring down the writing to 3 main types for k-2 made teaching and mastery much simpler. Familiarization and use of the standards. Mostly, the standards being grouped the way they were. More focused Better flow of standards, more focus on problem-solving. More engagement with students. The students have a better understanding of the standards because CCGPS required a deeper teaching of the standard. 5th grade math builds on a much deeper understanding of the concepts. Number talks really help students reason through the frameworks. Taking a lot of time to ensure that all of the standards assessed through CCGPS were addressed through the curriculum and resources we are currently using in the county. I have enjoyed the new deeper math standards, but need them to be a little more specific. It provides a clear and concise guide to what I'm teaching. I believe that the narrowed focus benefited students. Students were able to focus more intently on fewer standards. CCGPS seems to deepen students' level of understanding with certain concepts and skills. The students are given more opportunities to explain their thinking. The additional stressing of utilizing non-fiction texts and the increased reference to textual evidence. To have the emphasis on finding textual evidence and proving your thesis with supporting details from the text. Data driven, evidence-based instruction. Using the common core standards to help my students critically think. I liked the emphasis on academic discourse and encouraging student to explain choices they make writing and in math. Some of the math activities are useful. I like the way we now encourage higher-level thinking through open ended questioning. There was more writing in the class.
26

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Students were exposed to more difficult material and expectations were set higher.
The curriculum flows together better than the GPS curriculum.
I really enjoy how the CCGPS are designed to be interwoven throughout the entire year, not in isolation.
Time spent on teaching the new standards
More time spent to develop concepts taught.
The students were exposed to more historical background.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the ELA and the children have responded well to it. We have read the extended texts and enjoyed doing more writing in regard to those extended texts. The math used more manipulatives.
It is a deeper understanding of math and reading. It has made me a better teacher.
The math has been excellent. The strategies have deepened my students understanding of mathematical concepts. While there are gaps, overall the curriculum has been a great tool. I have been pleased with the progress my students have shown in their mathematical achievement.
Common Core leaves less room for guesswork and requires students to know and understand the content better. I like that! I love the open-ended feedback from students and the discussions that arise from this teaching strategy.
Math has been a more fluid curriculum that builds upon itself. Using arrays to introduce multiplication then building on that knowledge to solve for area helped my special education students connect the two concepts and be able to apply them more readily.
Math is much deeper and focused on mastering the basic second grade skills so they can effectively move on in third grade. We have explored what the math concepts really mean, and students have discovered ways to add and subtract, rather than being told how to perform math tasks.
Nonfiction analysis.
Increased collaboration as a result of CCGPS
Creating new units with my teammates and implementing the common core as a team of teachers instead of individual teachers.
Using math games that my team collaborated and made to meet specific skills, such as, composing and decomposing numbers and all the ways to make 10.
Collaboration with grade-level teachers at my school and across the district.
27

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Collaboration within our school and county schools. Team meet in which teachers talk about connecting the standard in math, science, reading and ELA. We are collaborating more as a grade-level. Working collaboratively with my team to write lesson plans Assisting other teachers in creating resources. Collaboration. We have worked together more to make implementing the CCGPS more successful. Collaboration with the other 7th grade math teachers. The biggest success has come through collaboration with my colleagues and our own personal discovery of the standards. I have worked closer with other teachers to develop plans and pull what resources we have together. Collaboration between teachers. We rallied to find materials and resources because we were provided with little to no resources initially. Interacting with other teachers at my grade level to plan and implement the standards. Sharing resources among colleagues and adapting older resources to match new standards. The biggest success has been when my coworkers and I have been given time to collaborate and develop our own understanding of the CCGPS. By taking time to research and create lesson plans we were given the opportunity to really understand the meaning behind what we were asking our students to do. Collaborating with the colleagues on my team. Collaborating with grade-level teachers to create meaningful instruction and assessment. Working together with other teachers in my school and county. I also found many, many resources on line from other states and counties. We had more 'in house' sharing of ideas so that we would adhere to the CCGPS. Collaborating with fellow teachers has been a huge help. Increase in collaboration amongst colleagues to help each other understand the standards for CCGPS.
28

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Collaboration with my colleagues and the county offices.
Colleague collaboration.
It has improved collaboration between teachers, and it has made planning for units easier.
We were able to plan and have common assessments at our school for the first time in a few years. As a dept. we know we were teaching the correct standards and were pacing together as a department.
Planning with teachers from other schools.
Successful collaboration with my team, school and other schools in the county.
County-wide collaborations on how to implement and successfully teach standards.
Using common planning to plan lessons within the grade level.
Effective resources and tools
Online database.
The biggest success I've had has been with finding materials from OTHER STATES! Unfortunately, Georgia has done a TERRIBLE job of providing resources to classroom teachers. New York and North Carolina have provided many, GOOD resources for their teachers.
State tasks are so very much better. They are far better than before.
The biggest success I had with implementing CCGPS is finding various online resources to extend my lessons. It is a great feeling knowing I can pull resources from teachers in the state of Georgia and additional states as well.
Mathematics has been the easiest and best experience for me. I found Learn Zillion, used SMART Exchange, used Go Math examples for references of content, and DOE frameworks for ideas and references. I also made my own tests, smart notebook files, participated in guided math fluency and a word problem of the day everyday this school year.
Finally getting a SMART board, but it would be great if the technicians that installed it had done it appropriately. It has yet to function correctly. Yes, I know the basic features to utilize it. Clear evidence the wiring is inaccurately connected.
TEACHERSpayTEACHERS.com is the best website! It has a ton of resources, most of which are CCGPS based.
The DOE frameworks activities are really helping the students to dive deeper into real-world problems solving. We have enjoyed using the frameworks in class.
29

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Using the frameworks from GaDOE website. Using the Teaching Channel website. Hands-on activities with guided instruction for targeting the standards.
The common core clinics book has been very helpful on breaking the material down for the students. I use this book quite a bit as a resource.
Pinterest online has been a valuable resource in helping me find common core aligned resources to effectively teach my students.
I have found a lot of resources using other websites (teachers pay teachers) incorporating common core.
The biggest success that I have had with implementing CCGPS this school year is being able to rely on my colleagues for help and my district for supplying resources through wikispaces.
Non-fiction text.
My team has helped me to find relevant resources. Also, the resources available on DOE has been helpful.
Having access to CCGPS activities found on Study Island provided the guidance and support I needed to effectively implement the standards.
Participating in MSP class through Paulding County School system and receiving training for math CCGPS along with great in class resources!!!
People in the system finally let me use whole class texts.
There were some good activities in some of the units that led students to explore and think more critically. The students enjoyed the story of ""Lulu and the Brontosaurus"" and the activities we used with the story.
Finding online resources to supplement my teaching.
I was able to visit websites for out of state schools are implementing CCGPS
I like the way that the ELA curriculum maps and frameworks are set up. It helps give a clear direction as to what we should be teaching.
Math talks.
The state site with the standards and curriculum maps and planning time with fellow teachers.
GaDOE Unit frames for Math was somewhat helpful. I used a 7th grade math book that was aligned with the CC as a guide. It was a very useful reference.
30

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Some of the online texts provided in the sample lesson plans and framework are very helpful.
I have enjoyed the RATA for first grade. They kept my students engaged and they loved them as well. After reading them aloud I found many of them reading it again independently or the sequels. Create choice of books in my opinion. Loved the ELA frameworks!
New technology.
Having the resources and tools to model effectively. Our textbook was not completely aligned, so we had to desperately seek reliable online resources.
The selected reading for each unit has been wonderful. These books allow the students to be exposed to different literature they would not have read on their own and expand their vocabulary bank.
The text were rich and challenging, yet easily modifiable.
CCGPS was a smooth transition because teacher practices were already well-aligned with new standards
I really have not changed the ways I was doing things that much. I was already teaching the way CCGPS wants you to teach before it was rolled out.
I have always believed in open-ended questions to support deeper understandings.
I teach Gifted Education and have had an easier time implementing CCGPS than most homeroom teachers. I also have a background in Montessori, which has helped. My biggest success has been allowing my students to go above and beyond expectations.
CCGPS presents nothing new in terms effective teaching.
Fortunately our ELA department has been implementing CCGPS for the last several years. This year we were able to easily add more nonfiction to reading units that were previously implemented.
Fortunately, my style of teaching correlates well with CCGPS. Although I have learned some new activities, methods, etc. to use in my classroom, many of my existing strategies lend themselves to implementing CCGPS in my classroom.
I have always taught above grade-level, so the CCGPS standards did not prove to be a problem! Teaching above grade level made me successful in implementing CCGPS.
I have always believed in increased expectations of our students. Throughout my teaching career, I've required written responses with supporting evidence from the text. I believe and provide higher level texts for my students. I'm just glad we now have the ability to implement the higher expectations amongst the teaching staff. I'm seeing the most success with student writing. With more teachers requiring it, the better the students are becoming at doing it.
31

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
Transition to CCPGS was difficult; therefore, no major successes NONE! NONE. I do not feel like I have had any success with implementing CCGPS this school year. I feel that educators need more time to transition to CCCGPS. None. This year has been so difficult that I am having a hard time recalling my biggest success. I don't feel very successful. However, we have had fun reading more nonfiction stories. An easily assessable document that provides the standards and their numbers in a concise manner that can be utilized for lesson plans is needed. NONE. I have not felt very successful yet do to the lack of teaching materials supplied by my county. I'm not sure I've had success with it. The collection of frameworks for math didn't flow together like I think it should. It seemed fragmented and I felt like I was all the time trying to find lessons that fit it all together. I do not feel like I have been as successful as I have been in the past. I don't think that I have one. Due to way, way too many benchmarks, interims, and constant meaningless data collecting in which we had absolutely little time to analyze before the next data, tests, etc. we had very little time to really teach as we needed. This year seemed choppy, haphazard, strung out with disconcerting loose ends because our county implemented so many changes at one time. Incidentally some of these changes are now not going forward. What a total mismanagement of our talents, efforts, and passion!!! I have not had much success in my opinion. I had a very hard time with little to no resources. Lack of professional development due to decreases in staff and hours. I teach Special Education, All grades difficult to implement multiple grades and subjects at the same time. None.
32

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
None. Other responses N/A We survived! N/A I have not taught any CCGPS courses this year. I am not sure. I will base this on the number of students that pass the CRCT. I teach Math IV, which is NOT a CCGPS class. I have been through the changes in the curriculum at least once now. I will be writing lots of, my own materials this summer. I plan to publish on Teachers pay Teachers to share my ideas in math. I have spent countless HOURS looking for resources on the computer. Can't be sure of the success until the test results come back from the CRCT and the EOCT; also need to receive feedback from the high school teachers on whether the students were better prepared. Surviving! :) N/A We are just learning about the standards and haven't fully implemented as yet. Actually surviving. I've taught the standards that the State of Georgia required. My county's training for CCGPs has been very lax. They are more concerned about furlough days. I am in a new grade level this year so everything has been new to me. I think that has made the transition easier because I would have had to learn a new curriculum either way. My team leader created a yearly map incorporating the CCGPS and I have followed it closely. Completing 8 GAA's N/A The students who are developmentally ready (like always) are the ones to get it. Those who struggle continue to struggle. The capable students are able to problem solve better.
33

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year
I don't teach the subject at present. I am not yet teaching CCGPS. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I will be able to answer this more intelligently after I get the CRCT scores and the EOCT scores back. Springboard implementation seems relevant to new standards and deeper learning strategies. So much easier to integrate new students also doing CCGPS when they come from other schools. Varying test formats and types facilitated a better chance for the lower students to be successful. --Small groups. Administrators were more open to performance tasks and talking among pairs and groups. Math. I was able to be somewhat at the same place when students transferred into my class from another school. We only have CCGPS in 9th grade and I do not teach 9th graders. I do not teach a 9th grade math class so I have not taught a CCGPS class yet. Writing. --I did not teach a CCGPS course this year since I taught pre-calculus. That's why I tried to not do this survey the first time. Ignoring them. Problem-solving strategies. Student portfolios for the Georgia Alternative Assessment. ????? I believe in CCGPS! I do think that the ideas behind aligning every state to the same curriculum have helped to ease the confusion when kids move from state to state.
34

APPENDIX C: Biggest success with implementing CCGPS this school year Math standards assessed using the CRCT were not as hard as I thought they'd be. My students didn't have as many questions (that I can't answer) during the math test. I'm just waiting to see the PARCC. My students have used a bit more logical reasoning and mental math. I like the way there is more than one way to derive an answer. I do not feel the CCGPS is any more rigorous or in depth than previous curriculums although the new language implies that they are. The current frameworks leave much to be desired. This is really just different standards or a different pacing guide to teach the standards. It's true that after all these years there is really not a whole lot new under the sun. We assign different terms but this is not new. I liked the fact that Since CCGPS courses are currently limited to Coordinate Algebra, and I don't teach that course, I have had no successes. However, I do teach AP Statistics and AMDM, and both of those course curricula are based on similar ideas. My biggest success in AMDM was engaging students in a study of financial mathematics and helping them become financially literate. So many students were engrossed in the activities and some said they were inspired to become financial analysts or working in other areas of business due to their exposure.
35

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
APPENDIX D: Please share the biggest challenge that you have had with implementing CCGPS this school year.
Total number of respondents to provide a challenge
610
Responses by Locale
Town Suburb Rural City N/A
1

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year

Responses by Content-area

48%
Math

ELA

Both

Percent of respondents

who provided both a

success and challenge

Responses by Years of Experience

93
Number of respondents who only provided a challenge

1 year 2-3 years 4-9 years 10-14 years 15-20 years 21-24 years 25+ years No answer given

2

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year

Bar graph of challenges by category

89 90

80

70

60

57

50

45

40

35

30

20

10

58 51

41

43

30

29

22

26 28

28

17

6

6

0

3

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Challenges organized by category
Resources not readily available
Availability of information and resources.
Biggest challenge was the lack of resources. We had to search the internet constantly. There were no questions available to determine how it was to be assessed. The math changed, but I did not have the manipulatives in my room to match the new standards. Pacing chart didn't match the need of the students.
Finding the materials to successfully teach my students. The books were not readily available for all students to have a book in their hands.
Finding materials, determining how to word classroom resources to match the language of CCGPS.
Finding materials; we have had to make up a lot of the activities ourselves.
Have interactive materials to teach my students the new concepts.
Having a SMART Board and other materials necessary to implement CCGPS effectively and successfully.
Having books that middle school students enjoy.
Having enough resources.
Having material available to perform the designated task.
Having the novels.
Having the correct materials for math. I feel like I have made a lot of items, but I have so much more to do. The quarterly math trainings that I went to were wonderful and provided so much information. My team was having to do a lot of research to find ways to implement some of the ideas (games, worksheets, etc). Our past math book was just about worthless and not aligned to the CCGPS.
Having the resources and tools to model effectively.
Having the technology to implement lessons in my county.
I didn't like the ELA Unit Frameworks. My district chose to use the units designed by Arkansas. I didn't like those either. I decided to go back to my early teaching career (1990s) and use thematic units based on the student interests, holidays and school events. I loved it. My first graders have become experts at making connections and using their schema. The biggest challenge has been making sure I have taught all the skills without using a traditional basal (I took those to the bookroom also).
4

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
I feel that we can always use more manipulatives and resources. I checked needing all the resources because I feel that we need to make sure that we are always meeting the needs of all student levels.
I spent a lot of time finding ideas for teaching, considering that with budget cuts, we have no textbooks or resources aligned with Common Core. I find it incredibly unfair to throw a new curriculum at us with no resources to help. Stop cutting the budget and get us the resources we need.
I would like more Common Core resources available to provide extra practice.
In middle school we split reading and language arts in to two classes. The standards and frameworks were designed more for a lit comp class - it was hard to split the curriculum. We also did not have the resources for many of the things outlined in the frameworks so that was a challenge.
In teaching the language arts, not enough materials especially the selected texts for each unit.
Knowing the best resources to address CCGPS. Seeing quality examples of what teaching CCGPS should look like.....Many of us learn best by seeing it in action.
Lack of a variety of interactive resources, such as virtual games & activities differentiated.
Lack of books.
Lack of exemplars and models of best practices for how that's supposed to look in my planning and in my classroom.
Lack of materials and help with implementation.
Lack of materials and resources to support CCGPS.
Lack of materials, examples and supplements to support the new standards.
Lack of math books. This was thrown at us and we were told to teach it. We do not need more manipulatives, but daily practice sheets, homework, and assessments!
Lack of resources and district/state support; Ineffective and insufficient professional development from district/state.
Lack of resources that are handy for use especially in the area of differentiation.
Lack of resources! We have pretty much been on our own, and have spent numerous hours and money finding our own resources! Thank you Pinterest!
Lack of resources!!!!
Lack of resources.
5

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Lack of resources - appropriately aligned textbooks and assessments.
Lack of textbooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Limited resources
Materials, test samples, and websites for activities to meet the standards with shared examples.
Materials--huge need for teaching material, assessments, etc.
More resources needed to match the standards; Problem situations to match standards
Most of the literacy materials were not ordered.
Mostly having adequate resources to address the need of students with disabilities.
My biggest challenge has been the inadequate resources provided to all teachers to teach the Common Core Standards. Besides being provided the standards, electronically, math teachers were not given any other resources provided by our county to teach the actual standards. As a result, we have had to constantly search for materials to use with our students to teach the required concepts. The lack of resources has impacted my ability to focus on the implementation of strategies encouraged and expected to be utilized in the implementation of the standards. There is no cohesiveness of teaching across the county due to this lack of resources and funding for the resources to aid teachers in the successful implementation of the common standards. Too much emphasis is placed on teachers accessing a plethora of website in order to locate and implement classroom activities for instruction.
My school did not have money to purchase books that are aligned with CCGPS Units.
Need more copies of books, more technology - nooks, iPads, etc.
No ELA resources. It was very difficult because training did not align with what we were doing in the classroom.
No materials!! I have been all over the internet and the frameworks is sadly lacking.
No real resource such as a textbook. We need textbooks.
No resources were available.
No text book is available. It has been very difficult to find resources for CCGPS.
Non-niction pieces as a choice, and differentiation.
Not enough effective resources and resources that showed so many different understandings of what the CCGPS meant.
6

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Not enough resources and guidance. Not enough resources. I was left on my own basically and had to use Google and Pinterest for help! Not having all the new materials listed in the ELA, mostly books recommended to use with lessons. Not having all the resources and materials needed for the Units implemented by the state. Not having enough guidance and resources. Not having enough instructional materials. Not having enough resources to cover the topic more in-depth. We need more resources and keys for the resources especially more technology resources because the students of the Y generation only know technology. Getting the students to explain their mathematical reasoning instead of the steps to solve a problem. Not having resources available on Picasso or other websites that were accessible with examples, reading pieces, and teachers guides. Not having textbooks and the supporting online textbook material. Not having the games or manipulatives already available. I have to ask for things and hope we can order or have enough. Or I have to make things, which can be time consuming. I feel that some of the requirements are not developmentally appropriate. Not having the resources and spending many hours on the internet looking for ways to teach the new CCGPS standards. Not having the resources. I should not have to buy things out of pocket for my classroom. Obtaining resources because of budget restraints. Other materials and resources are not readily available, as the curriculum is still so new to us. Resources. Resources have been a challenge as well as flexibility to match students with special needs. Resources to guide our implementation; there are no funds for textbooks. Parents feel lost when it comes to helping their children at home. Resources to remediate and to teach intellectually disabled students. Resources were not available.
7

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Resources!!
The biggest challenge I had this year is the lack of resources available for teachers and took many unanswered questions. Sometime when we asked questions, no one seemed to know the answer.
The biggest challenge in implementing CCGPS this school year was the lack of resources available. Our school did not adopt/purchase any resources, so I spent countless hours searching the Internet and/or creating my own materials.
The biggest challenge that I have faced this year is not having the materials needed to teach the task. Many of the task required teachers to create the materials needed with the limited amount of time that we have during the day which left us using personal time to create the materials or not having them.
The district has recommended texts to use in ELA, but we do not have enough copies of these texts for students to use.
The lack of materials and resources to implement the new standards.
The lack of resources to meet the needs of all student levels.
There are barely any assessments, exemplars, or resources to help implement the standards. We have had to create, search, and gather all year. The language arts frameworks and pacing guide are not very cohesive and are centered around sources that are not available.
There are not enough materials/worksheets/ready-made items to use under the already increasing workloads that we have all the time.
There has been little or no materials readily available. If you are to implement CCCGPS then the school system should provide the materials and not expect teachers to spend time creating them. They should be created before trying to implement them. Seems the system is working backwards. At the beginning of every year the system promises there will be materials aligned for immediate use. It never happens! Several workshops will be taking place in the summer, but they never complete the task. We are left to create it all scrambling &amp; stressing from the start of each school year.
There needs to be a document that contains ALL the subject areas and the current standards for each grade level. As a teacher who teaches across curricular units, it has been extremely hard to locate the standards in each subject area for one grade at a time. A printed document that is bound would be beneficial. I am having to create such a reference tool each year for my use and the use of the teachers I mentor. (We, educators, keep changing things and do not stick with any one endeavor long enough to measure if it is working effectively or not. This is frustrating to staff, parents and students.)
There really is not an English language arts curriculum.
There was not a lot of information/ resources CCGPS aligned.
8

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
There were not enough resources for math as many of the standards had changed and textbooks were not as helpful as they once were.
We did not have any individual student resources until this week. We ordered coach books at the beginning of the school year, but they did not arrive until now. Fortunately, we had two teacher guides to share between two teachers. We look forward to using them next year, though.
We don't have the chapter books that are required by our state frameworks; nor do we have funds to purchase them. Also, our local board members expect every teacher in our grade level to be teaching the same concepts at the same time (down to the exact day), and that is ridiculous! The ELA frameworks are not particularly easy to understand, especially the 2nd 9 weeks for 3rd grade, yet our board members expect us to teach using them.
We need more Math supplies such as books, manipulatives, and assessments. We have had to make everything, and sometimes we are unsure if what we are making is beneficial or not. Assessments are much needed to monitor progress.
Would like to have the resources available ( big books, trade books, level books, CDs, DVDs, and other teaching materials that are needed) aligned, organized in a manner that makes sense, and packaged together with a teacher's manual instead of having to look for them in so many different places. It feels very discombobulated and disconnected. A lot of time is needed to look for materials that follow the pacing of the CCGPS. Need instructions for before the learning, during the learning, and after the learning for each task in Math. Need more pictures in the GaDOE unit frameworks.
Text that fit grade-level and content-appropriate.
Criticisms of local and state instructional support resources
Many of the tasks located on the GaDOE website have errors. There are not answer keys for all of the mathematical tasks. There are not rubrics to grade the tasks on the website.
Not enough structure in ELA content maps and resources. Confused about what exactly is expected to be mastered.
One of the extended texts that we used had inappropriate content for the grade level. This was suggested by the state frameworks.
Our biggest challenge has been that our county has held to implementing the State Frameworks exactly as written. Unfortunately, some of the book choices chosen for our grade level are not appropriate literature for young children. It is giving our children mixed signals as to acceptable language when speaking to others with respect.
9

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Our system has tried to implement the standards based on teaching with the units published by the state. I do not feel these units are effective. The Chapter books are very inappropriate as far as content. The units are scattered and do not flow well.
Lack of packing guide. Frameworks were all over the place and difficult to follow. Some lessons lacked focus and did not make much sense with what we were covering. Lack of pre and post tests for each unit. I feel there should be statewide resources including formative and summative assessments for each and every unit in the frameworks, including some questions aligned with the PARCC or CRCT. The Frameworks included many books that were hard to come by, especially the math. When considering resources it would have been nice for the state to provide a resource pack that could be purchased with all suggested reading materials, or at least make sure the books are readily available. The books that were chosen in the Reading Frameworks were duds for 2nd grade. My students did not enjoy them, nor did I. The current reading Frameworks do not work well in a school with a basal reading series. In my opinion the state of Georgia SHOULD have provided all teachers with a pacing guide, copy of all of the standards, and copy of the frameworks in a binder to be used for the school year. The introduction of CCGPS left a lot to be desired from my point of view. The state should have provided assessments (not just the ones in the frameworks, but end of unit tests) for each and every reading and math unit. I felt like this year my county was grasping at straws, making up tests, and reinventing the wheel. Before the state decides to change the standards, especially ones that come with a set of lesson plans to be used all year, all of this should be though out at the state level. North Carolina has some wonderful resources and I have relied heavily on those. In addition, the online classes are a joke. They are long, boring, and arduous. Nobody wants to spend an hour of their life watching them. If you want to make educational videos and require all teachers to watch them they should at least be pertinent to my teaching. Not one of those I watched made me a better teacher or helped me to understand CCGPS any better. I had to watch many of them on my own time since I'm being furloughed because there isn't enough money to pay me for staff development and teacher work days. These should be done away with completely, if you ask me. Overall I felt the implementation of CCGPS was much more difficult than the transition go GPS. I feel as if what I received was not what I had bargained for. Instead of having less topics and delving more in depth I felt like I was jumping aimlessly from topic to topic and not teaching anything as in depth as I would have liked to. I was told by my county to teach the frameworks exactly, and I felt they were lacking, to be honest with you.
Poorly written/organized pacing charts and unit plans and lack of Common Core aligned textbooks for math.
Some of the materials listed in the framework are redundant, burdensome, and the entire access point is poorly organized and difficult to search.
Some of the math tasks have been hard to understand the wording even for the adult group. We have had to really look at all of the math close.
10

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Sorting through the "fluff" in the ELA Frameworks can be somewhat difficult. They are not easy to read and flip through. The language, key terms and concepts are not directly stated in a separate location to be able to long-range plan. There are not page breaks between tasks which makes it very difficult to reference and read.
The 2nd grade ELA Units are TERRIBLE...POORLY WRITTEN AND THEY DO NOT ALLOW FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION THROUGH GUIDED READING!!
The biggest challenge has been having to skip around the text book, especially math. Also, the benchmarks for the math were very difficult for our students. The wording did not correspond to what was being taught in the text or assessments given during a benchmark period. The students got frustrated really easily.
The biggest challenge has been that SOME of the units did not have enough rigor. Compared to the benchmarks, formative, and summative assessments, I felt that my students were struggling because they were not used to certain materials.
The biggest challenge has been that the county curriculum maps don't always exactly match up to the state. We've had to do a lot of reworking of several things to fit our students.
The biggest challenge was trying to adequately respond to the vague and broad unit plans and then seeing benchmark test that barely connected to what I had taught during the unit. The reading selections were awful.
The ELA frameworks have been difficult to implement with the lack of books and resources. The ELA frameworks are overwhelming, and teachers have felt the lack of ownership in covering all standards through the use of frameworks. If we had all the books and resources before we started using the CCGPS, we could slide into the new curriculum much easier.
The ELA maps and standards make no sense to me or my grade level...dividing them into 6 week units, when everyone splits the year into 9 week quarters was very difficult to manage. We also did not have enough books that were suggested with the units, so the units were useless to us. I would have loved to use them because they were very well planned...but we did not have the resources needed to teach them, and therefore had to plan our own units, which was very challenging with the new and VERY VAGUE ELA standards.
The ELA unit frameworks are very vague. The curriculum and teacher editions we are working with do not have common core resources.
The first grade ELA frameworks were a disaster! The webinars led us to believe that if we taught these frameworks, we'd be set, but that's not what happened at all! We had to buy all the books out of pocket, some were not available anymore, they were not written well, etc., etc., etc. Very frustrating!
11

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The first grade teacher in my county did not feel the State ELA Units were easy to follow or well written. We created our own Skills Overview to teach all Standards, each week, while integrating science and social studies. It has worked extremely well, and I feel confident that next year will be even better as we review and revise our lessons.
The kindergarten units from the state were very inconsistent. Whoever wrote the ELA Units 2 and 3 did a very poor job. I was very disappointed. The math needs to be restructured to teach in a better sequence. I felt like higher concepts were taught before there was a good grasp on the more basic skills.
The Language Arts Frameworks were difficult to use probably because they were so different from what I was use to using. Even the timing of certain text- Like Because Of Winn Dixie, seemed to be introduced at the wrong time of the year since we were still building reading levels. I think that book should come more towards the end of the year rather than the first unit. Also, teachers who do not have a wealth of reading resources would have found following the frameworks very difficult because they would have been scrambling to get the needed resources all year.
The Math frameworks offer a few tasks, but not enough to provide support for calculation, etc.
The State and County are implementing CCGPS but are unprepared in terms of providing teachers with proper resources or fully understanding what is expected of us (at principals meetings within our county the common saying is "we are trying to build a ship while it is sailing"). We were recently told that many of the State Math lessons do not correlate to CCGPS but due to staffing/budget issues, teachers are left to use their own discretion as to chose plans that they think apply. Our math textbooks are now next to useless and our adoption planned for next year was voted down by the board due to their political disagreement with the Common Core, so now we are left with no resources. Our county web support for Reading/LA is disorganized as well, so teachers are just continuing to use best practices (which generally aligned with the Common Core anyways).
The units that were prepared by the state have major gaps and are missing authentic assessments.
Unit plans written for me by district.
We do not have the materials that we need to implement the standards. I have personally spent over $600 this year searching for materials to help my students learn the standards. Our textbooks do not correlate with the standards, and we cannot afford to purchase books again next year. The math units on the frameworks were helpful, but some of the material was too challenging for my students. The language arts units did not provide enough detail. It is very hard to implement new standards and be effective when you are constantly in search of quality materials.
Curriculum does not always meet students' current reading level. Texts are often un-engaging for students. Almost all units in curriculum are incomplete. Incomplete units are posted to district IDMS site.
12

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
ELA frameworks, or lack of, tasks, subject implementation (such as science and social studies), and assessments have left me to constantly research online what the students needs to learn and be able to do. This is extremely time-consuming, especially when there is zero planning time before, during, and after school. Math frameworks not good for special education. Too much time spent searching for and creating instructional support resources Developing practice materials and reference notes. Finding necessary and relevant material and being able to make use of the materials the school already had. Finding new writing examples and multiple texts. Finding practice resources for the students that are aligned with Common Core Finding quality materials to teach lessons. Finding resources for ELLs and Special Education students to provide differentiation and flexible groups, while ensuring that the standards were met. Finding resources that support the common core, and then having to buy the resources with my own money. Finding resources to get parents more involved. Finding resources to give additional practice. Finding resources to help implement. Finding resources within the school to aid CCGPS implementation. Finding resources!! Finding resources. Finding rigorous material. Finding the books and materials that CCGPS uses with the standards. Finding the readings in the frameworks.
13

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Finding the resources to teach the standards, practice them, and assess them!! I want a legitimate book! I am tired of searching for my resources for every topic, then making copies of every lesson we do. I feel like I am reinventing the wheel with many topics.
Finding the texts to go along with the standards.
Gathering materials for lessons.
Gathering supporting instructional materials. I believe, time is better spent present material to students and supporting their learning rather than teachers becoming text book authors.
Getting resources.
Having resources readily available instead of having the search the internet for hours.
Having to find and print our own curriculum & frameworks has been challenging.
Having to find new materials and resources.
Having to write new units for each subject was time consuming and confusing. Having units already made to show exactly what needed to be covered would have helped tremendously.
Honestly it was my first year implementing the new standards this year. The challenge was gathering the resources and then implementing them for the first time. I understand this will be easier next year and each time thereafter...
I have had difficulty gathering resources for practice and assessment beyond the tasks provided in the units. Parents request practice work and resources that will allow them to help their child at home. It is difficult to provide this to them with limited resources. I have also been exposed to many resources during my professional development training, but it is difficult to research them and also sort them into a way that is most beneficial due to time constraints.
It has been difficult to find hard-copy materials and it has been challenging to teach the new common core standards without a textbook aligned to these standards.
It isn't very easy to find resources and worksheets to actually fit the needs of my kids.
I've been teaching the new standards daily, but I spend hours almost daily researching materials to use to effectively teach these standards. I do not feel we have been provided with any valuable resources. I have had to search and buy materials on my own to cover the new standards. It takes me hours to plan each week because of our lack of quality resources. GKIDS assessment is terrible. We need to be provided with the same materials and means of assessment &amp; we need definite answer keys. GKIDS is way too subjective. It also seems that we are spending too much time testing, which takes away from our time of quality teaching.
14

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Lots of materials to prepare. I hope to teach the same grade levels again so I can reuse the materials that I now have.
My biggest challenge has been in obtaining resources in math.
My biggest challenge was finding good resources for the students to utilize outside of school.
My school did not have the resources/tools. we had to use the past years resources and try to align it ourselves with the CCGPS which was stressful &amp; time consuming.
My school district, Bibb, had done away with math textbooks this year. My grade level found ourselves scrambling to hunt for resources. All the teachers on my grade level have experience, so we teach standards, not the book. It still would have been beneficial to have student texts as a resource. Another huge challenge was implementing the language section. So many standards (modal auxiliaries, progressive adverbs, etc...) were new and difficult to find resources.
Need more time on my own to find the best resources for the new standards
No one has taught CCGPS Coordinate Algebra until this year, so we've had to figure out resources as we go along.
NO resources to work with and little guidance from the county. I have to spend most of my time searching for lesson plans and ideas for teaching the CCGPS
Our team struggled with some of the books that were chosen for the 5th grade ELA frameworks. The content (i.e. the "n" word) was a little out of our league in this rural community. The biggest challenge was coming up with resources. We teachers had to spend so much of our time developing, finding, creating, tasks and assessments that matched the standards. Many teachers spent their own money on resources purchased through Teachers Pay Teachers website. I feel that with the initial implementation of CCGPS, the DOE would have provided us with a plethora of resources.
Resources!!!!!!! We had a hard time finding resources that fit the needs of our students! The resources we had we made ourselves!!!!
Spending lots of extra time creating new assignments and tests to align with the Common core.
The biggest challenge that I faced this year with implementing CCGPS was finding materials for assessments and sample test questions so that I could create my own.
The biggest challenge was finding and receiving resources for various learners.
The biggest challenge was finding material that my students could connect to.
The biggest challenge was locating useful resources.
15

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
We are having to create our own curriculum and teaching materials!!!! We have no resources, or text books or teacher resources.....only a standard & we have to research and create everything to teach that standard...ridiculous and way too time consuming....plus, this isn't "common" if the teacher is making things up herself. All standards look different depending on whose classroom you walk in....How is this common? Where are we supposed to find time to do this & how are we supposed to know what the standard is supposed to look like on a standardized test?????? Resources are needed. Also, our county, Cobb, wants to do everything differently so we are at a real disadvantage as we don't have same resources as teachers in other counties!!!!! Teachers in my school unhappy, frustrated, stressed and angry that we are so unsupported by our county throughout this transition....
We do not have resources and it's up to the teachers to create material. With so many budget cuts and more and more responsibilities this has just added to the teachers' burdens. I feel as though we are asked to do it all. Create the material, differentiate the material, create assessments, review the data, and still keep up with all of our other responsibilities. It has become impossible to do all that is asked of us and teachers are feeling overwhelmed, overworked, and underappreciated.
We have struggled to find materials that covered the standards. As stated earlier, we know that there is a general "frowning" upon the use of textbooks because of the Internet and it's many, many sources, but even on the Internet we were struggling to put our hands on appropriate first grade materials, lessons, and activities that were child friendly in teaching the new common core standards. For example, in math we have never introduced regrouping or the use of equations in first grade. There are very little resources available to us to help in teaching these concepts. The units that were written did not even seem to introduce addition and subtraction till late in the year. If we are to teach the complexity of the common core, units must be designed and structured in such a way as to lead to scaffolding of skills.
Finding appropriate materials for practice of skills and appropriate tests.
Finding resources that fit the culture and skill level of my students while keeping the rigor.
CCGPS UNITS prepared by teachers. Teachers have always been driven to add/experiment with resources; however, it is unethical to force curriculum development upon all teachers who are teaching approximately 85 to 90 students or more each day. We acquired an education for teaching students while others specifically sought the job, pay, and time to develop curriculum. One job or the other can be maintained with quality if a teacher has a balanced life.
Finding the time to create and use helpful materials
Finding the time to find materials to implement the CCGPS in math.
Getting resources that are aligned with the CCGPS.
I teach an adapted curriculum that aligns to CCGPS. The greatest challenge is the time spent adapting learning materials to make them accessible to my students.
16

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Time invested in adding space into the frameworks and making them look more student-friendly. Time to create new materials has been a challenge, along with lack of non-fiction sources. Time to learn the find and learn new tools for implementing the standards Other resource challenges Access to resources. Access to resources. Accessing material. The textbooks did not align with the new standards so I was constantly searching and creating work for the students. In Fulton County we use a website called SAMS that has all of the instructional units and standards. They have changed the website this year, making it extremely user UNfriendly. It takes at least 10 minutes to log on and choose what you teach. Then, you have to scroll forever to locate what you are looking for. I would love a website that I can go to, click my grade level, click what subject, and have everything for me right there. Locating some of the books suggested in the Frameworks. Out-of-print resources that are suggested as texts in ELA for K-5. Our system did away with textbooks for Math. Those text books are crucial to studying and tutoring your own child when at home. Websites listed by the state were not always available. Not student friendly. Teachers had to make a ridiculous amount of manipulatives, games centers and copies in the math CCGPS Resources! Some of the books are out of print or are a challenge. Accessing the CC standards is very difficult. Getting the frameworks in a timely manner for planning. We were in a holding pattern up until 2-3 week before each quarter to know what the county lay out was going to be with resources. Since it was based on the Science/Social studies we were able to pull together ideas to get started. Hopefully for next year it will be a lot smoother. Aligning previously used material to the new standards, i.e. changing them in some way. Existing textbook adoptions misaligned with new standards. In my district the performance charts and standard based report cards do not align with the CCGPS.
17

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Our school did not adopt a Common Core Math Textbook series. The old series covered very few of the standards we needed. We have had to create and find our own materials to effectively teach the standards.
Our textbooks do not align with the standards. While I know you should not teach strictly by the textbook, it's nice to have guidelines.
Still using the old textbook aligned to GPS. However, this will be ameliorated next year because all of our students will be receiving iPads.
Textbooks that didn't align (Parents had this concern, because they weren't able to use the book as resource to help them with their work at home.)
The biggest challenge that I have had with implementing CCGPS this school year is finding the resources/activities/technology to "fit" or "match" each standard.
We don't have the financial resources to purchase new, nonfiction materials. More students will fail classes with the tougher standards, and school systems have to be prepared for this result.
My biggest challenge is the lack of effective technology in my district. I have a SMART board that has issues and a technology person who can't be bothered. I do not have access to computers for students. The computer that goes with my SMART board is so slow that it is almost impossible to use the internet to illustrate concepts.
My class is a collaborative classroom with Special ED children in 4th grade. We need more computer type of programs that students could use when they have trouble hearing information for the first time. A preview on a video would help enormously.
Not having the technology that encompasses the assessment and the learning phases.
The same challenge as before: Lack of technology, namely, being able to have ready access to computers for things like papers.
Challenges due to changes in teacher practice or style
Curriculum maps at my school did not initially focus upon the relation of materials to specific, overarching themes. It was difficult at first to change my thinking from the unit-centered instruction that I was previously used to; I am becoming more adept at incorporating standards in lessons throughout the entire year.
18

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
ELA tasks were difficult, hard to follow, and materials were not readily available. When we chose another text with comparable complexity, we were marked down on our walkthrough after we had approved the text through the reading coach. Math tasks were difficult for the children, and many days of backtracking happened due to students not understanding the basics BEFORE completing the tasks. It is a new way of thinking about teaching, but I feel our students suffered greatly this year.
I believe that I have been my biggest challenge. When you've been teaching a certain way for so long, it takes a lot of practice to do things that were routine a different way.
I don't teach reading, but my class focuses on writing instruction. This has been a challenge.
Incorporating the increased of writing into instruction with the current schedule.
It has been most challenging regearing my thinking for math. At times I have found myself teaching too much.
Learning what performance tasks look like. However, once you get the hang of it, it's really what you should have been doing all along.
Letting go of the old topics covered and focusing on the new expectations.
Math has been hard not to tell them one way to solve and just give the algorithm. It has been hard for me but great at the same time.
My biggest challenge in implementing the CCGPS was agreeing with some of the strategies provided to teach certain standards. In other words, it was kind of hard to let go of old habits and start developing new ones.
My biggest challenge was teaching a little and testing a lot.
My biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this year would have been getting started in the beginning of the year implementing the new strategies and learning the classroom management techniques that help to enable more partner collaboration and small group projects.
Remembering that some of our math curriculum has changed and making adjustments.
Teaching effective formal persuasive writing skills.
Text complexity in kindergarten as well as having time to teach all of the language arts standards effectively!
The biggest challenge I faced was allowing my students to struggle during Math class and encouraging them to persevere.
19

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge is not knowing all the different ways information can be presented and how to test them.
The biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS was using the extended texts (chapter books) for instruction (i.e. Because of Winn-Dixie, Mr. Popper's Penguins, etc.). I was so used to using the short stories in the basal readers to teach a certain skill each week. The extended texts had to be used to teach all the reading skills. I think I will use them better next year.
The largest challenge is teaching students to compare and contrast various reading materials without any resources. I would love to see samples of texts to compare with questions available for teachers.
Visuals of the shift of spending more time on one concept.
Redirecting students' behavior.
Providing individual instruction.
Differentiation.
The biggest challenge is managing a large class while differentiating it is impossible with small children who come to school ill prepared to give struggling students enough time to master skills. EIP pullout and EIP reduced class size (really) must be utilized or the nation is doomed to fail.
The depth of the standards and not being able to get that deep with struggling learners.
Having to accommodate the needs of multiple levels of students, below average, average, above average, and gifted learners in the same classroom and teach the CCGPS to them in a manner that they feel confident and perform proficiently. Mastery is the key but these standards are so complex that the students of all levels, especially lower level kids or economically disadvantaged kids are struggling.
It is difficult to get students to slow down, take their time, and read questions carefully. Especially on standardized tests when answers are tricky. It is also difficult to get some students to verbalize their thoughts on paper - to be descriptive enough to understand their thinking.
It was difficult getting students to think outside the box; that is, connecting the cause and effect.
Learning how to teach my students to become independent thinkers.
My biggest challenge implementing CCGPS was creating a culture of students with elaborate vocabulary skills. This is an ongoing problem within our school district. Students do not have very strong vocabulary skills and lack fundamental phonic awareness. This made my job very difficult because I had to bring my classroom alive with magazines, books, newspapers, dictionaries, and atlas.
Math - overcoming poor fact skills of students.
20

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge was getting students to write answers to the questions.
Getting students to understand how to decode numbers.
Getting students to be comfortable about writing about their math and the process.
Getting my students to attack deeper thought provoking word problems in math, and/or taking the time to analyze content.
Getting students to start thinking critically about the mathematics involved in CCGPS and making connections that have allowed them to eliminate many of the misconceptions that they have consistently held about mathematics.
Getting students to think. Most completely shut down when working on their own if the way to get "the answer" is not clear to them pretty quickly. Also, they make no effort to remember anything. I've made some progress with them, but I have most of them less than a semester (I teach in an alternative school and get new students every week and then most of them return to their home schools at the end of the semester), so it's very difficult.
Helping students develop higher order thinking skills through the use of nonfiction.
The biggest challenge that I have had this year with implementing CCGPS was getting the students used to this higher-level thinking. Introducing the number line in math was a challenge because the students already knew a way of solving the problem and did not understand why they had to find out multiple ways to solve it.
The biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year is developing students to think critically when they have been previously taught with a teacher-centered method.
Students have been quick to come up with a correct answer to a given problem. They often hesitate to explain their thinking processes. Teaching students to explain their answers has been a challenge.
Insufficient time to adequately address CCGPS
Adequate time in class to provide for practice and more long-term problems.
Because of so many scheduled meetings, it was difficult to have time to plan. There are many useful strategies our department could have added to our group activities if planning time (or lack of) was not an issue.
ELA has been a challenge for me. Teaching students to read (letters, sounds, blending) and teaching story elements and writing in a limited amount of time is difficult. I feel that I missed the mark with some skills.
21

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Finding the time to implement the new standards, but also incorporate the old standards from CRCT. Making sure all data is up to date and relevant to the learning. Making time to meet with so many parents, as class size has increased to 35 students. Creating the different lessons to enhance the learning of all my 35 students to meet their individual needs! Getting time to teach everything. Having enough time to grade all the written assessments for over 150 kids is impossible if I want to do a good job. I feel as though I haven't had time to give all my kids my best. Having the time needed to make ensure that the students had a deep understanding of the concepts covered this year. Having the time to absorb all of the CCGPS and understand completely the concepts in each one. I was not able to complete the units. No time to adequately assess and reflect The biggest challenge I have experienced with implementing CCGPS is finding time to study the manuals and organize materials and activities suggested in CCGPS. There are many Social Studies and Science standards that are not included in the frameworks and there is no time to add them in. There wasn't enough time to cover the material as thoroughly as I wanted!!! Time. Time. TIME. Time. Time. Time. Time constraints -getting it all in and creating applicable assessments for each standard. Time is always a factor and an educator's biggest challenge. I don't think we need any more training. I think we need to be given the time to plan and work within our departments. Time to allow students to do longer tasks.
22

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Time to allow students to fully understand a concept before having to move to the next concept.
Time to lesson plan!
Time to plan and resources.
Time to plan!!!
Time to really dig in and assimilate the information...new standards, new TKES, is a bit overwhelming!
Time.
Time... the lack of time.
Special education instructional challenges
Aiding my Special Education students in accepting the changes it will bring.
I have severe and profound students it is hard to implement CCGPS to this group of students
I teach Special Education math, so I have had to rely on my team taught teachers as the primary resource for interpreting the standards and providing the curriculum. From there, I tailor the materials and instruction to my resource classes, but still standards-based. There were too many standards to cover in depth in the resources classes by the time of the CRCT. By the end of the semester, all standards were introduced, but in my view, too much for students with learning disabilities to master. As for all of the exemplars, curriculum maps, etc., this is an overwhelming amount of information to process and implement. I rarely had time to explore all of the guides and guidelines due to other priorities involving the IEP process. So again, I rely heavily on my Gen Ed teachers.
I'm a special education teacher and the higher order thinking is very difficult for my kids. Teaching them the basics is challenging enough.
Implementing the standards to Mi-iD students
Implementing this with students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Making sure that all students regardless of their disabilities have access to the same CCGPS curriculum.
Since I am a Special Education teacher my greatest challenge is affective Co teaching strategies.
Students with Autism that are non verbal functioning below a 3 yr old level and how Core Curriculum applies to what they need to learn. Daily living, self help, functional life skills!
Students with significant learning disabilities struggle with the pace of the curriculum and without the deep, working understanding of the content, they do not demonstrate mastery as readily.
23

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Teaching severe/profound ID students, the challenge was to bring some aspect of the element in the standard down to their level and making it functionally relevant. We need multi-sensory approaches, instructional strategies and more appropriate assessment techniques but most importantly, functionally relevance. Frankly, we need state standards for students with severe/profound intellectual disabilities.
Teaching students with disabilities how to answer questions critically and independently. Students with disabilities have a difficult time working through problems without asking questions throughout the activity.
The biggest challenge I have had this year implementing CCGPS is the way students are taught. My Special Education Students struggle with the academics in general. Now they struggle even more with what is expected and the pace that needs to be maintained.
This curriculum does nothing to help the students with significant cognitive impairments. When are we going to stop and take a look at what these students really need and how we can help them to get there? We should not be ""watering down"" the general education curriculum so that we can say that we provided access to the same curriculum for general and special education students. We should provide a curriculum that will address the individual needs of the students with disabilities so that we can see real growth instead of a ""dog and pony"" show.
Using it effectively with students with disabilities.
Some of the material is too complex for EIP/low ability students who are not functioning on grade level.
The extended texts are not easily accessible for students with disabilities.
Students unable to meet rigor of CCGPS
9th graders don't have pre-req knowledge needed for success. Social promotion impedes classroom success.
A big challenge has been incorporating more rigor, for students don't always like to be challenged.
Adapting the changes to urban, low income disadvantage students
As a reading resource teacher, increasing text complexity was a big challenge for the students who were struggling readers.
Building off prior knowledge has been difficult. Most students this year knew what to do, but not why. Since students struggled with the overall concept, building upon the knowledge to learn higher skills was often a struggle.
Dealing with students working below grade level and discipline problems.
24

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Figuring out how to increase students reading fluency and comprehension with texts that are WELL ABOVE grade level and students reading level. Many of the texts in first grade are WELL ABOVE students lexile. I realize that students are suppose to be reading increasingly difficult texts, but not texts that frustrate them and turn them off from reading. Some of these texts are far too difficult for beginning readers to read independently. Learning how to have students read the first grade texts (which are above lexile levels of all students) and manage behavior because the students are frustrated from trying to read the texts is very difficult.
It has been very hard to build problem solving skills when students struggle with basic computation skills in math such as multiplication and division. What do you do if they haven't reached the fluency they should have in multiplication and division as 5th graders?
Just a challenging way of thinking for the students.
Kids are still not coming to my class expecting to have to think and problem solve on their own. Expect to be spoon fed.
Lower, struggling, Tier II, III, IV students have fallen further behind.
Many students do not have the prerequisite skills necessary to complete grade level material independently. And due to large class sizes, there isn't time or space to effectively address students' needs. There are too many needy kids and too little of me! :(
Math: Students learning rates are vastly different and many cannot stay on the same task as others. I have some students who need 2-3 months for addition and others mastered it in 2 weeks.
My ELL students have struggled a lot with the rigorous expectations of the CCGPS, due to an extensive language barrier. For most of my students, the only place they speak, read, or write English is at school. There is not a lot of opportunity for out of class practice of the standards because there is no one at home to help if the students do not understand what they are working on.
My students have really struggled with working through difficult problems. They did not like making mistakes, and often broke down when they did not understand things. We worked through it but they are not doing as well as I would have liked at this point.
My students who were already reading below grade-level really struggled this year with both reading and writing.
On the other hand, I am seeing more students coming to me that are less mature with MANY more problems (attention and social issues as well as parental support). This has gradually gotten worse within the past 3 years. With this growing problem, it makes implementing the new standards and way of thinking even more difficult for the classroom teacher. The gap is growing wider because the expectations of student performance is so much higher than many of these students are mentally prepared to accomplish with the other issues interfering.
25

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Paper pencil activities are ok for students who are already accelerated. Hands on activities are needed for students who have difficulty thinking abstractly. They need to manipulate given concepts with their hands. Scaffolding the activities so that students will grasp the concept was also a time consuming challenge. Scaffold hands on activities would be great. Students who were academically challenged had difficulty grasping concepts at a pace that would keep them on track.
Reviewing information that students should have already mastered (retention).
So much of the math was based on the assumption that students already knew skills. Most of lessons were games and such. There was very little actual teaching of the skill. That all fell to the teacher to figure out.
Some challenges involve younger children who have trouble grasping information.
Some of the students are not memorizing the multiplication and division facts to become more success with mathematics.
Some students that are not on grade level struggle with the reading shifts within the curriculum.
Student resistance to change and increased lesson rigor.
Students are having difficulty with problems solving and applying skills in order to solve multi-step problems. Students want to find a quick answer to all problems and be done! The tasks can seem overwhelming for students and I have had to break them down into smaller parts. Many of my students have asked for "worksheets" instead of the tasks.
Students come to me several years behind and having to re-teach/review previous grade standards AND teach standards for my grade level.................
Students have had some difficulty making the transition.
Students not use to open ended questions in math
Students who do not have 3rd grade or 4th grade simple tools of multiplying, dividing and adding/subtracting trying to learn 6th grade math.
Students who were in 4th grade last year did not cover standards that we moved from 5th to 4th this year. For instance, divisibility rules were totally skipped for them.
The biggest challenge has been for those students who inherently do not like to read. It is most difficult to engage them in utilizing the strategies mentioned in answer # 17.
The biggest challenge I had implementing CCGPS this school year was that students were not developmentally able to meet the expectations of the standards.
26

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge was trying to teach these students that come into my classroom with no background knowledge of hardly anything (letters, sounds, animal names, etc.) at the pace the CCGPS are expecting of us. The biggest challenge would be the gap that seemed to exist from the previous grade level. Some students had trouble with handling more rigor. The greatest challenge has been facilitating the students' process of communicating their learning in writing instead of a multiple choice format. Students with special education exceptionalities (especially that impact writing) struggle in this area. I, also, think students miss a greater concentration on fiction. The learning gap is immense in my students. I teach co-lab classes. The Student Tasks are very difficult for my students to do on their own. They are still relying on me too much to give them the answers or show them how to do it rather than figuring it out on their own. Generally their responses to the questions are "I don't know how to do this." I hope the longer we are implementing the CCGPS the more the students will adjust to 'learning on their own'. The students do not have a book in their hands on a daily bases. It has been harder for the lower readers to be able to read the books chosen because they were to far above their levels. The students learning to answer critical thinking questions... Also writing is always a challenge. The students wanting to write papers There are a lot of different levels of students in my classroom; it is difficult for a lot of students to comprehend. Unprepared students Working with English language learners has made implementation harder. Working with students who are apathetic or from disadvantaged backgrounds Working with the enormous amount of students that come in functioning well below grade level has been a huge challenge. Providing grade level instruction and remediation of prerequisite skills along with re-teaching material has been (at times) whelming. You know how it goes. Kids that don't get it, act out. Kids that do get it and find themselves on pause during instruction act out. Find balance is a tough one for us.
27

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
CCPGS difficult to interpret A new third grade standard this year was "Point of View." There are very few resources available. In fifth grade they teach point of view using "first person," etc. Our grade level was not sure if it meant using "first person," author's purpose, or author's perspective. The standard is not clear. We struggled with this standard all year. It can be confusing and a major change, especially to teachers that have been teaching for awhile. Also, using Springboard sometimes does not fulfill all the areas of the ELA curriculum. Knowing what the standards are. I feel the biggest challenge with CCGPS is knowing how deep to go with the standards and how people interpret the standards very differently. I wasn't quite sure how deep I should have taken my students on the topics and if I was using too much time on one topic and not enough time on another. Interpreting the depth of the standards because some are vague in how they are written. Knowing how long to teach a standard. Not really knowing how much rigor to infuse on some standards because they are vaguely written. Because we grade by standards, it is difficult to assess some of the standards because they repeat concepts. So many standards. Not knowing how "deep" to take my students with math skills. Understanding the depth of the standard and what each standard entails. Grasping all of the Language Arts standards. Have no idea what we are teaching I feel like I'm lost all the time and trying to catch up with the game. Interpretation of standard with the frameworks and examples given. Interpreting the standard. Interpreting what will be assessed Knowing the exact expectations of the standards and not just someone's or my own interpretations of them.
28

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Making sure that I have the concepts concrete in my mind before implementing and introducing to students.
Not being used to the actual standards. Many of them are "weirdly" worded and vague; one can apply to many activities using the Springboard curriculum.
Not completely understanding the standards. They are more vague than the previous GPS. Implementing both math and language arts in the same year made it more difficult.
Not fully aware of the specific expectations, it all seems a bit broad.
The biggest challenge has been trying to infer what the standards mean. It took a lot of time outside of the regular classroom day to research and try to figure out what was intended to be taught. The vagueness of the standards is very frustrating.
The lack of understanding the CC. The ability to make it interlock with the ongoing county standards and assessments.
The standards are very hard to break down and understand.
The standards are worded in a way that is difficult for students to understand. It is also difficult to interpret which concepts are included in each standard; very ambiguous.
The standards can be hard to understand. They were not explained in depth to teachers. I wasn't always sure what the standard was asking the students to do or know.
The standards were unclear. I would like clarification.
Understanding common core and PARCC.
Understanding the standards.
Unpacking the standards and knowing exactly what is expected has been a challenge. I have felt like a brand new teacher this year.
Knowing what the standards look like for Kindergarten, GKIDS assessments need to be more clear Wording on GKIDS are still very subjective - for instance how many words need to be read by sight? Is there a certain list of words? On MCCK.CC.4 - how many objects do they have to say the number names for? 20? or 100?
My biggest challenge has been interpreting the standards, especially the Accelerated Algebra/Geometry A. I am the only teacher in my school teaching this content so I don't have anyone to collaborate with.
29

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Not knowing exactly what to teach. The standards are quite vague in some pieces and extremely specific in others. Example one standard for third states - uses commas in addresses (very specific)while another states- knows derivational suffixes (very general because there are a lot of different ones and it would be impossible to teach a third grader all of them).
Not knowing how/when to teach grammar. Also, needed more focus on writing. State developed CCGPS units were not used, we had to create our own.
The biggest challenge this year was the amount of standards to cover in such a short time. With so many transition standards in 7th grade, we were not able to go as deeply as we wanted to with standards because there was so much material to cover. Some standards in common core are very vague and I feel at times I do not know if I am focusing on what the standard is intended to focus on.
Other implementation challenges
Collaborating with colleagues who do not focus on higher-order thinking skills in their questioning and evaluations.
Getting the administration to understand the necessity of having calculators in every classroom.
Choosing which texts to focus on with limited time.
I am a 7th grade math teacher and my biggest challenge was with Pacing. I had some difficulty ending both semesters at the appropriate places with my ""bubble"" and inclusion classes. I need more and better resources to address the needs of special education students. I was over-taxed with breaking it down for them. When the ah ha moment came, or I once I found a better approach, we were out of time.
It was a challenge pacing myself in reading. We did not have a clear guide as to when and what needed to be taught. There is a lot of room for interpretation on the general guidelines.
Learning to fit all curriculum in to the daily schedule has been a challenge.
Making sure the pace in classes are on point with connecting the standards in all subjects.
My biggest challenge has been following pacing charts, curriculum maps, etc. to ensure that CCGPS was implemented smoothly.
Pacing the information.
Pacing to meet the benchmark dates when I had a group of lower students was very difficult.
The biggest challenge was learning the pacing of the curriculum, what needed to be taught in each standard, and finding resources to use in class.
30

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The challenge has been the pace of the curriculum. In addition, the fact that I have multiple grade levels with a large amount of contents does not allow for the depth of learning that is necessary for CCGPS.
The number of task and the time it takes to do each task doesn't work in to the amount of days students are in school. Fewer tasks are needed. Use rigorous task and give enough time to be able to really get into each concept. Additional practice for certain concepts is needed also as well as a longer segment of time for math.
The pacing & finding innovative ways to present information.
The pacing guideline the GADOE set forth does not allow the students enough time to become familiar with the concept much less mastering it. For example, teaching greater than and less than using symbols pacing was estimated 1-2 days - it took my children 1 week just to understand what greater than meant and what less than meant before I even introduced the symbols.
Time management is the biggest issue we have had this year. I am hoping that with the coming years that this will come easier and more manageable. I also hope that with the coming year that we see more resources for gifted students as well as our low readers. I feel that my gifted students were not challenged as much as I would have liked to. However, the being the first year of using the units I veered off a little, however, I know that next year, I must work harder to challenge my students.
Because I am a support teacher (ELL), I do not have the opportunity to collaborate with regular classroom teachers with whom I work except for little snippets of conversation here and there.
Biggest challenge: reworking my curriculum.
Even though my school gave the ELA department several days at the end of last year to plan together, it's always difficult to try to revamp an entire curriculum, especially knowing that it will probably only be around for four or five years before the "next big thing" comes along.
Having the time to effectively plan the implementation of these standards while also incorporating fine arts lessons.
Planning for a multi-grade (3rd, 4th, 5th) Direct Instruction setting and implementing the CCGPS while also remediating and working on goals and objectives.
Planning the lesson in a simple format.
The biggest challenge is modifying content to the point that it is still critically challenging for my intensive students.
31

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
My biggest challenge has been with the math curriculum. Our district made ALL tasks in the state curriculum mandatory even though it was impossible to complete all tasks within the weeks allotted for a unit. There was no time for preliminary lessons needed to prepare students for the tasks we were asking them to do. I haven't had the freedom to delve deeply into the curriculum because we are going from task to task without having time lay the ground work. There is not time to spend on deep probing content. Language arts has us on a constant DIBELS testing cycle that requires kindergarten teachers to test students individually on two different probes weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. This combined with weekly common assessments makes it difficult to have time to spend actually exploring the content. Common assessments offer helpful formative assessment data for me in my daily teaching. However, the DIBELS assessments are done solely for the purpose of offering data to the county and it takes away valuable time from instruction on a weekly basis.
TIME! I had too many nonsense meetings (HOST/Model classroom.) These meetings should have been offered to first year teachers, and should have been optional for veteran teachers. These meetings interfered with me preparing for my class. I would have appreciated meetings of "make and take" aligned to the CCGPS, instead of listening to someone talk for 45 minutes 3 times a week in a month. Then, we had to participate in Common Planning that was not really planning, but was guided by the administration as to what is their vision for common planning, which took another hour away from my own planning time. When Mike Rutherford came to our school, he clearly established what planning should look like. I was excited because his vision is what I always thought planning should look like, but it was not implemented by my administration. (I considered after the fact that having Mike Rutherford at our school was a waste of money since the administration did not incorporate his teaching.)
Getting it all in.
I did not have enough time in the classroom to adequately teach all of the information I felt my students needed to be successful.
Making sure every standard was met.
My biggest challenge has been able to find the time to feel a level of mastery in teaching all the ELACC requirements with such diverse students.
The biggest challenge I have had was the amount of CCGPS that we teach in 3rd grade.
The biggest challenge is that most of the standards require more time to complete. Students can't think deeply about text without having the time to read it, analyze, make generalizations, and back up their thinking in a realistic manner in the time we have for reading.
The biggest challenge is working in ALL of the standards. There were some readings and writings that I had to drop because there was simply not enough time.
32

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The expectations of ELA teachers to grade all of the writing that is suggested. It is an unreasonable amount that cannot be accomplished with the current class sizes. If you want more writing, then we need smaller class sizes! No more than 20-22 students per class and some of this writing could be successfully grades and used to improve writing. The writing units for kindergarten students is very intense. The requirements are to write up to 6 pages on topic more than once a week. That's intense. There are still too many math objectives to have time to "apply deep understanding." There are too many skills to cover within one standard. Trying to effectively implement all of the standards by following the county wide curriculum map. It is such a short amount to teach the information, and my general concern is that I am unable to teach to the depth I feel necessary. Basic knowledge and concepts were not "supposed" to be introduced according to our curriculum people before certain tasks were given. Therefore, a clear understanding was not gained. Re-teaching with building background had to be implemented. Reading. Reading was the biggest challenge. Resources were not available and I really don't think the reading unit plans were as easy to follow as the math unit plans. Writing. Writing assessments to reflect the standards that also have rigor. Writing instruction does not match state writing test. Writing is not happening in all classrooms. Teachers are not confident with teaching writing, and our emphasis is going to have to change if we want to help our students succeed in this area. I teach three grade-levels and there was a lot of new material (books, etc) to preview and implement. I teach three grade levels, so it has been a challenge to keep the changes to the curriculum straight. Having to teach all the standards aligned with CCGPS, but still cover the "transition" GPS It was difficult to "word" sample questions for students to practice before the CRCT. In class timed writing - grading.
33

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge was getting the framework lessons organized. By teaching from the frameworks, you were required to copy a lot of materials and make a lot of games that required extra time.
The feeling of "not knowing what I'm doing" was a challenge.
Criticisms of CCGPS
An enormous amount of standards, especially in ELA.
At the end of the year, it seemed like a lot of information being crammed in. ex. metric system, customary measurement
For Kindergarten: Some of the language arts standards seem redundant and could be combined. Students are missing out on the enjoyment of good literature because they have to do so much writing in response to it. They are groaning!
Getting away from the basics. In the lower grades it is imperative to teach and re-teach basic sentence structure. The CCGPS gets away from that with its plans for students to create narratives and other writings. Also, it keeps teachers from having enough time to teach basic (independent) reading skills.
Getting it aligned with GKIDS.
I strongly disagree with Common Core. It is changing history, changing the way things are taught and giving the state government no say in what is being taught to our children. It is a progressive, liberal change in the school system and there is no oversight by the state. It is moving toward a socialist education; in upper grades, for example, having the students give 3 or more ways to solve one problem and having to show the "exact" way it was solved, instead of allowing each individual student come up with their "own" way to solve it; in other words, making "everyone" do it the same way, is moving toward socialism. The CCSD needs to research the Common Core more in depth and read all of the progressive, liberal, socialist backbone of it. It was just taken on with no regard to the political agenda it entails. I teach it because I have to; am I happy about it? NO
Not as concrete as GPS - not familiar with language of standard etc.
Not starting addition and subtraction at the beginning of the year resulted in students who do not have as good of a grasp of their math facts as they have in years past which is a major concern as they transition to second grade.
The abandonment of literature for informational texts; keeping the interest of students who have rarely read books and don't want to.
The amount of material.
The amount of reading required for students.
34

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The CCGPS for Coordinate Algebra did not align with the EOCT given first semester. Scores were LOW in my county due to this.
It was TOTALLY ridiculous and irresponsible to take out the money concepts in 1st grade! It is not in Kindergarten, and then you want students COUNTING money in 2nd grade??!! Nowhere in K or 1st grade CC standards do we see "Identify the values and names of coins and bills." There is absolutely no reasonable rationale for this decision. Children in K and 1st are already getting allowances and handling money. It is unrealistic to expect 2nd grade teachers to teach value and identity, in addition to counting!!! Thank goodness for Calendar Math because that's when I teach Money. Even at this time of the year, some kids are confusing the coins and their values. Having the appropriate time throughout the year would greatly improve their knowledge. Also, if I had not taught Calendar Math, my students would be that much further behind and ill-prepared for 2nd grade. Those teachers who will follow the CC Math curriculum will not teach any money concepts and, as a result, those students will not fare well in 2nd grade. During the CC 3-day Summer Math Academy (Stone Mountain, GA), this topic was also a HUGE) concern.
The complete shift of the English Language Arts curriculum in regard to grammar and usage to reading comprehension and writing organizational structure.
The ELA has been a complete struggle. Many systems around us have found it that way also. It would have been better to just give us the list of standards and a timeline and let us build our own units to fit the needs of our students. It was not cohesive and it did not flow like it should. The grammar skills were taught in isolation and the students did not get the time to build their skill level. I did like the focus on nonfiction text. I believe in the use of nonfiction to increase vocabulary and reading skills.
The ELA standards are vague and not very clear.
The math calendar for 1st grade is hugely out of order. The kids have suffered this year because they were forced to learn concepts that were far too hard right away and forgot how to do the easy things once we were able to teach it. Also, with it being a new implementation this year, there are very few resources readily available. We are spending a lot of man hours searching for resources tirelessly on the internet. I think that generally the concepts are too vague. It does not give a full, complete picture of what the teachers are expected to teach.
The order that concepts were taught was not very efficient.
The standards are much more broad and less specific than the previous standards, so it was more difficult to figure out how to apportion learning time effectively. In particular I was not sure if I was adequately preparing my 9th graders for the EOCT; I actually felt that they were more prepared under the old curriculum.
35

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
This is an unmitigated disaster. 1) This curriculum is NOT designed for mastery of skills and is NOT designed for average to weak students. It is leaving these students with the only option of dropping out of school - the students are 3-4 years behind in their math skills when they get to me (ninth grade) and their motivation is at an ALL TIME LOW. 2) The first unit is CCGPS Coordinate Algebra is a disaster. It doesn't flow from one element to the next; it assumes math abilities that the students do not have. 3) Hell - the whole damn curriculum assumes the students know more than they do. My students have little to no knowledge of linear functions and this curriculum assumes they know some basics. My students can't add/subtract integers, don't have a clue about fractions, and certainly aren't not ready for exponential functions - let alone understand the transformation of these functions! 4) THIS CURRICULUM IS GOING TO CAUSE A TOTAL DECLINE IN MATH LITERACY IN AVERAGE TO WEAK STUDENTS. IT MUST BE CHANGED BEFORE WE LOSE SEVERAL YEARS OF STUDENTS.
To many standards to cover in 4th grade and parent misconceptions about the standards
Too much to cover in one year. The outlines do not take into account that we must spend time reviewing for EOCT and that we lose a week at the end of each semester for exams.
Too much to learn along with daily 5 and caf reading.
Trying to teach exponential functions & sequences to 9th graders!!!! These are concepts that juniors & seniors often find difficult. Remember your study of developmental psychology??? Students cannot effectively grasp some concepts until their brains develop more. This was a terrible idea!!!!!
I felt like I was "all over the place" teaching math to my students this year. There was no flow to the curriculum and my students did not have the skill set needed to learn the concepts. I spent a lot of time teaching transition standards before progressing to the standards. I would like to see a better flow between the standards, as math should build on each concept taught and not be isolated concepts.
The time frame and many standards required to be met are the biggest challenges. There are too many standards to effectively cover all the standards adequately/effectively. There is a ""rush through"" environment to get all accomplished. It is overwhelming. Can students effectively learn with a heavy schedule? What about those who learn at a slower rate? Will they fall through the crack because they could not keep up with the rigorous pace of the standards? Perhaps focus should be given to Power Standards, rather than so many standards being met. I am concerned about developmentally appropriate demands of the standards as well. However, most of my kindergartners did meet or exceeded the standards. Several are still progressing, which is average. The CCGPS are very intense and requires organization, effective planning, and a very structured classroom learning environment, which is good. Most importantly, it requires an effective professional learning team to plan and work effective and efficiently together.
36

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Assessments Assessments. Assessments. The units did not provide the types of formative assessments I needed for report cards. assessments aligned with CRCT and common core. Benchmarks and assessments. Creating formative and summative assessments for each standard. Creating good school-wide unit assessments that align with CCGPS. Developing and using benchmark assessments. Finding assessments with rigor. Finding good assessments. Finding state materials for creating assessments. I don't know what the questions will look like or how they are asked. I wish I had more assessments that were created by the state to help me assess the students instead of teachers having to make their own benchmarks. I would like to have benchmark assessments and more formative assessment tools for gathering data throughout the year. My biggest challenge came when it getting close to state testing time. I had lots of materials to sample test the students with. With common core there wasn't enough. OAS was not enough. Not having appropriate and standards aligned assessment tools for both ELA and math- to show the required depth of knowledge. The biggest challenge has been finding appropriate assessments for each standard. The biggest challenge I had with implementing CCGPS this year was the assessments. For reading and English Language Arts, I had difficulty finding and implementing assessments based on the common core standards. I needed better resource access to finding better assessments.
37

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge is the assessments we use after each unit. These assessments take 3 to 4 hours to complete and we have 7 units. This really cuts into instructional time and practice time. The assessments do not give the true picture of how that student is doing. I would like to see more concise assessments that give teachers a true picture of how the student is doing with that standard. We are taking some standards to a depth that is not developmentally appropriate for the age. Students may perform for this standard for this moment in time but 2 weeks later, the information is lost because they cannot internalize what was taught.
The biggest challenge was not having enough practice and assessment materials available. Making assessments and finding practice materials was very time consuming and frustrating. I was also unsure if my assessments and benchmarks were challenging enough or too easy.
The biggest challenge was not really knowing what to expect on the CRCT and making sure the students were adequately prepared with the materials given.
The sample PARCC I have seen for ELA has me worried. We need more computers, better Net service, and the PARCC response boxes are way too small. Teaching the children to type responses in a text box where the top disappears as you type more is going to be a HUGE challenge. They also don't get to underline the important facts they need to reference. It's just a mess.
Too many required assessments: SLOs, pre, mid, and summative assessment for each unit. Students have become test-weary. Right before spring break we gave the GHSGTs, right after spring break there was a 3 week window for SLOs, tomorrow I am giving a summative assessment for unit 4, and the EOCTs begin Monday for a week, the next week we have senior exams and the following week we have underclassman exams. 'nuff said.
Too much on assessment.
Truly understanding specifically how each CCGPS will be assessed in the future.
What should formative and summative assessment look like when aligned to CCGPS? I have been to various trainings, and we have yet to see what assessment should look like when aligned to CCGPS.
Not being clear on how the questions on standardized assessments will be worded, etc. It would be nice to have formative assessments available on the website that could be used INFORMALLY in the classroom without having to worry about test security, etc. These may already be available and I just don't know about them.
No resources with sample test questions to give students an idea of how they will be evaluated on paper or on computer
Not enough resources on the EOCT. We roll out new standards, but have very little content resources in the form of books, example EOCT questions, and workbooks.
38

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Difficult transition to CCGPS
Beginning a new program is always a bit of a challenge.
Common core was thrust on us by our district without much training at all. We heard more about Teacher Keys than we did about common core. We were shown a chart that showed how standards would be different and that was pretty much it. Zero direct professional development on true implementation. It was basically stated that it was up to use to find the resources.
Hands-on training for CCGPS.
Having to implement CCGPS in Math and ELA in the same year with little practical training or resources (Math frameworks were better organized/easier to implement than ELA). Teaching standards to children who were not developmentally ready to learn them.
I began this school year with NO training on CCGPS. I had no idea what I needed to do. I had to download everything and start from scratch. So sad, I've taught for 24 years and we had no training on this until the middle of the year. And the training was horrible. I learned nothing, I wanted to know how to implement these standards, and I was left clueless. Thanks goodness I've taught as long as I have. Everything I've learned about this I've had to learn on my own.
I have had no professional training neither in my school nor in my district. All we did was to look at the standards and break them down with key words. Someone else was supposed to add to that template and give us lesson and assessment ideas (at the county level). We never received them. All I had to work from was the GA DOE frameworks. Those were VERY helpful and have helped guide my activities this year.
I'm wary of CCGPS. Is it just another edu-fad that will fade out in the next 3-5 years?
It would be just getting use to it. I know it will be better next year!
It would have been nice to have more guidance. It was difficult to mentally organize and plan based on the information given.
Just being new and adjusting to new standards, not too hard, just different.....
Language. We only had the standards and an ineffective curriculum map that did not flow or have a learning progression to it. Plus the transition standards did not offer much guidance for depth of learning/teaching. Reading was similar to GPS with minor changes, but language changed a lot and we did not receive very much professional learning focused on the changes to language that were made. The vocabulary that we need to teach children was drastically different and their background knowledge that is assumed in CCGPS gapping with holes. To say we were frustrated is an understatement of enormous proportions.
39

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Low morale.
More work less pay.
Most of the materials I have used were created, purchased from sites like Teachers pay Teachers, or from Pinterest. Like many things with education, new trends are started before adequate preparation has been made. This problem leaves educators with the overwhelming task of trying to interpret what is required and spending even more time and personal funds to meet the challenge. It is not just the new curriculum, which I feel will benefit students in the long run.
My biggest challenge was not having enough staff development time to thoroughly understand how to teach the new standards. I relied heavily on resources from the Internet.
My county added to the CCGPS so it is a little harder where I teach.
No workshops to help implement no onsite training.
Our county requiring teachers to use units made by the state instead of allowing teachers to work together to make units based on the CC standards.
Our district did not integrate the lessons in ELA with Social Studies and Science so we were teaching the same content twice.
Our school curriculum is not aligned with the state curriculum map for the subject I teach
Our school system implemented both math and ELA as well as becoming a BYOT system. Teachers were overloaded with too many new things to implement at one time. We implemented the units given by the DOE. The GADOE math units were poorly constructed and the ELA were extremely poor. We did implement the ELA in addition to the GPS ELA units that we had used in the past. This made our day "fast and furious" as we tried to fit everything into an already hectic schedule. Teachers felt that while students did know multiple problem solving strategies, they did not end the year with the fluency of basic concepts that previous students had mastered. Our teachers overwhelmingly asked for a math textbook aligned with CCGPS. Hopefully, this will provide more structure to lessons. I think the ELA needs to be totally revamped from beginning to end. In the lower grades the standards are fine but the primary focus needs to be the teaching of reading.
Poor implementation. Our district just rolled out CCGPS this year and we had to watch a webinar and have a two day training and were suppose to be ready to implement CCGPS. Our district also did not provide the resources we needed to implement the units. Those were supplied well into the school year. There was confusion concerning pacing because the district did not specify if we were using their pacing and units or the state's pacing and units.
Shifting from GPS standards to Common Core standards.
40

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Switching over and the time frame allowed by our district. This was confusion for many schools and teachers, and appeared to be more complicated than they were. Resources are another "bone of contention." All resources need to be available to all districts and schools before standards are expected to be implemented. Education tends to put the "cart before the horse" when introducing new concepts and thus sets the learners up for failure. We in education need to be more aware of this and make sure we have explored all possibilities reasonable before we attempt to implement concepts that structure and influence our teaching and the learning process for our students.
The biggest challenge has been the lack of quality PD from my district.
The biggest challenge is that we are implementing a new system that we have never seen modeled in the classroom just in professional learning sessions and that is not the real world in which we teach.
The curriculum forced on us by the county that was not realistic, nor did it have any flow from one grade level to the next.
The standards themselves are great, but the implementation at the district level has been clumsy, forceful, and wasteful. I participated in a curriculum development week at my county office, and rather than actually develop a meaningful curriculum for our students, we were simply asked to choose assessments from the state units and teach the extended texts from those units. We teachers were not allowed to be the creative professionals we are. On top of that, the county spent a lot of money on texts not everybody wanted to teach. Some of those books may never be unpacked at all. Personally, I see a lot of promise in CCGPS, but if this is how implementation will continue to happen, then teacher buy-in will only be more difficult.
There is no one to ask for help, we're all just figuring it out together.
There is no state support; the units were rushed and irrelevant; overall more emperor's new clothes.
Too much too soon.
Using technology more.
Very confusing told different things by different people.
We had almost no training. Our sessions were few and fluffy with no substance.
Administration does not know what they are asking teachers to do not do they understand the content, but their expectations reflect someone who would actually understand the requirements.
41

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The ELA CCGPS are extremely complex and difficult to implement. Some of the new concepts written are above developmental abilities for general ed and special ed students. Gifted students are adjusting to the new CCGPS successfully, but students that already lack basic skills are struggling and falling further behind. With budget cuts, we have less personnel, less resources, but more requirements. This is not logical.
Just learning the new standards was a little difficult because it was unchartered territory, but they weren't hard to teach.
My district does not have a clue about how Common Core is suppose to be implemented. I came from a school district that clearly understand the curriculum and was able to provide me with the tools I need to be a successful teachers.
Administration that wants Special Education classes to fit into the same rubrics as General Education classes.
There is too much guess work in every aspect of implementation for the math portion of the CCGPS. For each standard there are question: 1) how much time on each standard, 2) what level, 3) where are the resources that are convenient, realistic and affordable and 4) what happens to the students that are not able to reach the level of proficiency? Why is each system inventing the wheel? Why is each teacher creating the work? Why isn't the CCGPS packaged and given to each system and teacher? Book companies package information for teachers to use in the classroom. Why hasn't someone packaged the information so that there is consistence in expectations and standards???????
Finding/MAKING new materials. I felt like I re-created the wheel ALL YEAR LONG! Pair that frustration with the fact that I also teach TWO grade levels, my frustration was compounded. Although we have a culture of collegiality within my school, we all felt like we were SWAMPED with work this year. It will REALLY make me mad if Georgia decides to "opt out" of this curriculum, now that I've put this much blood, sweat, and tears into my work - as have MANY others!!!
The kindergarten child is unable to get all their needs meet academically or emotionally due to lack of help in the classroom. The students need and deserve more than they are getting. The curriculum has become more complex and teachers are required to do more beyond the teaching of students this changes the momentum of teaching and lessens the possibility of the students getting the best learning experiences.
Very time consuming.
Communicating with parents
Explaining math concepts to parents.
Helping parents that have older students understand the new rigor. They do not understand why 2nd grade is harder now than it was for their older child.
42

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Parent complaints of curriculum being "too hard for this age group."
Parents have questioned why I am teaching regrouping by modeling instead of the algorithm. Many times they will say "This is not the way we learned it." They have often expressed that they don't agree in modeling. I would like to find information that I can pass along to the parents that explain what we are teaching and why.
PARENTS! They are telling their children the tasks are way too hard for them and they should not be expected to do stuff like this at their age. GRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! They want basic math problem worksheets and problems out of a book.
The biggest challenge this year has been communicating to parents the change.
Multiple categories
1. There are limited to NO resources to use. 2. The resources that are out there are hard to find and typical not worthwhile. 3. Nothing from the state is similar to what the EOCT is expecting. 4. The implementation was to quick of a turnaround. The students as well as teachers need time in order to gather appropriate material and make a successful transition. 5. Resources, Resources, Resources!!!
After giving the ""Mock CRCT"" this year, it has been extremely difficult to expect students to sit for at least 2 hours and take a test when they are used to being actively engaged. I like all the hands-on math, but I feel as though they need paper and pencil work as well to prepare them for tests. Also, the texts used in ELA were a little too complex. We also had trouble fitting in grammar and writing.
Since students have not been exposed to CCCGPS in earlier grades, it has been a challenge to fill gaps that occurred because of this. Also, SLOs and assessments have taken up too much instructional time and some of the objectives and tests are not always developmentally appropriate for the age children I teach. This is very frustrating to the students and concentrating on something far beyond their developmental level and testing so much is causing them to have to skip basic instruction they desperately need.
Actually there were two major challenges. One was having to implement both math AND reading curriculum at the same time. I had to adapt to the new style of teaching. The second challenge was the availability of time and resources. Some lessons took way too long or doesn't seem to relate to the common core, and often the materials we were supposed to use were not available for us to use to teach from due to lack of funds or availability.
ELA - need more phonics instruction in the lower grades. So much emphasis on writing and these children needs phonics. Lack of materials needed and the books. Math - teachers have had to purchase most of the suggested books and manipulatives themselves. Math is very disjointed and the sequence is not developmentally appropriate.
43

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Moving standards has been redundant in some cases and left gaps in others. The standards for math 8 have left out many important concepts necessary for the success in the next courses. There is not enough support material to address what is or is not in the new curriculum. We need textbooks aligned to the new standards - teaching one class out of multiple books or running off endless worksheets is very ineffective. It is very difficult to jump around in a textbook since material in a later chapter assumes the students have had the material in the previous chapters.
Vague information on how students would be assessed. Overly wordy and sometimes confusing standards.
Vagueness of specific standards, scope, student motivation.
We have no guidance on how we will be assessed. The standards are vague. Math standards can be interpreted 2 different ways which completely goes against why a standard is there. The math questions we have for our End of year test were not developmentally appropriate. Students are not understanding how to count money simple because they know how to skip count.
Locating materials that encourage use of technology in class. Utilizing videos not on u-tube as it is blocked at our school.
Finding good explanations for the common core program for reading. The standards were unclear and confusing for reading. There were no available assessments as resources we could use to model for assessments.
I feel that some of the wording of the CCGPS is too vague. As a teacher, I sometimes wasn't sure what exactly the standard wanted me to teach. Also, I would like more specific instruction on how the standards are going to be tested on standardized assessments.
The standards are very difficult to interpret. That, along with poor frameworks and direction from the state, have led to a near disaster in Coordinate Algebra. I use the given resources, but they did not offer direction or depth. I also do not feel that the state resources adequately prepared teachers or students for the EOCT.
The standards are very hard to read and understand. It is hard to determine if I am teaching the material in the way that the standards would like. It has also been difficult to find extra examples or practice for the students. Since the material is new, the plethora of material is not there.
Understanding what the CCGPS are and digging to find websites that spells out exactly what the AKS mean.
Unfamiliar with the material and time spent gathering materials.
1. Unpacking the standards - Standards were broad and vague. It was not clear how far and to what extent to go deep with the standards or how to approach the standard until I may have seen a
44

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
benchmark question. At that time, it provided an idea as to the meaning behind the standard. 2. Assessments - Providing effective and rigorous questions. Finding resources or seeing sample questions was difficult to find.
Challenging my gifted students. I would also like more practice or assessment questions to prepare my students for the EOCT. More resources for examples of how to teach certain standards or what is expected for students to learn. Access to more higher level thinking questions on level 4 or 5.
Creating assessments; looking for resources, I didn't know there were any digital lessons. I haven't seen it referenced anywhere.
Creating/Revising/Selecting/Finding resources especially diagnostic and common assessments. And being forced to go to professional development that didn't meet my needs. And being forced to use a computer-based instructional program that the district purchased that was absolutely worthless and not at all aligned to GPS.
1. VERY limited resources to develop a curriculum. 2. Standards are vague and there seems to be no real resource to gain clarity of intended standard. 3. Concepts are disjointed and hard to understand why things are grouped in units together. Makes it challenging to find the connection builders for the students. 4. Lacking resources!!!!!!!!! 5. It feels like a decision was made to change curriculum and then it went into implementation without the curriculum and resources aligning. It has made for a very challenging situation. Not sure the kids haven't suffered for this decision as teachers did the best they could with what was provided. 6. This is supposed to be a COMMON Core curriculum. However, Georgia hasn't aligned standards with any other state. Once again it isn't common enough that publishers will produce items for just one state! Frustrating!
a) I would like to do most of my assignments online but computer labs are unreliable and some students lack either computers or Internet access, b) The school doesn't have enough money to buy all the books I would like to buy.
Access to relevant and updated technology and Lit textbooks for all students.
Finding age-appropriate non-fiction text that is decodable for emergent readers. Combining the need for challenging text with the need for simple text that will actually teach children to read.
Finding enough resources that start where the students are in the learning process and moving them to a higher level with more intense learning. Integrating the Social Studies and Science standards into the curriculum in an effort to best utilize time spent on non-fiction text in reading and writing.
Finding resources in a timely manner. Planning that isn't taking many hours. Fitting it all in!
For reading, the texts were not readily available. Math was very similar to what we have been doing, and I saw no reason why money was taken from the first grade curriculum.
45

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
From the other teachers in my department, I have gathered that the biggest challenge is the lack of clarity on the standards (exemplars) and lack of resources. Teachers want to be able to give students a textbook that students and parents can use as a basic reference. Creating everything from scratch is a HUGE burden on teachers.
Gathering materials and plans has been a challenge. It would be nice to have a laid out plan that everyone follows consistently. Our county has tried to develop plans, but it would be nice to have something from the state level & ensure everyone is doing it. There have been cases where teachers pick and choose what they want to use (Ex. certain novels & stories). We need more resources.
It was shooting at a moving target all year. It was the most miserable year of teaching that I have ever had, bar none. Implementation of CCGPS was NOT well thought out at all. It is the textbook definition of an unfunded mandate. We received absolutely no textbooks to use for practice problems. I had to reinvent the wheel every day. The standards are worded in college professor geek-speak, and it is not clear at all what is meant to be covered in each standard. Everyone has a different idea. CCGPS is the WORST thing that has ever happened to the students of Georgia.
Limited training, materials, and resources.
Lousy or no training for new math curriculum. No books to use to implement the massive changes coupled with limits on printing once I did find activities. I had to spend over $200 a month to do my job on printing and that is wrong! Minimal training on new SMART boards that further limited my expertise first semester. My budget for next year for 30 kids is $150 - about $5 for each student all year! I have been through many changes in curriculum over the years, even written some for districts. But I never been through a change like this with so little training and a absolutely no supporting resources like books, activities, modified materials for ESOL and SPED. I have never spent so much time to find resources, make modifications to meet my students' needs with so little district support as this year. I am saddened that some of my younger colleagues have become so dissatisfied with this process that they will not return next year. Good teachers will not stay if this process continues. So much stress has shown up in our building with higher than average sick days, hospitalizations for chest pains, blood pressure issues. I personally am trying to only do 10 hour days to try and keep some balance in my life. I have taken sick days to just work at home on paper work and planning. The joy in teaching has been contaminated this year.
Navigating through the standards and having easy to find resources. Professional development sessions are important.
Not having enough resources on hand. Having to search everywhere to find something to use. Have the state website change so often. Things that were there one month were gone the next. The original webinars were boring. As a department head, it was virtually impossible to motivate them to want to watch ANY this year.
46

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
The biggest challenge has come with the time allowed within the frame of the scope and sequence to teach certain math concepts. I understand however that we are expected to teach with more rigor. It would also be a big help if each teacher were given a math kit that is aligned with CCGPS.
The biggest challenge is time, the length of lessons and the constant movement in the schedule. I do not feel as if there is enough time to implement everything that's being taught. I also feel as because of the poor economic state of our country teachers simply do not have all the resources needed to fully implement the standards and make sure that all students are being met. With the class sizes growing it's extremely difficult to implement new standards, make sure all the students are meeting the standards and provide remediation those who are having difficulty.
The frameworks for high school are massive and overwhelming. A colleague who had never before taught high school became completely bogged down! I found there was far too much there to wade through. In addition, the benchmarks on OAS were worthless because the standards did not always match the questions, and some of the questions were very poorly written.
The lack of resources and assessments, along with training have hindered my implementation of CCGPS with fidelity.
The lack of resources and understanding of the CCGPS. I feel that my county did not do a great job of preparing the teachers for the Rigor involved in teaching the CCGPS and we were unsure of how to teach and assess all of the standards.
I was sometimes unsure if I was interpreting the new standards correctly. I also received conflicting information about the standards and the testing. Resources were limited for this first year and not being sure of the resources needed to help the students in the classroom.
Not having textbooks, workbooks, etc. that are aligned to CCGPS. I also wish CCGPS would have been implemented one subject at a time.....slowly.....a year at a time like GPS....ELA and Math all in one year was too much for teachers and students.
We have felt like we were trying to fly a plane that we were still building. The material available from the state had huge gaps and did not include instructional lessons needed for the tasks. Many of the tasks were poorly structured and even more were poorly formatted - not enough room for student work, figures in blue that don't copy well, etc. Every night I have struggled to write and/or revise material for use the next day. Then I prayed that the copier was working when I got to school! Add to that my students' lack of preparation for this material and you have a really bad year. Pile on top of that the constant parent questions/complaints about why their child is failing and you have the year from hell. I am beyond frustrated that the state has done such a poor job preparing curriculum for us and the book companies obviously have no real solutions. Those of us in small systems don't have someone with nothing to do but search the web for resources so we have spent this year fighting not to drown.
We need more practice problems and assessment pieces on different levels.
47

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Resources and how far do I go with the topic.
Resources and proper collaboration with colleagues on CCGPS.
We are unsure of the process it takes to assign work, grade it, &amp; get it back in a timely manner when we're trying to focus on multiple tasks at once within those assignments. It's almost as if we need some type of digital medium so that we can pass it "back & forth" from student to teacher, over & over again. Other times, this issue is not a problem, but then we also tend to struggle with the lack of motivation from students to actually THINK about what they are writing & instead, they focus too heavily on having all the "pieces" in their responses (which is, of course, important too!) Once we got them in the habit of adding textual evidence & thinking critically, it was as if they saw the "formula" to it & that's all they cared about. The critical, analytical part of the assignments would often suffer because of this.
In the area of Coordinate Algebra and Coordinate Geometry - there was a great deal of gray areas with regard to the standards. Different teachers in the county were interpreting the standards various ways. There should have been professional development that was inclusive of all teachers so that everyone was on the same page. Getting the standards implemented and developed required more than 100 hours of personal time on the weekends and during holidays (separate and aside from time normally spent grading papers, writing assessments, etc.
The need for more staff development on the common core. The sequence in which the concepts are taught need to be modified.
Filling in the gaps of the information not taught previously within the students' education. Also I found it difficult to incorporate Science and S.S into my day and integrating it throughout ELA and or Math was difficult as I was learning all the new Common Core standards.
Finding and using resources that align with CCGPS standards. -Getting students ready for CRCT while rolling out a new set of standards.
We have essentially created our materials from scratch. Having no textbook aligned with the standards, vague standards (I still don't know what the standard about "using units" in Coordinate Algebra even means, since two PDs I did gave me contradictory answers), and very very few decent resources meant that the teachers at my school and in my district had to spend practically every waking moment finding or, more often, creating resources to use in the classroom. I feel like we received hardly any professional development before implementation, and that the PD we did receive was very low-quality. (I'm sorry; it's just my opinion.)
The amount of math standards per grade level was insane. It was very difficult to adequately teach all standards to mastery when the pacing was very fast, especially since my students are special education students who are expected to perform like their regular education, non-disabled peers. We did not have resources available to implement CCGPS in our classrooms and had to come up with our own
48

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
resources, which we were told were incorrect and not rigorous enough, even though our students were failing at that.
DeKalb County has no money for anything the schools need, thanks to all the fraud and abuse that has been going on. So we have not had many of the books in the ELA unit plans. Also, the sudden ratcheting up of skills required is outrageous, especially for students and teachers in Title 1 schools. Implementing TKES simultaneously has been the icing on this distasteful cake. I hope next year we will have some consistency; we have had constant change for the last 5 years. Time to really create good plans has also been a big problem. The State and Federal level people who come up with the requirements are clueless about the impact on those of us who actually teach a huge number of real children.
I feel as though the cart was put before the horse in the roll out of CCGPS. It was a real challenge finding quality instructional and assessment materials that were aligned to Common Core that offered the amount of rigor that is required to demonstrate mastery of the standards. It seems really unfair to hold students and teachers accountable during the first year of implementing a new curriculum. There are elements of Common Core that I feel are GREAT, however, we are asking children to change the way they have been trained to think for many years. They are now having to "think about their thinking" and that in itself is a challenge and will require an adjustment period. My own personal children attend school in the district in which we live and I teach in a different district. As a parent, I am quite concerned because not one word has been mentioned to parents about the implementation of CCGPS when I've inquired I've gotten a total look of confusion and a parent in my neighborhood said she was told that it would not be implemented fully until next school year. That makes me wonder if they were even taught the CCGPS standards this year. By far the greatest challenge this year was having adequate materials.
I felt we were given significantly different and new standards with no training and no resources. My parents were very frustrated that they had no resource themselves to use to help their children. I spent at least 10-15 hours every single week this year preparing my own materials to help my students be successful. I should not have to spend that much of my own time. I am teaching accelerated 8th grade math for the 4th year. For the last 3 years, my time at home was reasonable. This year, I feel that we were given a new curriculum with no help from the state or the county. Just figuring out what the standards meant was an issue. Trying to put together cohesive units with a reasonable sequence was very difficult. I had to buy resources to help me, and I don't know if those were consistent with the expectations. My mantra this year has been "next year will be better". One additional comment: It was a mistake to implement the new standards from K-9 in one year. My students were unprepared for the level of rigor and we had to move at an accelerated pace to cover all of Coordinate Algebra and part of Analytic Geometry.
49

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
My biggest challenge was planning. I spent approximately 6.5 days out of the week working on school work this year. Diving into the CCGPS ELA and Math Frameworks was very time consuming. Trying to find additional resources to augment the Frameworks also took a lot of time. I think that the ELA Frameworks had the teachers jumping around too much, in each unit, when teaching the English portion of the Frameworks. Many of the children just were not ready to start working with relative pronouns upon just returning to school. They really need to start right back at the basics and work up the partsof-speech chain. I found that I had to deviate, when teaching English, from the Frameworks as they are currently laid out. Finally, another obstacle was not having a Math Book. It is very expensive printing out Framework activities on a daily basis. Also, I found that parents won't go into the Frameworks, at home, to help their children with homework. Many complained that they felt lost and just could not help their children at home. I also met with resistance from co-workers that did not want to use the Frameworks. They feel that the activities are too abstract for many Fourth Graders. I found this was true with some of the Constructing Tasks. Scheduling, student needs, planning. No challenges I am not sure how to answer this question since I am a gifted resource teacher. I have a specific curriculum that I follow set forth by the state and county, therefore I didn't have many challenges in this area. I have not faced many challenges because I have always been open to change and can adapt to what needs to be done toward students' academic success. I have not taught any CCGPS courses this year. I work in a title I school, and critical thinking and persistence are not strong points for many of these students. After working and expecting it daily, my 5th graders grew in those areas tremendously! None None
50

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Other ----Because my students are better writers, my personal life and friends &amp; family have suffered. I'm grading to their detriment. Class sizes are too large to effectively move freely to do station activities. Regular desk cannot accommodate materials and educational tools. Computer access is not always available. Completing 8 GAA's. Completing and grading the SLO's is time consuming. Cycling through old materials. Feeling as though I have interpreted the standards correctly and having appropriate material to teach with. I teach Math IV, which is NOT a CCGPS class. I think Common Core Standards are a great idea IF they are developmentally appropriate for the age group. I will tell you that our freshmen parents and teachers were challenged beyond what should be expected. You just lost an amazing teacher to the profession. She taught the new courses for freshmen math. The hours her team spent to prepare were ridiculous. Just to have parents complain. The lack of a textbook and workbook or extra practice played a large role in the discouragement of teachers and parents. I know there are not textbooks out there that people at the state like but put one in a parent/teacher hand and you will find a much better rate of satisfaction. We know we aren't supposed to teach to the book. Learning on my own. My school district N/A n/a N/A
51

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year
Our school participated in the Success for All reading program. Students did not receive grade level instruction.
Many teachers claim they are following CCGPS, but they haven't changed a thing: no nonfiction (or maybe just one selection); no increase in writing; still survey courses for British; World, and American Lit; and no or just one research-based project (rarely a research-based paper). English teachers often hate nonfiction (foolish people!) and do not know how to teach writing. Despite previous standards requiring writing instruction, teachers ignored those standards and still are ignoring writing standards. They believe that just assigning writing as an assessment is sufficient. Teachers will lie on these surveys, fake lesson plans, and talk a good game about what they are doing, but what is really happening in their classrooms is far different in many cases. We need more people visiting classrooms, not just once or twice for formal observations. We need weekly visits from not just school personnel but outside professionals who recognize CCGPS in action and who can coach those who are struggling while monitoring those who resist the changes. And why are the courses still called by a type of literature (i.e. American, British, and World)? The standards are grade-based, so the courses should be called by their grade level. Perhaps that will start the process of moving teachers away from a literature-centric instruction domination.
Preparing students for EOCt s
Rubrics do not always assess the actual standard.
See above.
Teaching (31) 1st graders by my self - no para-pro : 3 were retained from last year, 15 ELL students, 13 EI P students and 75% of the time there were no EIP or ELL teacher to help me,
The antithesis of above - some students are more frustrated and are falling behind due to the increased rigor. A child is not a commodity - it is a person, and each should be addressed as such. There is not ONE "program" that is going to work for every child.
The biggest challenge is all of the state requirements on our school systems.
The county report card does NOT provide a simple way for parents to understand how their child is doing in school. Several parents have had to schedule conferences with me in order to UNDERSTAND what the report is saying, much less how their child is doing in school.
Trying to find work for the students that are part of my.
52

APPENDIX D: Biggest challenge with implementing CCGPS this school year We are not given the time to effectively plan for our lessons. We are also faced with many behavioral problems. But, I believe our/ my biggest challenge is our large class sizes. I teach kindergarten and we have 25 in our room. I cannot be an effective teacher with this many children. In a perfect world, maybe. But, I teach in a low income system with many challenges that are out of my control. Our children are coming to us with more and more problems that require a lot of one on one attention. We are not miracle workers. (our first grade has 28-30 in their classrooms How can they be expected to be successful when we have so many children who have SST's?). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
53

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Contents
(Q3) Considering all of the professional learning development activities you participated in over the last two school years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013), how much of your professional development activities, if any, have been focused on CCGPS implementation? ................................................................................... 4
Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................... 4 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................... 5 Statistical tests by locale........................................................................................................................... 7 (Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant. ............................................................................................................ 8 Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................... 8 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................... 9 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 11 Output for Q4 (relevance of PD topics) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA) 12 Output for Q4 (relevance of PD topics) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 (Q5) Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. ......................................... 16 Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................. 16 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................. 17 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 19 Output for Q5 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA) ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Output for Q5 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math) ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 (Q6) Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom. ......................................................................... 24 Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................. 24 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................. 25 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 27 Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q4 (relevance of PD topics) ........................................... 28 Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA) ................... 30
1

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math) ................ 32 (Q7) Generally, how did you access the CCGPS resources you used over the last two school years? And, how convenient was it to access those resources? .................................................................................... 34
Output for Q7 part B (convenience of access) disaggregated by Q9 (used CCGPS resources) .............. 34 (Q8) How often are you using the CCGPS resources that you accessed over the last two school years in your classroom? .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................. 39 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................. 45 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 58 Output for Q8 (frequency of use of resources) disaggregated by Q10 (fidelity of implementation) .... 65 (Q9)Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have been aligned to CCGPS. ... 69 Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................. 69 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................. 70 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 72 (Q10) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity............................................................................................................... 73 Statistical tests by content-area ............................................................................................................. 73 Statistical tests by years of experience .................................................................................................. 74 Statistical tests by locale......................................................................................................................... 76 Output for Q10 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q9 (used CCGPS-aligned resources) ... 77 (Q11) What practices are you implementing in your CCGPS classroom? Check all that apply. ................ 78 Practice 1 (NOT a Common Core-related practice) ................................................................................ 78 Practice 2 (A Common Core-related practice)........................................................................................ 80 Practice 3 (A Common Core-related practice)........................................................................................ 82 Practice 4 (NOT a Common Core-related practice) ................................................................................ 84 Practice 5 (A Common Core-related practice)........................................................................................ 86 Practice 6 (NOT a Common Core-related practice) ................................................................................ 88 ANOVA for Q11 factored by Q5.............................................................................................................. 90 ANOVA for Q11 factored by Q6.............................................................................................................. 91 (Q13) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in English Language Arts/Literacy? Check all that apply. ........................................................................................................... 92 (Q14) Choose the answer that most closely reflects how much your students engaged in the following tasks BEFORE (last school year and earlier) and AFTER (this school year) the transition to CCGPS. [ELA student practices] ....................................................................................................................................... 97 (Q16) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in mathematics? Check all that apply............................................................................................................................................................ 99
2

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output (Q17) Choose the answer that most closely reflects how much your students engaged in the following tasks BEFORE (last school year and earlier) and AFTER (this school year) the transition to CCGPS. ....... 104 (Q18) Going forward, what types of resources do you think you need in order to more effectively implement the CCGPS in your classroom(s)? Check all that apply. .......................................................... 106
Crosstabs by content-area.................................................................................................................... 106 Crosstabs by years of experience ......................................................................................................... 110 Crosstabs by locale ............................................................................................................................... 115
3

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q3) Considering all of the professional learning development activities you participated in over the last two school years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013), how much of your professional development activities, if any, have been focused on CCGPS implementation?
Statistical tests by content-area

Both ELA Only Math Only
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for Mean Lower Upper Minimum Maximum

Bound Bound

551 2.69

.827

.035 2.62 2.76

0

4

216 2.55

.828

.056 2.44 2.66

0

4

218 2.39

.911

.062 2.27 2.52

0

4

985 2.59

.854

.027 2.54 2.65

0

4

(I) subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.142 .293** -.142 .152 -.293**
-.152

Std. Error
.068 .068 .068 .081 .068 .081

95% Confidence Interval

Sig.

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

.094

-.02

.30

.000

.13

.45

.094

-.30

.02

.149

-.04

.34

.000

-.45

-.13

.149

-.34

.04

4

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Q3 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std.

Std.

Deviation Error

Interval for Mean Lower Upper

Minimum

Maximum

Bound Bound

0-3 Years

81

2.65

.854

.095 2.47 2.84

1

4

4-9 Years

248

2.50

.872

.055 2.39 2.61

0

4

10-14 Years 214

2.52

.902

.062 2.40 2.64

0

4

15-20 Years 218

2.57

.813

.055 2.46 2.68

0

4

21-24 Years 74

2.80

.740

.086 2.63 2.97

1

4

25+ Years

146

2.75

.827

.068 2.62 2.89

0

4

Total

981

2.59

.853

.027 2.54 2.65

0

4

(I) Years of Experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years

4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 4-9 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.154 .136 .081 -.143 -.099 -.154 -.019 -.073 -.297 -.253* -.136 .019 -.055 -.279 -.235

Std. Error
.109 .111 .110 .136 .118 .109 .079 .079 .112 .089 .111 .079 .082 .114 .091

Sig.
.714 .825 .978 .902 .959 .714 1.000 .938 .088 .049 .825 1.000 .985 .145 .104

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

-.16

.46

-.18

.45

-.23

.40

-.53

.25

-.43

.24

-.46

.16

-.24

.21

-.30

.15

-.62

.02

-.51

.00

-.45

.18

-.21

.24

-.29

.18

-.61

.05

-.49

.03

5

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q3 continued

Multiple comparisons by experience (Tukey's HSD) continued

0-3 Years

-.081

.110

.978

-.40

.23

4-9 Years

.073

.079

.938

-.15

.30

15-20 Years

10-14 Years

.055

.082

.985

-.18

.29

21-24 Years

-.224

.114

.366

-.55

.10

25+ Years

-.180

.091

.352

-.44

.08

0-3 Years

.143

.136

.902

-.25

.53

4-9 Years

.297

.112

.088

-.02

.62

21-24 Years

10-14 Years

.279

.114

.145

-.05

.61

15-20Years

.224

.114

.366

-.10

.55

25+ Years

.044

.121

.999

-.30

.39

0-3 Years

.099

.118

.959

-.24

.43

4-9 Years

.253*

.089

.049

.00

.51

25+ Years

10-14 Years

.235

15-20Years

.180

.091

.104

-.03

.49

.091

.352

-.08

.44

21-24 Years

-.044

.121

.999

-.39

.30

6

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q3 continued Statistical tests by locale

City Rural Suburb Town Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for Mean Lower Upper

Minimum

Maximum

Bound Bound

173

2.73

.771

.059 2.61 2.84

1

4

333

2.66

.866

.047 2.56 2.75

0

4

397

2.45

.856

.043 2.37 2.54

0

4

81

2.70

.887

.099 2.51 2.90

0

4

984

2.59

.855

.027 2.54 2.64

0

4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean

Difference Std. Error

Sig.

(I-J)

.071 .275**

.079

.810

.077

.002

.025

.114

.996

-.071 .204**

.079

.810

.063

.007

-.046

.105

.972

-.275**

.077

.002

-.204**

.063

.007

-.250

.103

.074

-.025

.114

.996

.046

.105

.972

.250

.103

.074

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

-.13

.28

.08

.47

-.27

.32

-.28

.13

.04

.37

-.32

.22

-.47

-.08

-.37

-.04

-.52

.02

-.32

.27

-.22

.32

-.02

.52

7

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.
Statistical tests by content-area

Both ELA Only Math Only
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

552 3.00

.643

.027 2.95 3.06

1

4

216 2.99

.629

.043 2.90 3.07

1

4

216 2.89

.627

.043 2.81 2.98

1

4

984 2.98

.637

.020 2.94 3.02

1

4

(I) subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.018 .110 -.018 .093 -.110 -.093

Std. Error
.051 .051 .051 .061 .051 .061

95% Confidence

Sig.

Interval Lower Upper

Bound Bound

.937

-.10

.14

.080

-.01

.23

.937

-.14

.10

.286

-.05

.24

.080

-.23

.01

.286

-.24

.05

8

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q4 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
Total

95%

Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

81

3.04 .535 .059 2.92 3.16

1

4

248

2.92 .647 .041 2.84 3.00

1

4

215

2.96 .658 .045 2.87 3.05

1

4

218

2.99 .644 .044 2.90 3.08

1

4

73

3.00 .624 .073 2.85 3.15

2

4

146

3.01 .643 .053 2.91 3.12

1

4

981

2.97 .638 .020 2.93 3.01

1

4

(I) Years of Experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years

4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 4-9 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.114 .079 .046 .037 .023 -.114 -.035 -.067 -.077 -.090 -.079 .035 -.033 -.042 -.056

Std. Error
.082 .083 .083 .103 .088 .082 .059 .059 .085 .067 .083 .059 .061 .086 .068

Sig.
.732 .934 .994 .999 1.000 .732 .992 .865 .946 .753 .934 .992 .995 .997 .965

95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper Bound Bound

-.12

.35

-.16

.32

-.19

.28

-.26

.33

-.23

.28

-.35

.12

-.20

.14

-.24

.10

-.32

.17

-.28

.10

-.32

.16

-.14

.20

-.21

.14

-.29

.20

-.25

.14

9

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q4 continued

Multiple Comparisons by Experience (Tukey's HSD) continued

0-3 Years

-.046

.083

.994

-.28

.19

4-9 Years

.067

.059

.865

-.10

.24

15-20Years

10-14 Years

.033

.061

.995

-.14

.21

21-24 Years

-.009

.086

1.000

-.26

.24

25+ Years

-.023

.068

.999

-.22

.17

0-3 Years

-.037

.103

.999

-.33

.26

4-9 Years

.077

.085

.946

-.17

.32

21-24 Years

10-14 Years

.042

.086

.997

-.20

.29

15-20Years

.009

.086

1.000

-.24

.26

25+ Years

-.014

.091

1.000

-.27

.25

0-3 Years

-.023

.088

1.000

-.28

.23

4-9 Years

.090

.067

.753

-.10

.28

25+ Years

10-14 Years

.056

.068

.965

-.14

.25

15-20Years

.023

.068

.999

-.17

.22

21-24 Years

.014

.091

1.000

-.25

.27

10

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q4 continued Statistical tests by locale

N

City

172

Rural

332

Suburb 399

Town

80

Total

983

Mean
3.01 2.97 2.95 3.06 2.98

Std. Deviation
.653 .670 .605 .623 .638

Std. Error
.050 .037 .030 .070 .020

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Upper Bound Bound 2.91 3.10
2.90 3.05
2.89 3.01
2.92 3.20
2.94 3.02

Minimum
1 1 1 1 1

Maximum
4 4 4 4 4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.033 .058 -.057 -.033 .026 -.090 -.058 -.026 -.115 .057 .090 .115

Std. Error
.060 .058 .086 .060 .047 .079 .058 .047 .078 .086 .079 .078

95% Confidence

Sig.

Interval Lower Upper

Bound Bound

.947

-.12

.19

.747

-.09

.21

.913

-.28

.17

.947

-.19

.12

.950

-.10

.15

.672

-.29

.11

.747

-.21

.09

.950

-.15

.10

.454

-.32

.09

.913

-.17

.28

.672

-.11

.29

.454

-.09

.32

11

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q4 (relevance of PD topics) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA) (Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant. (Q13) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in English Language Arts/Literacy? Check all that apply.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Exactly Right

55 3.13

.640

.086

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPSfocused professional development/training over
the last two school years were relevant.

One out of Three

63

2.90

.689

.087

Total 118 3.01

.673

.062

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

Minimum Maximum

2.95

3.30

2

4

2.73

3.08

1

4

2.89

3.13

1

4

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 0

Percent 0.0

Valid Percent
0.0

Cumulative Percent
0.0

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 2

Percent 3.2

Valid Percent
3.2

Cumulative Percent
3.2

Disagree

8

14.5

14.5

14.5

Disagree

12

19.0

19.0

22.2

Valid Agree

32

Strongly Agree

15

58.2

58.2

72.7

Valid

Agree

39

27.3

27.3

100.0

Strongly Agree

10

61.9

61.9

84.1

15.9

15.9

100.0

Total

55

100.0 100.0

Total

63

100.0

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

12

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q4 disaggregated by Q13 continued

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years
were relevant.

Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1.454 1 1.454 3.272 .073

51.538 116 .444

52.992 117

13

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Output for Q4 (relevance of PD topics) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math)
(Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant. (Q16) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in mathematics? Check all that apply.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Exactly Right

184 3.09

.607

.045

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPSfocused professional development/training over
the last two school years were relevant.

One out of Three

54

2.81

.729

.099

Total 238 3.03

.646

.042

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

Minimum Maximum

3.00

3.18

1

4

2.62

3.01

1

4

2.95

3.11

1

4

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 2

Percent 1.1

Valid Percent
1.1

Cumulative Percent
1.1

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 3

Percent 5.5

Valid Percent
5.6

Cumulative Percent
5.6

Disagree

20

10.8

10.9

12.0

Disagree

11

20.0

20.4

25.9

Valid Agree

121

65.4

65.8

77.7

Valid

Agree

33

Strongly Agree

41

22.2

22.3

100.0

Strongly Agree

7

60.0

61.1

87.0

12.7

13.0

100.0

Total

184

99.5 100.0

Total

54

98.2

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

14

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q4 disaggregated by Q16 continued

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

3.217

1 3.217 7.942 .005

Within Groups

95.577 236

.405

Total 98.794 237

15

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q5) Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.
Statistical tests by content-area

Both ELA Only Math Only
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

549

2.80

.709

.030 2.74 2.86

1

4

216

2.83

.677

.046 2.74 2.92

1

4

218

2.72

.697

.047 2.63 2.82

1

4

983

2.79

.700

.022 2.75 2.83

1

4

(I) subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J)

-.027 .077 .027 .104 -.077 -.104

.056

.878

.056

.357

.056

.878

.067

.269

.056

.357

.067

.269

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound Bound

-.16

.10

-.05

.21

-.10

.16

-.05

.26

-.21

.05

-.26

.05

16

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q5 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

81

2.86

.607

.067 2.73 3.00

1

4

248

2.81

.693

.044 2.72 2.89

1

4

214

2.76

.723

.049 2.66 2.85

1

4

218

2.75

.709

.048 2.65 2.84

1

4

73

2.82

.733

.086 2.65 2.99

1

4

145

2.81

.700

.058 2.69 2.92

1

4

979

2.79

.700

.022 2.74 2.83

1

4

(I) Years of Experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years

4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 4-9 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.058 .107 .116 .042 .057 -.058 .049 .059 -.015 .000 -.107 -.049 .009 -.065 -.050

Std. Error
.090 .091 .091 .113 .097 .090 .065 .065 .093 .073 .091 .065 .067 .095 .075

Sig.
.988 .850 .798 .999 .992 .988 .975 .946 1.000 1.000 .850 .975 1.000 .984 .986

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound Bound

-.20

.31

-.15

.37

-.14

.38

-.28

.37

-.22

.33

-.31

.20

-.14

.24

-.13

.24

-.28

.25

-.21

.21

-.37

.15

-.24

.14

-.18

.20

-.34

.21

-.27

.17

17

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q5 continued

Multiple comparisons by experience (Tukey's HSD) continued

0-3 Years

-.116

.091

.798

-.38

.14

4-9 Years

-.059

.065

.946

-.24

.13

15-20 Years

10-14 Years

-.009

.067

1.000

-.20

.18

21-24 Years

-.074

.095

.970

-.34

.20

25+ Years

-.059

.075

.970

-.27

.16

0-3 Years

-.042

.113

.999

-.37

.28

4-9 Years

.015

.093

1.000

-.25

.28

21-24 Years

10-14 Years

.065

.095

.984

-.21

.34

15-20Years

.074

.095

.970

-.20

.34

25+ Years

.015

.101

1.000

-.27

.30

0-3 Years

-.057

.097

.992

-.33

.22

4-9 Years

.000

.073

1.000

-.21

.21

25+ Years

10-14 Years

.050

.075

.986

-.17

.27

15-20Years

.059

.075

.970

-.16

.27

21-24 Years

-.015

.101

1.000

-.30

.27

18

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q5 continued Statistical tests by locale

N

City

173

Rural

332

Suburb

397

Town

80

Total

982

Mean

Std. Deviation

2.79

.749

2.82

.712

2.75

.671

2.88

.682

2.79

.700

Std. Error
.057 .039 .034 .076 .022

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Upper Bound Bound 2.68 2.90
2.74 2.89 2.68 2.82 2.72 3.03
2.75 2.83

Minimum
1 1 1 1 1

Maximum
4 4 4 4 4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J)

-.024 .041 -.083 .024 .066 -.059 -.041 -.066 -.124 .083 .059 .124

.066

.983

.064

.917

.095

.816

.066

.983

.052

.588

.087

.907

.064

.917

.052

.588

.086

.469

.095

.816

.087

.907

.086

.469

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound Bound

-.19

.14

-.12

.21

-.33

.16

-.14

.19

-.07

.20

-.28

.17

-.21

.12

-.20

.07

-.35

.10

-.16

.33

-.17

.28

-.10

.35

19

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q5 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA) (Q5) Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. (Q13) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in English Language Arts/Literacy? Check all that apply.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional

Exactly Right

55

2.85

.731

development/training I have received over the One out last two school years has contributed to my ability of Three

63

2.65

.826

to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Total 118 2.75 .786

Std. Error
.099 .104 .072

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

2.66

3.05

2.44

2.86

2.60

2.89

Minimum Maximum

1

4

1

4

1

4

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to

implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid Cumulative Percent Percent

Strongly Disagree

2

3.6

3.6

3.6

Strongly Disagree

6

9.5

9.5

9.5

Disagree

13

23.6

23.6

27.3

Disagree

18

28.6

28.6

38.1

Valid Agree

31

56.4

56.4

83.6

Valid Agree

31

49.2

49.2

87.3

Strongly Agree

9

16.4

16.4

100.0

Strongly Agree

8

12.7

12.7

100.0

Total

55

100.0 100.0

Total

63

100.0

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

20

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q5 disaggregated by Q13 continued

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS
with fidelity.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

1.219

1 1.219 1.987 .161

Within Groups

71.154 116

.613

Total 72.373 117

21

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q5 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math) (Q5) Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. (Q16) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in mathematics? Check all that apply.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional

Exactly Right

184

2.89

.647

development/training I have received over the One out last two school years has contributed to my ability of Three

55

2.49

.767

to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Total 239 2.79 .695

Std. Error
.048 .103 .045

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

2.79

2.98

2.28

2.70

2.71

2.88

Minimum Maximum

1

4

1

4

1

4

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to

implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid Cumulative Percent Percent

Strongly Disagree

5

2.7

2.7

2.7

Strongly Disagree

6

10.9

10.9

10.9

Disagree

35

18.9

19.0

21.7

Disagree

19

34.5

34.5

45.5

Valid Agree

120

64.9

65.2

87.0

Valid Agree

27

49.1

49.1

94.5

Strongly Agree

24

13.0

13.0

100.0

Strongly Agree

3

5.5

5.5

100.0

Total

184

99.5

100.0

Total

55

100.0

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

22

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q5 disaggregated by Q16 continued

Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS
with fidelity.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

6.605

1 6.605 14.448 .000

Within Groups

108.349 237

.457

Total 114.954 238

23

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q6) Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.
Statistical tests by content-area

Both ELA Only Math Only
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

541

3.05

.660

.028 3.00 3.11

1

4

212

3.09

.589

.040 3.01 3.17

1

4

205

3.00

.672

.047 2.91 3.09

1

4

958

3.05

.648

.021 3.01 3.09

1

4

(I) Subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J)

-.036 .054 .036 .090 -.054 -.090

.052

.772

.053

.571

.052

.772

.063

.335

.053

.571

.063

.335

95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper Bound Bound

-.16

.09

-.07

.18

-.09

.16

-.06

.24

-.18

.07

-.24

.06

24

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q6 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

78

3.17

.590

.067 3.03 3.30

1

4

240

3.07

.633

.041 2.99 3.15

1

4

212

3.04

.648

.045 2.95 3.13

1

4

212

3.03

.670

.046 2.94 3.12

1

4

71

3.03

.609

.072 2.88 3.17

1

4

141

2.99

.686

.058 2.87 3.10

1

4

954

3.05

.648

.021 3.01 3.09

1

4

(I) teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years
25+ years 0 - 3 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years

Mean Difference
(I-J)

Std. Error

.096

.084

.124

.086

.134

.086

.138

.106

.181

.091

-.096

.084

.028

.061

.038

.061

.043

.088

.085

.069

-.124

.086

-.028

.061

.009

.063

.014

.089

.057

.070

Sig.
.867 .698 .627 .783 .356 .867 .997 .990 .997 .819 .698 .997 1.000 1.000 .967

95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper Bound Bound

-.15

.34

-.12

.37

-.11

.38

-.16

.44

-.08

.44

-.34

.15

-.15

.20

-.14

.21

-.21

.29

-.11

.28

-.37

.12

-.20

.15

-.17

.19

-.24

.27

-.14

.26

25

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q6 continued

Multiple comparisons by experience (Tukey's HSD) continued

0 - 3 years

-.134

.086

.627

-.38

.11

4 - 9 years

-.038

.061

.990

-.21

.14

15 - 20 years

10 - 14 years

-.009

.063

1.000

-.19

.17

21 - 24 years

.005

.089

1.000

-.25

.26

25+ years

.047

.070

.985

-.15

.25

0 - 3 years

-.138

.106

.783

-.44

.16

4 - 9 years

-.043

.088

.997

-.29

.21

21 - 24 years

10 - 14 years

-.014

.089

1.000

-.27

.24

15 - 20 years

-.005

.089

1.000

-.26

.25

25+ years

.042

.094

.998

-.23

.31

0 - 3 years

-.181

.091

.356

-.44

.08

25+ years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

-.085

.069

.819

-.28

.11

-.057

.070

.967

-.26

.14

-.047

.070

.985

-.25

.15

21 - 24 years

-.042

.094

.998

-.31

.23

26

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q6 continued Statistical tests by locale

City Rural Suburb Town Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound

170

3.01

.675

.052 2.90 3.11

1

4

324

3.06

.636

.035 2.99 3.13

1

4

383

3.04

.634

.032 2.97 3.10

1

4

80

3.15

.695

.078 3.00 3.30

1

4

957

3.05

.647

.021 3.01 3.09

1

4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J)

-.056 -.031 -.144 .056 .025 -.088 .031 -.025 -.113 .144 .088 .113

.061

.799

.060

.956

.088

.356

.061

.799

.049

.955

.081

.694

.060

.956

.049

.955

.080

.484

.088

.356

.081

.694

.080

.484

95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper Bound Bound

-.21

.10

-.18

.12

-.37

.08

-.10

.21

-.10

.15

-.30

.12

-.12

.18

-.15

.10

-.32

.09

-.08

.37

-.12

.30

-.09

.32

27

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q4 (relevance of PD topics) (Q6) Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom. (Q4) Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.

N

Agree

790

Disagree

168

Total

958

Mean
3.20 2.35 3.05

Std. Deviation
.521 .718 .648

Std. Error
.019 .055 .021

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

3.16

3.24

2.24

2.45

3.01

3.09

Minimum
1 1 1

Maximum
4 4 4

Overall, the topics for which I received CCGPS-focused professional development/training over the last two school years were relevant.

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 18

Percent 10.0

Valid Percent
10.7

Cumulative Percent
10.7

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 2

Percent .2

Valid Percent
.3

Cumulative Percent
.3

Disagree

80

44.4

47.6

58.3

Disagree

38

4.7

4.8

5.1

Valid Agree

64

Strongly Agree

6

35.6

38.1

3.3

3.6

96.4 100.0

Valid

Agree

548

Strongly Agree

200

68.2

69.5

24.9

25.4

74.6 100.0

Total

168

93.3 100.0

Total

788

98.0

100.0

Q6 when Q4 = Disagree

Q6 when Q4 = Agree

28

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Output for Q6 disaggregated by Q4 continued

Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares

df

101.219

1

300.376

956

401.595

957

Mean Square 101.219 .314

F

Sig.

322.147

.000

29

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q13 (identification of central shifts in ELA)
(Q6) Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom. (Q13) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in English Language Arts/Literacy? Check all that apply.

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the

Exactly Right

54

3.17

.575

CCGPS-focused professional

One out

development/training I received over the last two of Three

61

2.82

.764

school years in my classroom.

Total 115 2.98 .701

Std. Error
.078 .098 .065

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

Minimum Maximum

3.01

3.32

2

4

2.62

3.02

1

4

2.85

3.11

1

4

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in

my classroom.

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid Cumulative Percent Percent

Strongly Disagree

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Strongly Disagree

4

6.3

6.6

6.6

Disagree

5

9.1

9.3

9.3

Disagree

12

19.0

19.7

26.2

Valid Agree

35

Strongly Agree

14

63.6

64.8

25.5

25.9

74.1

Valid

Agree

36

100.0

Strongly Agree

9

57.1

59.0

85.2

14.3

14.8

100.0

Total

54

98.2 100.0

Total

61

96.8

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

30

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q6 disaggregated by Q13 continued

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

3.449

1 3.449 7.421 .007

Within Groups

52.516 113

.465

Total 55.965 114

31

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q6 (applied PD) disaggregated by Q16 (identification of central shifts in math)
(Q6) Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom. (Q16) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in mathematics? Check all that apply.

N

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the
CCGPS-focused professional
development/training I received over the last two school years in my
classroom.

Exactly Right

179

One out of Three

52

Total 231

Mean 3.12

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

.630

.047

3.02

3.21

Minimum

Maximum

1

4

2.77

.703

.098

2.57

2.97

1

4

3.04

.662

.044

2.95

3.12

1

4

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in

my classroom.

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent

Valid Cumulative Percent Percent

Strongly Disagree

3

1.6

1.7

1.7

Strongly Disagree

4

7.3

7.7

7.7

Disagree

17

9.2

9.5

11.2

Disagree

8

14.5

15.4

23.1

Valid Agree

115

62.2

64.2

75.4

Valid

Agree

36

65.5

69.2

92.3

Strongly Agree

44

23.8

24.6

100.0

Strongly Agree

4

7.3

7.7

100.0

Total

179

96.8

100.0

Total

52

94.5

100.0

a. Q013_alt2 = Exactly Right

a. Q013_alt2 = One out of Three

32

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q6 disaggregated by Q16 continued

Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

4.882

1 4.882 11.675 .001

Within Groups

95.767 229

.418

Total 100.649 230

33

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

(Q7) Generally, how did you access the CCGPS resources you used over the last two school years? And, how convenient was it to access those resources?
Output for Q7 part B (convenience of access) disaggregated by Q9 (used CCGPS resources)
(Q7 part B) Accessing this material was convenient. (Q9) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have been aligned to CCGPS. Curriculum exemplars (Q7_1b)

N

Agree

723

Disagree

68

Total

791

Mean
2.86 2.13 2.80

Std. Deviation
.728 .862 .767

Std. Error
.027 .105 .027

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

2.80

2.91

1.92

2.34

2.74

2.85

Minimum
1 1 1

Maximum
4 4 4

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Total

Accessing this material was convenient.

Frequency Percent

18

20.7

Valid Percent
26.5

Cumulative Percent
26.5

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 40

Percent 4.9

Valid Percent
5.6

26

29.9

38.2

64.7

Disagree

128

15.6

17.9

21

24.1

30.9

95.6

Valid

Agree

442

54.0

61.9

3

3.4

4.4

100.0

Strongly Agree

104

12.7

14.6

68

78.2

100.0

Total

714

87.2

100.0

Q7_1b when Q9 = Disagree

Q7_1b when Q9 = Agree

Cumulative Percent
5.6
23.5 85.4
100.0

34

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q7 part B disaggregated by Q9 continued Curriculum exemplars continued

Sum of Squares

df

Between Groups

32.687

1

Within Groups

432.135

789

Total

464.822

790

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks (Q7_2b)

Mean Square 32.687 .548

F 59.680

N

Agree

773

Disagree

77

Total

850

Mean
3.01 2.52 2.96

Std. Deviation
.698 .852 .726

Std. Error
.025 .097 .025

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.96

3.05

2.33

2.71

2.91

3.01

Minimum
1 1 1

Sig. .000
Maximum 4 4 4

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Total

Accessing this material was convenient.

Frequency Percent

12

13.8

Valid Percent
15.6

Cumulative Percent
15.6

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 27

Percent 3.3

Valid Percent
3.5

19

21.8

24.7

40.3

Disagree

104

12.7

13.6

40

46.0

51.9

92.2

Valid

Agree

473

57.8

61.8

6

6.9

7.8

100.0

Strongly Agree

161

19.7

21.0

77

88.5

100.0

Total

765

93.4

100.0

Q7_2b when Q9 = Disagree

Q7_2b when Q9 = Agree

Cumulative Percent
3.5
17.1 79.0
100.0

35

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q7 part B disaggregated by Q9 continued Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks continued

Sum of Squares

df

Between Groups

16.519

1

Within Groups

431.200

848

Total

447.719

849

Mean Square 16.519 .508

Assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.) (Q7_3b)

F 32.486

N

Agree

733

Disagree

70

Total

803

Mean
2.81 2.21 2.76

Std. Deviation
.791 .883 .816

Std. Error
.029 .106 .029

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.75

2.86

2.00

2.42

2.70

2.81

Minimum
1 1 1

Sig. .000
Maximum 4 4 4

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Total

Accessing this material was convenient.

Frequency Percent

17

19.5

Valid Percent
24.3

Cumulative Percent
24.3

Strongly Disagree

Frequency 57

Percent 7.0

Valid Percent
7.9

25

28.7

35.7

60.0

Disagree

134

16.4

18.5

24

27.6

34.3

94.3

Valid

Agree

422

51.5

58.1

4

4.6

5.7

100.0

Strongly Agree

113

13.8

15.6

70

80.5

100.0

Total

726

88.6

100.0

Q7_3b when Q9 = Disagree

Q7_3b when Q9 = Agree

Cumulative Percent
24.3
60.0 94.3
100.0

36

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q7 part B disaggregated by Q9 continued Assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.) continued

Sum of Squares

df

Between Groups

22.496

1

Within Groups

511.663

801

Total

534.159

802

Mean Square 22.496 .639

Digital lessons and activities (Q7_4b)

F 35.218

N

Agree

657

Disagree

64

Total

721

Mean
2.84 2.11 2.77

Std. Deviation
.720 .799 .756

Std. Error
.028 .100 .028

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.78

2.89

1.91

2.31

2.72

2.83

Minimum
1 1 1

Sig. .000
Maximum 4 4 4

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Total

Accessing this material was convenient.

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

16

18.4

25.0

Cumulative Percent
25.0

26

29.9

40.6

65.6

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Frequency Percent

34

4.2

128

15.6

Valid Percent 5.2
19.7

21

24.1

32.8

98.4

Valid

Agree 399

48.7

61.3

1

1.1

1.6

100.0

64

73.6

100.0

Strongly 90 Agree Total 651

11.0

13.8

79.5

100.0

Q7_4b when Q9 = Disagree

Q7_4b when Q9 = Agree

Cumulative Percent
5.2
24.9 86.2 100.0

37

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q7 part B disaggregated by Q9 continued Digital lessons and activities continued

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

30.759

1

30.759

58.126

.000

Within Groups

380.481

719

.529

Total

411.240

720

38

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q8) How often are you using the CCGPS resources that you accessed over the last two school years in your classroom?
Statistical tests by content-area Curriculum exemplars (Q8_1)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Frequency

Percent

Mathematics and ELA

26

4.7

56

10.1

188

34.1

164

29.7

58

10.5

492

89.1

60

10.9

552

100.0

ELA Only

14

6.5

23

10.6

67

31.0

62

28.7

21

9.7

187

86.6

29

13.4

216

100.0

Mathematics Only

21

9.6

27

12.3

66

30.1

45

20.5

22

10.0

181

82.6

38

17.4

219

100.0

Valid Percent
5.3 11.4 38.2 33.3 11.8 100.0
7.5 12.3 35.8 33.2 11.2 100.0
11.6 14.9 36.5 24.9 12.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent
5.3 16.7 54.9 88.2 100.0
7.5 19.8 55.6 88.8 100.0
11.6 26.5 63.0 87.8 100.0

39

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Content-Area continued Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks (Q8_2)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Mathematics and ELA

Frequency

Percent

2

0.4

17

3.1

74

13.4

212

38.4

200

36.2

505

91.5

47

8.5

552

100.0

ELA Only

4

1.9

10

4.6

36

16.7

82

38.0

64

29.6

196

90.7

20

9.3

216

100.0

Mathematics Only

2

.9

6

2.7

29

13.2

81

37.0

79

36.1

197

90.0

22

10.0

219

100.0

Valid Percent
0.4 3.4 14.7 42.0 39.6 100.0
2.0 5.1 18.4 41.8 32.7 100.0
1.0 3.0 14.7 41.1 40.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 0.4 3.8 18.4 60.4 100.0
2.0 7.1 25.5 67.3 100.0
1.0 4.1 18.8 59.9 100.0

40

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Content-Area continued Assessment tools (e.g. sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc. (Q8_3)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Mathematics and ELA

Frequency

Percent

18

3.3

32

5.8

127

23.0

201

36.4

114

20.7

492

89.1

60

10.9

552

100.0

ELA Only

12

5.6

17

7.9

70

32.4

62

28.7

32

14.8

193

89.4

23

10.6

216

100.0

Mathematics Only

8

3.7

16

7.3

63

28.8

68

31.1

37

16.9

192

87.7

27

12.3

219

100.0

Valid Percent
3.7 6.5 25.8 40.9 23.2 100.0
6.2 8.8 36.3 32.1 16.6 100.0
4.2 8.3 32.8 35.4 19.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.7 10.2 36.0 76.8 100.0
6.2 15.0 51.3 83.4 100.0
4.2 12.5 45.3 80.7 100.0

41

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Content-Area continued Digital lessons and activities (Q8_4)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Mathematics and ELA

Frequency

Percent

29

5.3

45

8.2

142

25.7

188

34.1

71

12.9

475

86.1

77

13.9

552

100.0

ELA Only

25

11.6

26

12.0

50

23.1

55

25.5

20

9.3

176

81.5

40

18.5

216

100.0

Mathematics Only

19

8.7

20

9.1

69

31.5

50

22.8

26

11.9

184

84.0

35

16.0

219

100.0

Valid Percent
6.1 9.5 29.9 39.6 14.9 100.0
14.2 14.8 28.4 31.3 11.4 100.0
10.3 10.9 37.5 27.2 14.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 6.1 15.6 45.5 85.1 100.0
14.2 29.0 57.4 88.6 100.0
10.3 21.2 58.7 85.9 100.0

42

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Content-area continued

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Both 492 2.35 1.005 .045

2.26

2.44

0 4

Curriculum exemplars

ELA Only Math Only

187 181

2.28 2.11

1.063 1.159

.078 .086

2.13 1.94

2.44

0 4

2.28

0 4

Total 860 2.28 1.055 .036

2.21

2.36

0 4

Both 505 3.17 .828 .037

3.10

3.24

0 4

Teaching guides

ELA Only 196 2.98 Math Only 197 3.16

.950 .860

.068 .061

2.85 3.04

3.11

0 4

3.28

0 4

Total 898 3.13 .865 .029

3.07

3.18

0 4

Both 492 2.73 1.005 .045

2.64

2.82

0 4

Assessment tools

ELA Only 193 2.44 Math Only 192 2.57

1.064 1.026

.077 .074

2.29 2.43

2.59

0 4

2.72

0 4

Total 877 2.63 1.029 .035

2.57

2.70

0 4

Both 475 2.48 1.052 .048

2.38

2.57

0 4

Digital lessons and ELA Only 176 2.11 1.216 .092

1.93

activities

Math Only 184 2.24 1.144 .084

2.07

2.29

0 4

2.41

0 4

Total 835 2.35 1.118 .039

2.27

2.42

0 4

Curriculum exemplars
Teaching guides
Assessment tools Digital lessons and
activities

Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares 7.565
947.639 955.203
5.453 666.075 671.528 12.844 914.664 927.507 20.336 1022.945 1043.281

df Mean Square F Sig.

2

3.782

3.421 .033

857

1.106

859

2

2.726

3.664 .026

895

.744

897

2

6.422

6.136 .002

874

1.047

876

2

10.168 8.270 .000**

832

1.230

834

43

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Content-area continued

Curriculum exemplars

Assessment tools Teaching guides

95% Confidence

Dependent Variable

Mean

Std.

Difference (I-J) Error

Sig.

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

ELA Only

.066

.090

.744

-.15

.28

Both Math Only

.239*

.091

.025

.02

.45

ELA Only

Both Math Only

-.066 .173

.090

.744

-.28

.110

.256

-.08

.15 .43

Both

-.239*

.091

.025

-.45

-.02

Math Only ELA Only

-.173

.110

.256

-.43

.08

ELA Only

.191*

.073

.024

.02

.36

Both

Math Only

.008

.072

.994

-.16

.18

Both

-.191*

.073

.024

-.36

-.02

ELA Only

Math Only

-.183

.087

.090

-.39

.02

Both

-.008

.072

.994

-.18

.16

Math Only ELA Only

.183

.087

.090

-.02

.39

Both

ELA Only

.293**

.087

.002

.09

.50

Math Only

.161

.087

.155

-.04

.37

ELA Only

Both

-.293**

.087

.002

-.50

-.09

Math Only

-.133

.104

.412

-.38

.11

Math Only

Both ELA Only

-.161 .133

.087

.155

-.37

.104

.412

-.11

.04 .38

Both

ELA Only Math Only

.370** .239*

.098

.000

.14

.096

.036

.01

.60 .46

ELA Only

Both

-.370**

.098

.000

-.60

-.14

Math Only

-.131

.117

.501

-.41

.14

Both

-.239*

.096

.036

-.46

-.01

Math Only

ELA Only

.131

.117

.501

-.14

.41

Digital lessons and activities

44

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Statistical tests by years of experience Curriculum exemplars (Q8_1)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total
System
Total

0-3 Years

Frequency

Percent

4

4.9

10

12.3

25

30.9

24

29.6

3

3.7

66

81.5

15

18.5

81

100.0

4-9 Years

26

10.5

34

13.7

73

29.4

56

22.6

22

8.9

211

85.1

37

14.9

248

100.0

10-14 Years

7

3.3

21

9.8

71

33.0

60

27.9

31

14.4

190

88.4

25

11.6

215

100.0

Valid Percent
6.1 15.2 37.9 36.4 4.5 100.0
12.3 16.1 34.6 26.5 10.4 100.0
3.7 11.1 37.4 31.6 16.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 6.1 21.2 59.1 95.5 100.0
12.3 28.4 63.0 89.6 100.0
3.7 14.7 52.1 83.7 100.0

45

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

15-20 Years

Frequency

Percent

16

7.3

21

9.6

78

35.8

63

28.9

21

9.6

199

91.3

19

8.7

218

100.0

21-24 Years

2

2.7

8

10.8

28

37.8

21

28.4

7

9.5

66

89.2

8

10.8

74

100.0

25+ Years

6

4.1

12

8.2

45

30.6

46

31.3

16

10.9

125

85.0

22

15.0

147

100.0

Valid Percent
8.0 10.6 39.2 31.7 10.6 100.0
3.0 12.1 42.4 31.8 10.6 100.0
4.8 9.6 36.0 36.8 12.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 8.0 18.6 57.8 89.4 100.0
3.0 15.2 57.6 89.4 100.0
4.8 14.4 50.4 87.2 100.0

46

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks (Q8_2)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total
System
Total

0-3 Years

Frequency

Percent

0

0.0

2

2.5

12

14.8

25

30.9

29

35.8

68

84.0

13

16.0

81

100.0

4-9 Years

2

.8

10

4.0

38

15.3

80

32.3

96

38.7

226

91.1

22

8.9

248

100.0

10-14 Years

1

.5

6

2.8

29

13.5

87

40.5

74

34.4

197

91.6

18

8.4

215

100.0

Valid Percent
0.0 2.9 17.6 36.8 42.6 100.0
.9 4.4 16.8 35.4 42.5 100.0
.5 3.0 14.7 44.2 37.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 0.0 2.9 20.6 57.4 100.0
.9 5.3 22.1 57.5 100.0
.5 3.6 18.3 62.4 100.0

47

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

15-20 Years

Frequency

Percent

4

1.8

6

2.8

30

13.8

97

44.5

65

29.8

202

92.7

16

7.3

218

100.0

21-24 Years

0

0.0

5

6.8

14

18.9

27

36.5

24

32.4

70

94.6

4

5.4

74

100.0

25+ Years

1

.7

4

2.7

16

10.9

58

39.5

52

35.4

131

89.1

16

10.9

147

100.0

Valid Percent
2.0 3.0 14.9 48.0 32.2 100.0
0.0 7.1 20.0 38.6 34.3 100.0
.8 3.1 12.2 44.3 39.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 2.0 5.0 19.8 67.8 100.0
0.0 7.1 27.1 65.7 100.0
.8 3.8 16.0 60.3 100.0

48

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Assessment tools (e.g., sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.) (Q8_3)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total
System
Total

0-3 Years

Frequency

Percent

2

2.5

7

8.6

18

22.2

26

32.1

14

17.3

67

82.7

14

17.3

81

100.0

4-9 Years

13

5.2

19

7.7

66

26.6

78

31.5

44

17.7

220

88.7

28

11.3

248

100.0

10-14 Years

6

2.8

10

4.7

57

26.5

76

35.3

46

21.4

195

90.7

20

9.3

215

100.0

Valid Percent
3.0 10.4 26.9 38.8 20.9 100.0
5.9 8.6 30.0 35.5 20.0 100.0
3.1 5.1 29.2 39.0 23.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.0 13.4 40.3 79.1 100.0
5.9 14.5 44.5 80.0 100.0
3.1 8.2 37.4 76.4 100.0

49

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

15-20 Years

Frequency

Percent

12

5.5

15

6.9

55

25.2

74

33.9

38

17.4

194

89.0

24

11.0

218

100.0

21-24 Years

2

2.7

8

10.8

26

35.1

18

24.3

15

20.3

69

93.2

5

6.8

74

100.0

25+ Years

3

2.0

5

3.4

38

25.9

57

38.8

25

17.0

128

87.1

19

12.9

147

100.0

Valid Percent
6.2 7.7 28.4 38.1 19.6 100.0
2.9 11.6 37.7 26.1 21.7 100.0
2.3 3.9 29.7 44.5 19.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 6.2 13.9 42.3 80.4 100.0
2.9 14.5 52.2 78.3 100.0
2.3 6.3 35.9 80.5 100.0

50

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Digital lessons and activities (Q8_4)

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total
System
Total

0-3 Years

Frequency

Percent

4

4.9

9

11.1

21

25.9

22

27.2

7

8.6

63

77.8

18

22.2

81

100.0

4-9 Years

26

10.5

23

9.3

63

25.4

64

25.8

36

14.5

212

85.5

36

14.5

248

100.0

10-14 Years

7

3.3

15

7.0

63

29.3

72

33.5

25

11.6

182

84.7

33

15.3

215

100.0

Valid Percent
6.3 14.3 33.3 34.9 11.1 100.0
12.3 10.8 29.7 30.2 17.0 100.0
3.8 8.2 34.6 39.6 13.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 6.3 20.6 54.0 88.9 100.0
12.3 23.1 52.8 83.0 100.0
3.8 12.1 46.7 86.3 100.0

51

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

15-20 Years

Frequency

Percent

19

8.7

21

9.6

54

24.8

69

31.7

25

11.5

188

86.2

30

13.8

218

100.0

21-24 Years

7

9.5

9

12.2

20

27.0

19

25.7

9

12.2

64

86.5

10

13.5

74

100.0

25+ Years

10

6.8

14

9.5

39

26.5

45

30.6

14

9.5

122

83.0

25

17.0

147

100.0

Valid Percent
10.1 11.2 28.7 36.7 13.3 100.0
10.9 14.1 31.3 29.7 14.1 100.0
8.2 11.5 32.0 36.9 11.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 10.1 21.3 50.0 86.7 100.0
10.9 25.0 56.3 85.9 100.0
8.2 19.7 51.6 88.5 100.0

52

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Curriculum exemplars

Teaching guides

0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years
Total 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years
Total 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years
Total 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years
Total

N

Mean

Std. Deviat
ion

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Upper Bound Bound

66 2.18 .959 .118 1.95

2.42

211 2.07 1.157 .080 1.91

2.22

190 2.46 1.011 .073 2.31

2.60

199 2.26 1.050 .074 2.11

2.41

66 2.35 .936 .115 2.12

2.58

125 2.43 .995 .089 2.26

2.61

857 2.28 1.054 .036 2.21

2.35

68 3.19 .833 .101 2.99

3.39

226 3.14 .913 .061 3.02

3.26

197 3.15 .819 .058 3.04

3.27

202 3.05 .876 .062 2.93

3.18

70 3.00 .917 .110 2.78

3.22

131 3.19 .824 .072 3.05

3.33

894 3.12 .866 .029 3.07

3.18

67 2.64 1.025 .125 2.39

2.89

220 2.55 1.086 .073 2.41

2.69

195 2.75 .976 .070 2.61

2.89

194 2.57 1.081 .078 2.42

2.73

69 2.52 1.052 .127 2.27

2.77

128 2.75 .896 .079 2.59

2.91

873 2.63 1.029 .035 2.57

2.70

63 2.30 1.057 .133 2.04

2.57

212 2.29 1.227 .084 2.12

2.45

182 2.51 .962 .071 2.37

2.65

188 2.32 1.149 .084 2.15

2.48

64 2.22 1.188 .149 1.92

2.52

122 2.32 1.085 .098 2.13

2.51

831 2.34 1.119 .039 2.27

2.42

Minimum
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Assessment tools

Digital lessons and activities

53

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued

Dependent Variable

Mean Difference
(I-J)

Curriculum exemplars

0 - 3 years
4 - 9 years
10 - 14 years
15 - 20 years
21 - 24 years
25+ years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years
25+ years 0 - 3 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years

.115 -.276 -.079 -.167 -.250 -.115 -.392* -.195 -.282 -.366* .276 .392* .197 .109 .026 .079 .195 -.197 -.087 -.171 .167 .282 -.109 .087 -.084 .250 .366* -.026 .171 .084

Std. Error
.148 .150 .149 .182 .159 .148 .105 .103 .148 .118 .150 .105 .106 .150 .121 .149 .103 .106 .149 .119 .182 .148 .150 .149 .159 .159 .118 .121 .119 .159

Sig.
.971 .437 .995 .943 .618 .971 .003 .412 .396 .025 .437 .003 .433 .978 1.000 .995 .412 .433 .992 .709 .943 .396 .978 .992 .995 .618 .025 1.000 .709 .995

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

-.31

.54

-.70

.15

-.50

.35

-.69

.35

-.71

.20

-.54

.31

-.69

-.09

-.49

.10

-.70

.14

-.70

-.03

-.15

.70

.09

.69

-.11

.50

-.32

.54

-.32

.37

-.35

.50

-.10

.49

-.50

.11

-.51

.34

-.51

.17

-.35

.69

-.14

.70

-.54

.32

-.34

.51

-.54

.37

-.20

.71

.03

.70

-.37

.32

-.17

.51

-.37

.54

54

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued Multiple Comparisons for Q8_1 Q1_4 by Experience

Teaching guides

Dependent Variable

0 - 3 years
4 - 9 years
10 - 14 years
15 - 20 years
21 - 24 years
25+ years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years
25+ years 0 - 3 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.050 .039 .137 .191 .000 -.050 -.011 .087 .142 -.049 -.039 .011 .098 .152 -.039 -.137 -.087 -.098 .054 -.136 -.191 -.142 -.152 -.054 -.191 .000 .049 .039 .136 .191

Std. Error
.120 .122 .121 .147 .129 .120 .084 .084 .118 .095 .122 .084 .087 .121 .098 .121 .084 .087 .120 .097 .147 .118 .121 .120 .128 .129 .095 .098 .097 .128

Sig.
.998 1.000 .871 .787 1.000 .998 1.000 .905 .839 .995 1.000 1.000 .870 .805 .999 .871 .905 .870 .998 .725 .787 .839 .805 .998 .672 1.000 .995 .999 .725 .672

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

-.29

.39

-.31

.39

-.21

.48

-.23

.61

-.37

.37

-.39

.29

-.25

.23

-.15

.33

-.20

.48

-.32

.22

-.39

.31

-.23

.25

-.15

.35

-.19

.50

-.32

.24

-.48

.21

-.33

.15

-.35

.15

-.29

.40

-.41

.14

-.61

.23

-.48

.20

-.50

.19

-.40

.29

-.56

.18

-.37

.37

-.22

.32

-.24

.32

-.14

.41

-.18

.56

55

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued Multiple Comparisons for Q8_1 Q1_4 by Experience

Dependent Variable

Mean Difference
(I-J)

Assessment tools

0 - 3 years
4 - 9 years
10 - 14 years
15 - 20 years
21 - 24 years
25+ years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years
25+ years 0 - 3 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years

.092 -.107 .070 .120 -.108 -.092 -.199 -.022 .028 -.200 .107 .199 .177 .227 -.001 -.070 .022 -.177 .050 -.178 -.120 -.028 -.227 -.050 -.228 .108 .200 .001 .178 .228

Std. Error
.143 .145 .146 .176 .155 .143 .101 .101 .142 .114 .145 .101 .104 .144 .117 .146 .101 .104 .144 .117 .176 .142 .144 .144 .153 .155 .114 .117 .117 .153

Sig.
.988 .978 .997 .984 .982 .988 .363 1.000 1.000 .498 .978 .363 .536 .614 1.000 .997 1.000 .536 .999 .651 .984 1.000 .614 .999 .672 .982 .498 1.000 .651 .672

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

-.32

.50

-.52

.31

-.35

.49

-.38

.62

-.55

.33

-.50

.32

-.49

.09

-.31

.27

-.38

.43

-.53

.13

-.31

.52

-.09

.49

-.12

.47

-.18

.64

-.34

.33

-.49

.35

-.27

.31

-.47

.12

-.36

.46

-.51

.16

-.62

.38

-.43

.38

-.64

.18

-.46

.36

-.67

.21

-.33

.55

-.13

.53

-.33

.34

-.16

.51

-.21

.67

56

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Years of experience continued Multiple Comparisons for Q8_1 Q1_4 by Experience

Digital lessons and activities

Dependent Variable

0 - 3 years
4 - 9 years
10 - 14 years
15 - 20 years
21 - 24 years
25+ years

4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years
25+ years 0 - 3 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 21 - 24 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 25+ years 0 - 3 years 4 - 9 years 10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years 21 - 24 years

Mean Difference
(I-J)
.014 -.209 -.018 .083 -.018 -.014 -.223 -.031 .069 -.032 .209 .223 .192 .292 .191 .018 .031 -.192 .100 -.001 -.083 -.069 -.292 -.100 -.101 .018 .032 -.191 .001 .101

Std. Error
.161 .164 .163 .199 .174 .161 .113 .112 .160 .127 .164 .113 .116 .163 .131 .163 .112 .116 .162 .130 .199 .160 .163 .162 .173 .174 .127 .131 .130 .173

Sig.
1.000 .796 1.000 .998 1.000 1.000 .358 1.000 .998 1.000 .796 .358 .566 .468 .689 1.000 1.000 .566 .990 1.000 .998 .998 .468 .990 .992 1.000 1.000 .689 1.000 .992

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

-.44

.47

-.68

.26

-.48

.45

-.48

.65

-.51

.48

-.47

.44

-.55

.10

-.35

.29

-.39

.52

-.40

.33

-.26

.68

-.10

.55

-.14

.52

-.17

.76

-.18

.57

-.45

.48

-.29

.35

-.52

.14

-.36

.56

-.37

.37

-.65

.48

-.52

.39

-.76

.17

-.56

.36

-.59

.39

-.48

.51

-.33

.40

-.57

.18

-.37

.37

-.39

.59

57

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Statistical tests by locale

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

City

Frequency

Percent

11

6.4

19

11.0

43

24.9

55

31.8

23

13.3

151

87.3

22

12.7

173

100.0

Rural

22

6.6

35

10.5

112

33.6

93

27.9

29

8.7

291

87.4

42

12.6

333

100.0

Suburb

28

7.0

42

10.5

147

36.8

96

24.1

38

9.5

351

88.0

48

12.0

399

100.0

Town

0

0.0

10

12.3

19

23.5

26

32.1

11

13.6

66

81.5

15

18.5

81

58

Valid Percent
7.3 12.6 28.5 36.4 15.2 100.0

Cum. Percent
7.3 19.9 48.3 84.8 100.0

7.6 12.0 38.5 32.0 10.0 100.0

7.6 19.6 58.1 90.0 100.0

8.0 12.0 41.9 27.4 10.8 100.0

8.0 19.9 61.8 89.2 100.0

0.0 15.2 28.8 39.4 16.7 100.0
100.0

0.0 15.2 43.9 83.3 100.0

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Locale continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

City

Frequency

Percent

0

.0

4

2.3

22

12.7

56

32.4

77

44.5

159

91.9

14

8.1

173

100.0

Rural

3

.9

11

3.3

40

12.0

129

38.7

120

36.0

303

91.0

30

9.0

333

100.0

Suburb

5

1.3

17

4.3

68

17.0

159

39.8

112

28.1

361

90.5

38

9.5

399

100.0

Town

0

.0

1

1.2

9

11.1

31

38.3

33

40.7

74

91.4

7

8.6

81

100.0

59

Valid Percent
.0 2.5 13.8 35.2 48.4 100.0

Cum. Percent .0 2.5
16.4 51.6 100.0

1.0 3.6 13.2 42.6 39.6 100.0

1.0 4.6 17.8 60.4 100.0

1.4 4.7 18.8 44.0 31.0 100.0

1.4 6.1 24.9 69.0 100.0

.0 1.4 12.2 41.9 44.6 100.0

.0 1.4 13.5 55.4 100.0

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Locale continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

City

Frequency

Percent

6

3.5

12

6.9

39

22.5

58

33.5

38

22.0

153

88.4

20

11.6

173

100.0

Rural

15

4.5

26

7.8

86

25.8

114

34.2

56

16.8

297

89.2

36

10.8

333

100.0

Suburb

12

3.0

24

6.0

119

29.8

132

33.1

68

17.0

355

89.0

44

11.0

399

100.0

Town

5

6.2

3

3.7

16

19.8

27

33.3

20

24.7

71

87.7

10

12.3

81

100.0

60

Valid Percent 3.9 7.8 25.5 37.9 24.8 100.0

Cum. Percent 3.9 11.8 37.3 75.2 100.0

5.1 8.8 29.0 38.4 18.9 100.0

5.1 13.8 42.8 81.1 100.0

3.4 6.8 33.5 37.2 19.2 100.0

3.4 10.1 43.7 80.8 100.0

7.0 4.2 22.5 38.0 28.2 100.0

7.0 11.3 33.8 71.8 100.0

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Locale continued

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

Valid Missing

Never Rarely Sometimes Very Often Always Total System Total

City

Frequency

Percent

18

10.4

12

6.9

38

22.0

49

28.3

30

17.3

147

85.0

26

15.0

173

Rural

22

6.6

37

11.1

87

26.1

98

29.4

35

10.5

279

83.8

54

16.2

333

Suburb

28

7.0

35

8.8

114

28.6

123

30.8

40

10.0

340

85.2

59

14.8

399

Town

5

6.2

7

8.6

22

27.2

22

27.2

12

14.8

68

84.0

13

16.0

81

100.0

61

Valid Percent 12.2 8.2 25.9 33.3 20.4 100.0
100.0
7.9 13.3 31.2 35.1 12.5 100.0
100.0
8.2 10.3 33.5 36.2 11.8 100.0
100.0
7.4 10.3 32.4 32.4 17.6 100.0

Cum. Percent 12.2 20.4 46.3 79.6 100.0
7.9 21.1 52.3 87.5 100.0
8.2 18.5 52.1 88.2 100.0
7.4 17.6 50.0 82.4 100.0

Curriculum exemplars

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 continued Locale continued

City Rural Suburb Town Total City Rural Suburb Town Total City Rural Suburb Town Total City Rural Suburb Town Total

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

151 2.40 291 2.25 351 2.21 66 2.58 859 2.28 159 3.30 303 3.16 361 2.99 74 3.30 897 3.13 153 2.72 297 2.57 355 2.62 71 2.76 876 2.63 147 2.41 279 2.31 340 2.33 68 2.43 834 2.35

1.114 1.041 1.051 .946 1.055 .800 .859 .902 .735 .865 1.048 1.051 .980 1.127 1.029 1.249 1.099 1.077 1.124 1.119

Std. Error
.091 .061 .056 .116 .036 .063 .049 .047 .085 .029 .085 .061 .052 .134 .035 .103 .066 .058 .136 .039

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound

2.22

2.58

2.13

2.37

2.10

2.32

2.34

2.81

2.21

2.35

3.17

3.42

3.06

3.26

2.89

3.08

3.13

3.47

3.07

3.18

2.55

2.89

2.45

2.69

2.52

2.72

2.49

3.03

2.56

2.70

2.21

2.62

2.18

2.44

2.21

2.44

2.15

2.70

2.27

2.42

Minimum Maximum

0

4

0

4

0

4

1

4

0

4

1

4

0

4

0

4

1

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

Teaching guides

Assessment tools

Digital lessons

62

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q8 continued Locale continued

Teaching guides

Curriculum exemplars

Dependent Variable City Rural Suburb Town City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb Rural Suburb Town City Suburb Town City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference (I-J)
.150 .187 -.178 -.150 .037 -.328 -.187 -.037 -.365* .178 .328 .365* .134 .309* -.002 -.134 .176* -.136 -.309* -.176* -.311* .002 .136 .311*

Std. Error
.105 .102 .155 .105 .083 .143 .102 .083 .141 .155 .143 .141 .084 .082 .121 .084 .067 .111 .082 .067 .109 .121 .111 .109

Sig.
.486 .263 .658 .486 .972 .101 .263 .972 .048 .658 .101 .048 .382 .001 1.000 .382 .043 .615 .001 .043 .024 1.000 .615 .024

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

-.12

.42

-.08

.45

-.58

.22

-.42

.12

-.18

.25

-.70

.04

-.45

.08

-.25

.18

-.73

.00

-.22

.58

-.04

.70

.00

.73

-.08

.35

.10

.52

-.31

.31

-.35

.08

.00

.35

-.42

.15

-.52

-.10

-.35

.00

-.59

-.03

-.31

.31

-.15

.42

.03

.59

63

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Digital lessons

Assessment tools

Q8 continued Locale continued Dependent
Variable City
Rural
Suburb
Town
City
Rural
Suburb
Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb Rural Suburb Town City Suburb Town City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference (I-J)
.147 .099 -.042 -.147 -.047 -.188 -.099 .047 -.141 .042 .188 .141 .103 .086 -.012 -.103 -.018 -.115 -.086 .018 -.097 .012 .115 .097

Std. Error
.102 .099 .148 .102 .081 .136 .099 .081 .134 .148 .136 .134 .114 .111 .164 .114 .090 .151 .111 .090 .149 .164 .151 .149

Sig
.480 .751 .992 .480 .937 .509 .751 .937 .718 .992 .509 .718 .803 .866 1.000 .803 .997 .874 .866 .997 .915 1.000 .874 .915

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

-.12

.41

-.16

.36

-.42

.34

-.41

.12

-.26

.16

-.54

.16

-.36

.16

-.16

.26

-.48

.20

-.34

.42

-.16

.54

-.20

.48

-.19

.40

-.20

.37

-.43

.41

-.40

.19

-.25

.22

-.50

.28

-.37

.20

-.22

.25

-.48

.29

-.41

.43

-.28

.50

-.29

.48

64

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Output for Q8 (frequency of use of resources) disaggregated by Q10 (fidelity of implementation)
(Q8) How often are you using the CCGPS resources that you accessed over the last two school years in your classroom? (Q10) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Curriculum exemplars

Frequency

Percent Valid Percent

Never

31

18.0

19.1

Rarely

45

26.2

27.8

Valid

Sometimes

50

Very Often

26

29.1

30.9

15.1

16.0

Always

10

5.8

6.2

Total

162

94.2

100.0

Missing

System

10

5.8

Total

172

100.0

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks

Frequency

Percent Valid Percent

Never

7

4.1

4.2

Rarely

20

11.6

12.0

Valid

Sometimes

45

Very Often

52

26.2

26.9

30.2

31.1

Always

43

25.0

25.7

Total

167

97.1

100.0

Missing

System

5

2.9

Total

172

100.0

Assessment tools (e.g .sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.)

Frequency

Percent Valid Percent

Never

21

12.2

13.1

Rarely

24

14.0

15.0

Valid

Sometimes

67

Very Often

30

39.0

41.9

17.4

18.8

Always

18

10.5

11.3

Total

160

93.0

100.0

Missing

System

12

7.0

Total

172

100.0

Cumulative Percent 19.1 46.9 77.8 93.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.2 16.2 43.1 74.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent 13.1 28.1 70.0 88.8 100.0

65

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 disaggregated by Q10 continued

Frequency Tables for Q8_1 Q1_4 when Q10 = Disagree continued

Digital lessons and activities
Never Rarely

Frequency 36 25

Percent 20.9 14.5

Valid Percent 23.2 16.1

Valid

Sometimes

49

Very Often

36

Always

9

Total

155

Missing

System

17

Total

172

28.5
20.9 5.2 90.1 9.9 100.0

31.6
23.2 5.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 23.2 39.4
71.0
94.2 100.0

Curriculum exemplars

Frequency

Percent

Never

29

Rarely

60

Valid

Sometimes

270

Very Often

243

Always

91

Total

693

Missing

System

43

Total

736

3.9 8.2 36.7 33.0 12.4 94.2 5.8 100.0

Teaching guides, curriculum maps, or unit frameworks

Frequency

Percent

Never

1

Rarely

12

Valid

Sometimes Very Often

93 320

Always

299

Total

725

Missing

System

11

Total

736

.1 1.6 12.6 43.5 40.6 98.5 1.5 100.0

Valid Percent
4.2 8.7 39.0 35.1 13.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
4.2 12.8 51.8 86.9 100.0

Valid Percent
.1 1.7 12.8 44.1 41.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent
.1 1.8 14.6 58.8 100.0

66

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q8 disaggregated by Q10 continued

Frequency Tables for Q8_1 Q1_4 when Q10 = Agree continued

Assessment tools (e.g .sample test items, benchmark assessments, etc.)

Frequency

Percent Valid Percent

Never

16

2.2

2.3

Rarely

40

5.4

5.6

Valid

Sometimes Very Often

190 300

25.8 40.8

26.7 42.2

Always

165

22.4

23.2

Total

711

96.6

100.0

Missing

System

25

3.4

Total

736

100.0

Digital lessons and activities

Never Rarely

Frequency 37 65

Percent 5.0 8.8

Valid Percent 5.5 9.6

Valid

Sometimes

211

28.7

31.2

Very Often

256

34.8

37.9

Always

107

14.5

15.8

Total

676

91.8

100.0

Missing

System

60

8.2

Total

736

100.0

Cumulative Percent 2.3 7.9 34.6 76.8
100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.5 15.1 46.3 84.2
100.0

67

Minimum Maximum

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Q8 disaggregated by Q10 continued

Curriculum exemplars
Teaching guides
Assessment tools Digital lessons and
activities

Disagree Agree Total
Disagree Agree Total
Disagree Agree Total
Disagree Agree Total

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

162 1.62 1.148 .090 693 2.44 .967 .037 855 2.29 1.053 .036 167 2.62 1.117 .086 725 3.25 .748 .028 892 3.13 .864 .029 160 2.00 1.149 .091 711 2.78 .939 .035 871 2.64 1.026 .035 155 1.72 1.220 .098 676 2.49 1.043 .040 831 2.35 1.118 .039

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound 1.45 2.37 2.22 2.45 3.19 3.07 1.82 2.72 2.57 1.53 2.41 2.27

Upper Bound 1.80 2.52 2.36 2.79 3.30 3.19 2.18 2.85 2.71 1.92 2.57 2.42

0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4

Curriculum exemplars Teaching guides Assessment tools
Digital lessons and activities

Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares 88.192 859.029 947.221 52.876 612.039 664.915 80.445 836.076 916.521 74.189 963.998 1038.188

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1 88.192 87.573 .000

853 1.007

854

1 52.876 76.890 .000

890 .688

891

1 80.445 83.613 .000

869 .962

870

1 74.189 63.800 .000

829 1.163

830

68

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

(Q9)Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have been aligned to CCGPS.
Statistical tests by content-area

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Both 509 3.16

.617

ELA Only

197 3.15

.601

Math Only

200 3.11

.605

Total 906 3.14

.611

Std. Error
.027 .043
.043 .020

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

3.10

3.21

3.06

3.23

Minimum Maximum

1

4

1

4

3.02

3.19

1

4

3.10

3.18

1

4

(I) subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference (I-J)
.010 .052 -.010 .042 -.052 -.042

Std. Error
.051 .051 .051 .061 .051 .061

95% Confidence

Sig.

Interval Lower Upper

Bound Bound

.979

-.11

.13

.562

-.07

.17

.979

-.13

.11

.770

-.10

.19

.562

-.17

.07

.770

-.19

.10

69

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q9 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
Total

95% Confidence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Interval for Mean Lower Upper

Minimum

Maximum

Bound Bound

68 3.24

.601

.073

3.09

3.38

2

4

227 3.13

.645

.043

3.05

3.22

1

4

202 3.11

.597

.042

3.03

3.19

1

4

206 3.10

.601

.042

3.01

3.18

1

4

68 3.24

.522

.063

3.11

3.36

2

4

133 3.18

.626

.054 3.07 3.29

1

4

904 3.14

.610

.020 3.10 3.18

1

4

(I) Years of Experience

0-3 Years
4-9 Years
10-14 Years
1520Years

4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 4-9 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years 0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years

Mean Difference (I-J)
.103 .126 .138 0.000 .055 -.103 .023 .035 -.103 -.048 -.126 -.023 .012 -.126 -.072 -.138 -.035 -.012 -.138 -.083

Std. Error
.084 .085 .085 .105 .091 .084 .059 .059 .084 .067 .085 .059 .060 .085 .068 .085 .059 .060 .085 .068

Sig.
.825 .678 .585 1.000 .991 .825 .999 .991 .825 .979 .678 .999 1.000 .678 .900 .585 .991 1.000 .585 .823

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

-.14

.34

-.12

.37

-.11

.38

-.30

.30

-.20

.31

-.34

.14

-.15

.19

-.13

.20

-.34

.14

-.24

.14

-.37

.12

-.19

.15

-.16

.18

-.37

.12

-.27

.12

-.38

.11

-.20

.13

-.18

.16

-.38

.11

-.28

.11

70

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q9 continued

Multiple Comparisons (TUkey's HSD) by Experience continued

0-3 Years

0.000 .105 1.000 -.30

.30

4-9 Years

.103

.084

.825

-.14

.34

21-24 Years

10-14 Years

.126

.085

.678

-.12

.37

15-20Years

.138

.085

.585

-.11

.38

25+ Years

.055

.091

.991

-.20

.31

0-3 Years

-.055

.091

.991

-.31

.20

4-9 Years

.048

.067

.979

-.14

.24

25+ Years

10-14 Years

.072

.068

.900

-.12

.27

15-20Years

.083

.068

.823

-.11

.28

21-24 Years

-.055

.091

.991

-.31

.20

71

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q9 continued Statistical tests by locale

N Mean

Std. Deviation

City 162 3.17

.616

Rural 305 3.16

.599

Suburb 364 3.09

.610

Town 74 3.27

.626

Total 905 3.14

.610

Std. Error
.048 .034 .032 .073 .020

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower

Upper

Bound

Bound

3.08

3.27

3.09

3.23

3.03

3.15

3.13

3.42

3.10

3.18

Minimum
1 1 1 2 1

Maximum
4 4 4 4 4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference (I-J)
.012 .085 -.097 -.012 .073 -.110 -.085 -.073 -.182 .097 .110 .182

95% Confidence Interval Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound

.059 .997

-.14

.16

.058 .452

-.06

.23

.085 .665

-.32

.12

.059 .997

-.16

.14

.047 .415

-.05

.19

.079 .506

-.31

.09

.058 .452

-.23

.06

.047 .415

-.19

.05

.078 .088

-.38

.02

.085 .665

-.12

.32

.079 .506

-.09

.31

.078 .088

-.02

.38

72

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q10) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.
Statistical tests by content-area

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Both

512 2.97

.654

.029

ELA Only 198 3.00

.676

.048

Math Only 198 2.95

.707

.050

Total

908 2.97

.670

.022

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.91

3.03

2.91

3.09

2.86

3.05

2.93

3.02

Minimum Maximum

1

4

1

4

1

4

1

4

(I) subject2

Both ELA Only Math Only

ELA Only Math Only
Both Math Only
Both ELA Only

Mean Difference (I-J)
-.029 .016 .029 .045 -.016 -.045

Std. Error Sig.
.056 .861 .056 .955 .056 .861 .067 .779 .056 .955 .067 .779

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

-.16

.10

-.12

.15

-.10

.16

-.11

.20

-.15

.12

-.20

.11

73

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q10 continued Statistical tests by years of experience

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

0-3 Years 68 3.07 .527 .064

4-9 Years 228 2.98 .708 .047

10-14 Years 201 2.95 .646 .046

15-20Years 206 2.92 .711 .050

21-24 Years 69 3.07 .551 .066

25+ Years 133 2.95 .684 .059

Total

905 2.97 .669 .022

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.95

3.20

2.89

3.07

2.86

3.04

2.82

3.02

2.94

3.20

2.84

3.07

2.93

3.01

Minimum Maximum

2

4

1

4

1

4

1

4

2

4

1

4

1

4

(I) Years of Experience

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years

4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years
0-3 Years 4-9 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years 0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 21-24 Years 25+ Years

Mean Difference (I-J)
.091 .123 .156 .001 .119 -.091 .032 .065 -.090 .028 -.123 -.032 .033 -.122 -.005 -.156 -.065 -.033 -.155 -.037

Std. Error
.092 .094 .094 .114 .100 .092 .065 .064 .092 .073 .094 .065 .066 .093 .075 .094 .064 .066 .093 .074

Sig.
.923 .777 .553 1.000 .842 .923 .996 .914 .924 .999 .777 .996 .996 .780 1.000 .553 .914 .996 .555 .996

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

-.17

.35

-.14

.39

-.11

.42

-.33

.33

-.17

.40

-.35

.17

-.15

.22

-.12

.25

-.35

.17

-.18

.24

-.39

.14

-.22

.15

-.16

.22

-.39

.14

-.22

.21

-.42

.11

-.25

.12

-.22

.16

-.42

.11

-.25

.18

74

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q10 continued

Multiple Comparisons (Tukey's HSD) by Experience continued

21-24 Years 25+ Years

0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 25+ Years 0-3 Years 4-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-20Years 21-24 Years

-.001 .090 .122 .155 .118 -.119 -.028 .005 .037 -.118

.114 1.000

-.33

.33

.092 .924

-.17

.35

.093 .780

-.14

.39

.093 .555

-.11

.42

.099 .844

-.17

.40

.100 .842

-.40

.17

.073 .999

-.24

.18

.075 1.000

-.21

.22

.074 .996

-.18

.25

.099 .844

-.40

.17

75

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q10 continued Statistical tests by locale

City Rural Suburb Town Total

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

160 2.99

.644

.051

308 3.00

.675

.038

365 2.93

.670

.035

74 3.03

.702

.082

907 2.97

.670

.022

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2.89

3.09

2.92

3.08

2.86

3.00

2.86

3.19

2.93

3.02

Minimum Maximum

1

4

1

4

1

4

1

4

1

4

(I) Locale2

City Rural Suburb Town

Rural Suburb Town
City Suburb Town
City Rural Town City Rural Suburb

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound

-.013

.065

.998

-.18

.16

.056

.064

.814

-.11

.22

-.040

.094

.975

-.28

.20

.013

.065

.998

-.16

.18

.068

.052

.549

-.06

.20

-.027

.087

.990

-.25

.20

-.056

.064

.814

-.22

.11

-.068

.052

.549

-.20

.06

-.096

.085

.678

-.32

.12

.040

.094

.975

-.20

.28

.027

.087

.990

-.20

.25

.096

.085

.678

-.12

.32

76

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q10 continued Output for Q10 (fidelity of implementation) disaggregated by Q9 (used CCGPS-aligned resources) (Q10) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity. (Q9) Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have been aligned to CCGPS. Q10 disaggregated by Q9 continued

Overall, the CCGPS resources I used over the last two school years have contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Frequency 14 59

Percent 16.1 67.8

Valid Percent
16.3
68.6

Cumulative Percent
16.3
84.9

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Frequency 8 89

Percent 1.0 10.9

Valid Percent
1.0
10.9

Cumulative Percent
1.0
11.9

Valid Agree

12

Strongly Agree

1

13.8

14.0

1.1

1.2

98.8 100.0

Valid

Agree

550

Strongly Agree

168

67.2

67.5

20.5

20.6

79.4 100.0

Total

86

98.9 100.0

Total

815

99.5

100.0

Question 10 when Question 9 = Disagree

Question 10 when Question 9 = Agree

Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares 90.042
317.324 407.366

df 1 906 907
77

Mean Square

F

Sig.

90.042

257.082

.000

.350

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output (Q11) What practices are you implementing in your CCGPS classroom? Check all that apply. Practice 1 (NOT a Common Core-related practice)

Q11_1 - Incorporating new curricular materials and instructional strategies in my teaching.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

No

180

18.2

18.2

18.2

Valid Yes

807

Total

987

81.8 100.0

81.8 100.0

100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

86

15.6

15.6

466

84.4

84.4

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Cumulative Percent 15.6 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

50

22.8

22.8

169

77.2

77.2

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 22.8 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

44

20.4

20.4

172

79.6

79.6

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 20.4 100.0

78

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 1 continued Q11_1: Incorporating new curricular materials and instructional strategies in my teaching.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_1 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_1 WhenQ5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 81 28.6 28.6 Yes 202 71.4 71.4 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

28.6 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

96 13.7 13.7 604 86.3 86.3 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

13.7 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_1 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_1 WhenQ6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 53 38.4 38.4 Yes 85 61.6 61.6 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

38.4 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

127 15.0 15.0 722 85.0 85.0 849 100.0 100.0 a. Q006_alt = Agree

15.0 100.0

79

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 2 (A Common Core-related practice)

Q11_2 Asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

No

170

17.2

17.2

17.2

Valid Yes

817

Total

987

82.8 100.0

82.8 100.0

100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

89

16.1

16.1

463

83.9

83.9

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Cumulative Percent 16.1 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

42

19.2

19.2

177

80.8

80.8

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 19.2 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

39

18.1

18.1

177

81.9

81.9

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 18.1 100.0

80

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 2 continued Q11_2: Asking students more questions and encouraging them to develop answers independently.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_2 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_2 When Q5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 80 28.3 28.3 Yes 203 71.7 71.7 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

28.3 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

87 12.4 12.4 613 87.6 87.6 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

12.4 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_2 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_2 When Q6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 52 37.7 37.7 Yes 86 62.3 62.3 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

37.7 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

118

13.9 13.9

731

86.1 86.1

849

100.0 100.0

a. Q006_alt = Agree

13.9 100.0

81

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 3 (A Common Core-related practice)

Q11_3 Structuring opportunities for students to develop and solve their own problems.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

No

295

29.9

29.9

29.9

Valid Yes

692

70.1

70.1

100.0

Total

987

100.0

100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

150

27.2

27.2

402

72.8

72.8

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Cumulative Percent 27.2 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

67

30.6

30.6

152

69.4

69.4

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 30.6 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

78

36.1

36.1

138

63.9

63.9

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 36.1 100.0

82

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 3 continued Q11_3: Structuring opportunities for students to develop and solve their own problems.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_3 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_3 When Q5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 114 40.3 40.3 Yes 169 59.7 59.7 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

40.3 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

179 25.6 25.6 521 74.4 74.4 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

25.6 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_3 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_3 When Q6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 63 45.7 45.7 Yes 75 54.3 54.3 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

45.7 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

232 27.3 27.3 617 72.7 72.7 849 100.0 100.0 a. Q006_alt = Agree

27.3 100.0

83

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 4 (NOT a Common Core-related practice)

Q11_4 Increasing my use of out-of-state teaching resources.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

No

644

65.2

65.2

Valid Yes

343

34.8

34.8

Total

987

100.0

100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

366

66.3

66.3

186

33.7

33.7

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

127

58.0

58.0

92

42.0

42.0

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

151

69.9

69.9

65

30.1

30.1

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 65.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 66.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 58.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 69.9 100.0

84

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Q11_4: Increasing my use of out-of-state teaching resources.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_4 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_4 When Q5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 185 65.4 65.4 Yes 98 34.6 34.6 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

65.4 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

456 65.1 65.1 244 34.9 34.9 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

65.1 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_4 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_4 When Q6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 91 65.9 65.9 Yes 47 34.1 34.1 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

65.9 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

553 65.1 65.1 296 34.9 34.9 849 100.0 100.0 a. Q006_alt = Agree

65.1 100.0

85

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 5 (A Common Core-related practice)

Q11_5 Diversifying the ways I assess student learning and providing feedback.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

No

325

32.9

32.9

Valid Yes

662

67.1

67.1

Total

987

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent 32.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

173

31.3

31.3

379

68.7

68.7

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Cumulative Percent 31.3 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

85

38.8

38.8

134

61.2

61.2

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 38.8 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

67

31.0

31.0

149

69.0

69.0

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 31.0 100.0

86

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 5 continued Q11_5: Diversifying the ways I assess student learning and providing feedback.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_5 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_5 When Q5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 136 48.1 48.1 Yes 147 51.9 51.9 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

48.1 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

186 26.6 26.6 514 73.4 73.4 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

26.6 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_5 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_5 When Q6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 69 50.0 50.0 Yes 69 50.0 50.0 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

50.0 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

256 30.2 30.2 593 69.8 69.8 849 100.0 100.0 a. Q006_alt = Agree

30.2 100.0

87

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 6 (NOT a Common Core-related practice)

Q11_6 Increasing my collaboration with colleagues within my school and in other schools.

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

No

252

25.5

25.5

25.5

Valid Yes

735

74.5

74.5

100.0

Total

987

100.0

100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

139

25.2

25.2

413

74.8

74.8

552

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 1

Cumulative Percent 25.2 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

51

23.3

23.3

168

76.7

76.7

219

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 0, Mathematics = 1, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 23.3 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

62

28.7

28.7

154

71.3

71.3

216

100.0

100.0

a. ELA = 1, Mathematics = 0, Math and ELA = 0

Cumulative Percent 28.7 100.0

88

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Practice 6 continued Q11_6: Increasing my collaboration with colleagues within my school and in other schools.
Q5: Overall, the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I have received over the last two school years has contributed to my ability to implement CCGPS with fidelity.

Q11_6 When Q5 = Disagree

Q11_6 When Q5 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 102 36.0 36.0 Yes 181 64.0 64.0 Total 283 100.0 100.0
a. Q005_alt = Disagree

36.0 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

148 21.1 21.1 552 78.9 78.9 700 100.0 100.0 a. Q005_alt = Agree

21.1 100.0

Q6: Overall, I have applied what I learned from the CCGPS-focused professional development/training I received over the last two school years in my classroom.

Q11_6 When Q6 = Disagree

Q11_6 When Q6 = Agree

Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent
Frequenc y Percent Valid Percent
Cumulativ e Percent

Valid

No 52 37.7 37.7 Yes 86 62.3 62.3 Total 138 100.0 100.0
a. Q006_alt = Disagree

37.7 100.0

No Valid Yes
Total

200 23.6 23.6 649 76.4 76.4 849 100.0 100.0 a. Q006_alt = Agree

23.6 100.0

89

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued ANOVA for Q11 factored by Q5

newcurric askstudents structuresops OOSresources diversifiesways collaborates

Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares df Mean Square

F

Sig.

4.479

1

4.479

31.237 .000**

140.651

981

.143

145.129

982

5.056

1

5.056

37.136 .000**

133.572

981

.136

138.629

982

4.361

1

4.361

21.254 .000**

201.305

981

.205

205.666

982

.001

1

.001

.005 .946

223.012

981

.227

223.013

982

9.303

1

9.303

44.040 .000**

207.220

981

.211

216.523

982

4.474

1

4.474

24.122 .000**

181.945

981

.185

186.419

982

90

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued ANOVA for Q11 factored by Q6

newcurric askstudents structuresops OOSresources diversifiesways collaborates

Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total Between Groups Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares df Mean Square

F

Sig.

6.526

1

6.526

45.704 .000**

140.647

985

.143

147.173

986

6.714

1

6.714

49.351 .000**

134.005

985

.136

140.719

986

3.987

1

3.987

19.359 .000**

202.842

985

.206

206.829

986

.008

1

.008

.034 .854

223.794

985

.227

223.801

986

4.676

1

4.676

21.592 .000**

213.308

985

.217

217.984

986

2.368

1

2.368

12.588 .000**

185.292

985

.188

187.660

986

91

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q13) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in English Language Arts/Literacy? Check all that apply.
Q12: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach English Language Arts (ELA). Q13_1: Building students' knowledge through content-rich non-fiction.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 137 551 688

Percent 19.9 80.1 100.0

Valid Percent 19.9 80.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 19.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 104 387 491

Percent 21.2 78.8 100.0

Valid Percent 21.2 78.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 21.2 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 32 163 195

Percent 16.4 83.6 100.0

Valid Percent 16.4 83.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 16.4 100.0

92

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q13 continued Q12: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach English Language Arts (ELA). Q13_2: Providing students reading and writing experiences grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 105 583 688

Percent 15.3 84.7 100.0

Valid Percent 15.3 84.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 15.3 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 85 406 491

Percent 17.3 82.7 100.0

Valid Percent 17.3 82.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 17.3 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 19 176 195

Percent 9.7 90.3
100.0

Valid Percent 9.7 90.3
100.0

Cumulative Percent 9.7 100.0

93

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q13 continued Q12: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach English Language Arts (ELA). Q13_3: Strengthening students' understanding of narrative text by making meaningful connections to their personal experiences

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 241 447 688

Percent 35.0 65.0 100.0

Valid Percent 35.0 65.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 35.0 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 162 329 491

Percent 33.0 67.0 100.0

Valid Percent 33.0 67.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 33.0 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 77 118 195

Percent 39.5 60.5 100.0

Valid Percent 39.5 60.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 39.5 100.0

94

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q13 continued Q12: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach English Language Arts (ELA). Q13_4: Providing students different levels of text based on their reading abilities.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
257 431 688

Percent
37.4 62.6 100.0

Valid Percent
37.4 62.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent
37.4 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
166 325 491

Percent
33.8 66.2 100.0

Valid Percent
33.8 66.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent
33.8 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
89 106 195

Percent
45.6 54.4 100.0

Valid Percent
45.6 54.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent
45.6 100.0

95

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q13 continued Q12: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach English Language Arts (ELA). Q13_5: Providing regular opportunities for students to practice with complex grade-level text and its academic language.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
201 487 688

Percent
29.2 70.8 100.0

Valid Percent
29.2 70.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent
29.2 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
162 329 491

Percent
33.0 67.0 100.0

Valid Percent
33.0 67.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent
33.0 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
37 158 195

Percent
19.0 81.0 100.0

Valid Percent
19.0 81.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent
19.0 100.0

96

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q14) Choose the answer that most closely reflects how much your students engaged in the following tasks BEFORE (last school year and earlier) and AFTER (this school year) the transition to CCGPS. [ELA student practices]

Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean

Monitoring their reading by slowing down, rereading

certain sentences, and using context clues to determine the meaning of what they are reading - BEFORE transitioning to

3.42

Pair 1

CCGPS (before SY 12-13) Monitoring their reading by slowing down, rereading

certain sentences, and using context clues to determine the meaning of what they are reading - AFTER transitioning to

3.65

CCGPS (during SY 12-13)

Comparing and contrasting, analyzing, synthesizing,

evaluating, judging, and defending ideas they encounter in their informational reading and presentations - BEFORE

2.80

Pair 2

transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) Comparing and contrasting, analyzing, synthesizing,

evaluating, judging, and defending ideas they encounter in their informational reading and presentations - AFTER

3.36

transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)

Writing quality first drafts under time constraints (e.g., a

class period or two) - BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS

2.16

Pair 3

(before SY 12-13) Writing quality first drafts under time constraints (e.g., a

class period or two) - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during 2.56

SY 12-13)

Acquiring knowledge of vocabulary by encountering words

in context more than once. - BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS 3.20

Pair 4

(before SY 12-13) Acquiring knowledge of vocabulary by encountering words

in context more than once. - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS 3.50

(during SY 12-13)

Reading increasingly complex texts with increasing

independence - BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 2.82

Pair 5

12-13) Reading increasingly complex texts with increasing

independence - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12- 3.28

13)

592 .918 .038 592 .717 .029 599 1.062 .043 599 .791 .032 600 1.105 .045 600 1.051 .043 595 .844 .035 595 .697 .029 596 1.077 .044 596 .875 .036

97

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q 14 continued

Drawing evidence from texts to support written responses -

Pair 6

BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13)

2.49

Drawing evidence from texts to support written responses AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)

3.15

597 1.139 .047 597 .888 .036

Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair 5 Pair 6

14_1 14_2 14_3 14_4 14_5 14_6

Mean
-.230 -.558 -.395 -.297 -.458 -.658

Paired Differences

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Lower Upper

.638

.026 -.281

-.178

.795

.032 -.621

-.494

.746

.030 -.455

-.335

.667

.027 -.351

-.244

.760

.031 -.519

-.397

.875

.036 -.729

-.588

t

df

-8.758 591 -17.170 598 -12.969 599 -10.877 594 -14.708 595 -18.383 596

Sig. (2tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

98

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q16) Which of the following are the central shifts required from CCGPS in mathematics? Check all that apply.
Q15: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach mathematics. Q16_1: Focusing deeply on the concepts emphasized in the standards to help students build strong foundations for learning.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
120 550 670

Percent
17.9 82.1 100.0

Valid Percent
17.9 82.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
17.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
72 396 468

Percent
15.4 84.6 100.0

Valid Percent
15.4 84.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent
15.4 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
48 153 201

Percent
23.9 76.1 100.0

Valid Percent
23.9 76.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
23.9 100.0

99

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q 16 continued Q15: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach mathematics. Q16_2: Creating coherent progressions within the standards from grade to grade so student knowledge and skills build onto previous learning.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
150 520 670

Percent
22.4 77.6 100.0

Valid Percent
22.4 77.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 22.4
100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
104 364 468

Percent
22.2 77.8 100.0

Valid Percent
22.2 77.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 22.2
100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
46 155 201

Percent
22.9 77.1 100.0

Valid Percent
22.9 77.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
22.9 100.0

100

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q16 continued Q15: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach mathematics. Q16_3: Introducing multiplication and division earlier in students' learning as foundations for math concepts taught in later years.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
415 255 670

Percent
61.9 38.1 100.0

Valid Percent
61.9 38.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
61.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
269 199 468

Percent
57.5 42.5 100.0

Valid Percent
57.5 42.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent
57.5 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
146 55 201

Percent
72.6 27.4 100.0

Valid Percent
72.6 27.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent
72.6 100.0

101

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q16 continued Q15: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach mathematics. Q16_4: Developing students' conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and their ability to apply math in context.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
107 563 670

Percent
16.0 84.0 100.0

Valid Percent
16.0 84.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent
16.0 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
79 389 468

Percent
16.9 83.1 100.0

Valid Percent
16.9 83.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
16.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
28 173 201

Percent
13.9 86.1 100.0

Valid Percent
13.9 86.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent
13.9 100.0

102

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q16 continued Q15: The following set of questions is for teachers who teach mathematics. Q16_5: Teaching each math topic as an independent, new concept that is distinct from topics taught earlier or later.

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
482 188 670

Percent
71.9 28.1 100.0

Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

71.9 28.1 100.0

71.9 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
314 154 468

Percent
67.1 32.9 100.0

Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

67.1 32.9 100.0

67.1 100.0

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency
168 33 201

Percent
83.6 16.4 100.0

Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

83.6 16.4 100.0

83.6 100.0

103

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q17) Choose the answer that most closely reflects how much your students engaged in the following tasks BEFORE (last school year and earlier) and AFTER (this school year) the transition to CCGPS.

Problem-solving that goes beyond story or word problems - BEFORE Pair transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 1 Problem-solving that goes beyond story or word problems - AFTER
transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)
Effectively struggling with problems to deepen their understanding Pair BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 2 Effectively struggling with problems to deepen their understanding -
AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)
Using various approaches and drawing on any knowledge they have to justify their ideas when solving problems - BEFORE transitioning to Pair CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 3 Using various approaches and drawing on any knowledge they have to justify their ideas when solving problems - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)
Using real data and current events to create their own problems and Pair solutions - BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 4 Using real data and current events to create their own problems and
solutions - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)
Using tables, graphs, words, symbols and pictures to determine which representations of data are best in certain circumstances - BEFORE Pair transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 5 Using tables, graphs, words, symbols and pictures to determine which representations of data are best in certain circumstances - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)
Offering speculations and assumptions regarding open-ended Pair questions - BEFORE transitioning to CCGPS (before SY 12-13) 6 Offering speculations and assumptions regarding open-ended
questions - AFTER transitioning to CCGPS (during SY 12-13)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

2.40 586 1.116 .046

3.13 586 .967 .040

2.53 578 1.120 .047

3.24 578 .865 .036

2.87 584 1.099 .045

3.46 584 .794 .033 2.04 578 1.191 .050 2.64 578 1.135 .047 2.49 589 1.065 .044

2.89 589 1.010 .042 2.34 568 1.202 .050 3.06 568 1.041 .044

104

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output Q17 continued

Paired Differences

95% Confidence

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper

t

df

Pair 1

17_1

-.729

.853

.035 -.798 -.659 -20.674 585

Pair 2

17_2

-.711

.924

.038 -.787 -.636 -18.499 577

Pair 3

17_3

-.594

.918

.038 -.669 -.520 -15.649 583

Pair 4

17_4

-.599

.795

.033 -.664 -.534 -18.098 577

Pair 5

17_5

-.401

.684

.028 -.456 -.345 -14.208 588

Pair 6

17_6

-.722

.857

.036 -.792 -.651 -20.083 567

Sig. (2tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

105

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
(Q18) Going forward, what types of resources do you think you need in order to more effectively implement the CCGPS in your classroom(s)? Check all that apply.
Crosstabs by content-area

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 284 51.4% 268 48.6% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
114 52.8% 102 47.2% 216 100.0%

Math Only 95
43.4% 124 56.6% 219 100.0%

Total
493 49.9% 494 50.1% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 315 57.1% 237 42.9% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
108 50.0% 108 50.0% 216 100.0%

Math Only 112 51.1% 107 48.9% 219
100.0%

Total
535 54.2% 452 45.8% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 230 41.7% 322 58.3% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
96 44.4% 120 55.6% 216 100.0%

Math Only 94
42.9% 125 57.1% 219 100.0%

Total
420 42.6% 567 57.4% 987 100.0%

106

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q18 continued Crosstabs by content-area continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 282 51.1% 270 48.9% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
154 71.3%
62 28.7% 216 100.0%

Math Only 181 82.6% 38 17.4% 219
100.0%

Total
617 62.5% 370 37.5% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 216 39.1% 336 60.9% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
86 39.8% 130 60.2% 216 100.0%

Math Only 68
31.1% 151 68.9% 219 100.0%

Total
370 37.5% 617 62.5% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 210 38.0% 342 62.0% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
55 25.5% 161 74.5% 216 100.0%

Math Only 45
20.5% 174 79.5% 219 100.0%

Total
310 31.4% 677 68.6% 987 100.0%

107

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q18 continued Crosstabs by content-area continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 352 63.8% 200 36.2% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
132 61.1%
84 38.9% 216 100.0%

Math Only 117 53.4% 102 46.6% 219
100.0%

Total
601 60.9% 386 39.1% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 223 40.4% 329 59.6% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
89 41.2% 127 58.8% 216 100.0%

Math Only 71
32.4% 148 67.6% 219 100.0%

Total
383 38.8% 604 61.2% 987 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 299 54.2% 253 45.8% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only 143 66.2% 73 33.8% 216 100.0%

Math Only 128 58.4% 91 41.6% 219 100.0%

Total
570 57.8% 417 42.2% 987 100.0%

108

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q18 continued Crosstabs by content-area continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2
Count % within Subject2

Both 539 97.6% 13 2.4% 552 100.0%

Subject2 ELA Only
211 97.7%
5 2.3% 216 100.0%

Math Only 215 98.2% 4 1.8% 219
100.0%

Total
965 97.8%
22 2.2% 987 100.0%

109

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Crosstabs by years of experience

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 40
49.4% 41
50.6% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 112 45.2% 136 54.8% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

97

115

45.1%

52.8%

118

103

54.9%

47.2%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 46
62.2% 28
37.8% 74
100.0%

25+ years 82
55.8% 65
44.2% 147 100.0%

Total
492 50.1% 491 49.9% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 45
55.6% 36
44.4% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 126 50.8% 122 49.2% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

118

126

54.9%

57.8%

97

92

45.1%

42.2%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 44
59.5% 30
40.5% 74
100.0%

25+ years 73
49.7% 74
50.3% 147 100.0%

Total
532 54.1% 451 45.9% 983 100.0%

110

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q11 continued Crosstabs by years of experience continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 50
61.7% 31
38.3% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 121 48.8% 127 51.2% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

105

109

48.8%

50.0%

110

109

51.2%

50.0%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 38
51.4% 36
48.6% 74
100.0%

25+ years 80
54.4% 67
45.6% 147 100.0%

Total
503 51.2% 480 48.8% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 44
54.3% 37
45.7% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 115 46.4% 133 53.6% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

108

96

50.2%

44.0%

107

122

49.8%

56.0%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 39
52.7% 35
47.3% 74
100.0%

25+ years 71
48.3% 76
51.7% 147 100.0%

Total
473 48.1% 510 51.9% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 48
59.3% 33
40.7% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 130 52.4% 118 47.6% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

120

129

55.8%

59.2%

95

89

44.2%

40.8%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 52
70.3% 22
29.7% 74
100.0%

25+ years 86
58.5% 61
41.5% 147 100.0%

111

Total
565 57.5% 418 42.5% 983 100.0%

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q11 continued Crosstabs by years of experience continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 58
71.6% 23
28.4% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 165 66.5% 83 33.5% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

146

147

67.9%

67.4%

69

71

32.1%

32.6%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 53
71.6% 21
28.4% 74
100.0%

25+ years 98
66.7% 49
33.3% 147 100.0%

Total
667 67.9% 316 32.1% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 45
55.6% 36
44.4% 81 45

4 - 9 years 106 42.7% 142 57.3% 248 106

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

84

84

39.1%

38.5%

131

134

60.9%

61.5%

215

218

84

84

21 - 24 years 41
55.4% 33
44.6% 74 41

25+ years 58
39.5% 89
60.5% 147 58

Total
45 55.6%
36 44.4%
81 45

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 54
66.7% 27
33.3% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 157 63.3% 91 36.7% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

127

130

59.1%

59.6%

88

88

40.9%

40.4%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 49
66.2% 25
33.8% 74
100.0%

25+ years 98
66.7% 49
33.3% 147 100.0%

112

Total
615 62.6% 368 37.4% 983 100.0%

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q11 continued Crosstabs by years of experience continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 36
44.4% 45
55.6% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 84
33.9% 164 66.1% 248 100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

73

82

34.0%

37.6%

142

136

66.0%

62.4%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 32
43.2% 42
56.8% 74
100.0%

25+ years 61
41.5% 86
58.5% 147 100.0%

Total
368 37.4% 615 62.6% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 34
42.0% 47
58.0% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 68
27.4% 180 72.6% 248 100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

61

62

28.4%

28.4%

154

156

71.6%

71.6%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 28
37.8% 46
62.2% 74
100.0%

25+ years 55
37.4% 92
62.6% 147 100.0%

Total
308 31.3% 675 68.7% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 56
69.1% 25
30.9% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 150 60.5% 98 39.5% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

126

131

58.6%

60.1%

89

87

41.4%

39.9%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 50
67.6% 24
32.4% 74
100.0%

25+ years 86
58.5% 61
41.5% 147 100.0%

113

Total
599 60.9% 384 39.1% 983 100.0%

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output

Q11 continued Crosstabs by years of experience continued

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 35
43.2% 46
56.8% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 107 43.1% 141 56.9% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

83

72

38.6%

33.0%

132

146

61.4%

67.0%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 33
44.6% 41
55.4% 74
100.0%

25+ years 52
35.4% 95
64.6% 147 100.0%

Total
382 38.9% 601 61.1% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 49
60.5% 32
39.5% 81
100.0%

4 - 9 years 139 56.0% 109 44.0% 248
100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

125

119

58.1%

54.6%

90

99

41.9%

45.4%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 48
64.9% 26
35.1% 74
100.0%

25+ years 87
59.2% 60
40.8% 147 100.0%

Total
567 57.7% 416 42.3% 983 100.0%

Did not check Checked Total

Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2
Count % within teachingexp2

0 - 3 years 80 98.8% 1 1.2% 81 100.0%

4 - 9 years 242 97.6% 6 2.4% 248 100.0%

teachingexp2

10 - 14 years 15 - 20 years

208

215

96.7%

98.6%

7

3

3.3%

1.4%

215

218

100.0%

100.0%

21 - 24 years 74 100.0% 0 0.0% 74 100.0%

25+ years 142 96.6% 5 3.4% 147 100.0%

Total
961 97.8% 22 2.2% 983 100.0%

114

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
18 continued Crosstabs by locale

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 79 45.7% 94 54.3% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

171

210

51.4% 52.6%

162

189

48.6% 47.4%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 32
39.5% 49
60.5% 81
100.0%

Total
492 49.9% 494 50.1% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 82 47.4% 91 52.6% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

183

227

55.0% 56.9%

150

172

45.0% 43.1%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 42
51.9% 39
48.1% 81
100.0%

Total
534 54.2% 452 45.8% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 85 49.1% 88 50.9% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

164

216

49.2% 54.1%

169

183

50.8% 45.9%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 40
49.4% 41
50.6% 81
100.0%

Total
505 51.2% 481 48.8% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 80 46.2% 93 53.8% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

167

194

50.2% 48.6%

166

205

49.8% 51.4%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 33
40.7% 48
59.3% 81
100.0%

Total
474 48.1% 512 51.9% 986 100.0%

115

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Crosstabs by locale continued

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 93 53.8% 80 46.2% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

184

237

55.3% 59.4%

149

162

44.7% 40.6%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 53
65.4% 28
34.6% 81
100.0%

Total
567 57.5% 419 42.5% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 114 65.9% 59 34.1% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

244

256

73.3% 64.2%

89

143

26.7% 35.8%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 55
67.9% 26
32.1% 81
100.0%

Total
669 67.8% 317 32.2% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 71 41.0% 102 59.0% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

134

184

40.2% 46.1%

199

215

59.8% 53.9%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 30
37.0% 51
63.0% 81
100.0%

Total
419 42.5% 567 57.5% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 103 59.5% 70 40.5% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

212

251

63.7% 62.9%

121

148

36.3% 37.1%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 50
61.7% 31
38.3% 81
100.0%

Total
616 62.5% 370 37.5% 986 100.0%

116

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Crosstabs by locale continued

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 60 34.7% 113 65.3% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

123

163

36.9% 40.9%

210

236

63.1% 59.1%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 23
28.4% 58
71.6% 81
100.0%

Total
369 37.4% 617 62.6% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 59 34.1% 114 65.9% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

97

132

29.1% 33.1%

236

267

70.9% 66.9%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 21
25.9% 60
74.1% 81
100.0%

Total
309 31.3% 677 68.7% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 106 61.3% 67 38.7% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

199

252

59.8% 63.2%

134

147

40.2% 36.8%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 43
53.1% 38
46.9% 81
100.0%

Total
600 60.9% 386 39.1% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 66 38.2% 107 61.8% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

118

169

35.4% 42.4%

215

230

64.6% 57.6%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 29
35.8% 52
64.2% 81
100.0%

Total
382 38.7% 604 61.3% 986 100.0%

117

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on CCGPS Implementation Spring 2013 SPSS Output
Q11 continued Crosstabs by locale continued

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 94 54.3% 79 45.7% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

195

235

58.6% 58.9%

138

164

41.4% 41.1%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 45
55.6% 36
44.4% 81
100.0%

Total
569 57.7% 417 42.3% 986 100.0%

Checked Total

Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2
Count % within Locale2

City 167 96.5%
6 3.5% 173 100.0%

Locale2

Rural Suburb

327

389

98.2% 97.5%

6

10

1.8%

2.5%

333

399

100.0% 100.0%

Town 81
100.0% 0
0.0% 81 100.0%

Total
964 97.8%
22 2.2% 986 100.0%

118