to drive her own instruction in her classroom. And then Albert Watt from the National Governors Association will wrap things up for us, really trying to tie together this theme of standards, policies, and implementation. So it was that. We are ready to launch into our presenters. And so we will start with Sue Pimentel, and it seems like we might be having some technological issues with our slides. So we will, we're frantically working on it. Okay, we're good to go now. So we're going to start with Sue Pimentel, who was one of the lead writers of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy. So Sue, please go ahead. Great, well welcome everyone. So my job today is to give you an overview of the Common Core State Standards, something about the development process and about the involvement of early childhood experts in it, and what some of the big shifts are as we think about K3 standards. Can you do the next slide? Or do you just want me to go? Go ahead. Just do, do, can you do the next slide? Oh, here we go. Okay, so the whole notion about developing Common Core Standards, what was this about? Really sort of near and dear to my heart, because I've been working in the standards arena for quite a while. And the first is really preparing students, making sure that they really have what they need to succeed in their post-secondary endeavors, as opposed to feeling like students follow all the rules, take all the tests, do everything they're supposed to do, and then they end up in remedial courses in college and don't finish. Obviously, we have a global economy now and making sure that our students are globally competitive, so what is it that they need in order to prepare? And the next one really is about equity, and it's one of the reasons I work in the standards arena to really, I really see it as sort of civil rights of students to learn the good stuff and that expectations are high for all students, and it's not dependent upon where a student lives or what means they have. And then certainly the last one, which maybe we'll hear some of our presenters talk about today, about the ability now to collaborate across state lines, that we aren't just, you know, it isn't, you know, Michigan versus Massachusetts, and they can't really talk because they're dealing with different standards. And so this is sort of the impetus behind the states deciding they wanted to get together and see if we couldn't create a set. Next slide. So just to give you just a little background on the process and timeline, while I was led a small writing team, we also then had, were supported by external work groups that included researchers, teachers, and other experts, some of them giving us almost daily advice as we move through the process. The first job we did was really to look at what students needed to be college and career ready, so we started really at that bar, meaning that we're students graduate from high school, what is it that they need to have under their belt, and then from there we worked with the K-12 standards, we worked great specific standards that we didn't do pre-K. The standards went through many rounds of review from the states, but then we also get public comment on March 10th, and there were close to 10,000 comments that we got from around the nation. So parents wrote in, teachers wrote in, from around the country, folks that were interested. Finally, the standards were released. We began the process in 2009, finally by June 2010, they were released. And then to date, 46 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards. And some others are, a couple of holdouts there are thinking maybe they'll watch to see how the assessments come forward, whether or not they join or not. So, the early childhood experts were very vocal as we went through, and I wanted to just show you the kinds of things that they told us, which were really interesting. I happened to be an early childhood educator in one of my, one of my, a path lives in my training, so it was interesting to hear. We had kept media and technology for older students, and we had kept the notion of research, starting like in grade four, and we heard very forcefully from early childhood educators to make sure that students are dealing with media and technology as early as kindergarten, and really doing what they called shared research. Obviously, we wouldn't have the students to go off and do research on their own, but a shared research and class project was important to get started even in the earliest grade. They asked us to really strengthen the global and cultural diversity of the readings. We had, there aren't mandated readings, but we were showing the types of readings sort of based on complexity in Appendix B, and they wanted to make sure that we really strengthened the cultural diversity of those, of the texts that were selected there. You'll notice too, if you look at the Common Core, that we added in wording in several places that says with prompting and support, students blah, blah, blah. With prompting and support, they ask questions and so on, ask and answer questions. There was a sense that it was important to understand that students are just beginning their school careers, and this wasn't meant to be this sort of cold mandate, but to do it in a shared way. The next point you'll see in the introduction, but not in the standards themselves, some early childhood experts were concerned that the standards would sort of beat play, if you will, for students to be able to learn through play, which I know through my own training is so important, and so we have a statement in there that really speaks to the standards to talk about what students should be having practice with, what they should be learning, but not how, and that really is up to teachers in terms of how. And the last part is to make sure that while these were standards to prepare students for, as they move up the grade, to make sure that they're on a trajectory to be well prepared for whatever post-secondary desires they have, that having ELA literacy standards isn't the be-all and end-all, meaning it's a necessary part of what students have, but it certainly isn't sufficient, and this hopefully gets to the notion of the whole child, of the social part, the emotional part, the other academic pursuits that students need to have, so we wrote that into the introduction as well, based on what we heard from the early childhood experts. Next slide. So the key shifts. One is to make sure that the Common Core has a, that when students now have a balance of text, so that it's, yes, there's literature, which is so important and rich for students to have throughout their school careers, but certainly in elementary school, but also to have an equal measure of informational text. I know from my own granddaughter that she's all into geckos these days and wanting to read books on geckos, and that students are hungry for information about the world, and we also know that informational texts are harder for students to grapple with because of the variety of text structures and the vocabulary and the like, and it's so important for them to have an equal mix, so the Common Core asks for a real shift there. And it also asks students to have regular opportunities to encounter complex texts. Now, obviously, students are only beginning to learn how to read, but there is a real push there for making sure that students have opportunities to listen to and be part of read aloud, where they can hear the language, the vocabulary, and the syntax of texts that they're not able to read, maybe, themselves for a couple of years. So, again, the notion of complexity of text already begins to show itself in the earlier phase. Writing opportunities, this was interesting for students are prominent and varied, even in the earliest phase, in some cases it's that a student might dictate their words to the teacher, they might show pictures and the like, but that they really do begin to write and express themselves through writing, even in the earliest level. And the last shift is to make sure that students have opportunities to really collaborate with one another in small groups and in partners, to cultivate their understanding, their respect for one another, being able to work with others, responsibility for coming to a group prepared, as well as their independence. And so, those are the major and key shifts in the Common Core, as I look at it. And I think that's it for me. Fantastic. Thanks very much, Sue. I should note that we will also be having each presenter's contact information listed, so if you have follow-up questions, you can contact them directly. And as always, the presentation will be available online at the Pre-K through Third National Workgroup website in about a week. Right now, we have a first poll up to get a little bit of feedback on how you all as attendees are viewing Common Core, whether or not you see them as a force for good, that's actually going to increase the quality of education. If you think they're probably not going to change very much in terms of the learning opportunities that young children are receiving, or if you have a fear that the Common Core may actually increase inappropriate educational experiences for young children, or if you just really haven't thought about it very much and you don't have an opinion. We know that there's lots of discrepant perspectives on Common Core and the influence they're going to have. So this is just, again, to take the temperature of how you all are viewing Common Core. So we'll leave a few more seconds for you to reply, and then I will be able to show you the responses. And as we're doing that, Jean will start queuing up you for your presentation. And Jean is going to be focusing on alignments and something that I believe the Common Core is really pushing is the need to align Common Core with state existing early learning standards and with the Head Start standards. And so Jean will be presenting work that she's been doing with Dr. Sharon Lynn Kagan and Dr. Catherine Scott Little around alignment analyses. So here are the results of how people are viewing Common Core of the 200 and some folks we have listening in right now. And Jean, we're ready for you to go. Okay. Thank you, Christy. I'm really happy to be here. I'm sorry, my colleague Sharon Lynn Kagan could not be here for technological and scheduling reasons, but I know she wanted to be and very much wants to voice her strong support for this effort. As does my colleague Catherine Scott Little at the University of North Carolina, who's also part of our team, our research team on alignment analyses. So I'm going to talk today about alignment analyses, why we think alignment is important and what it accomplishes, a little bit about our own work on analyzing an alignment in between documents and how we do that. And then finally what I think the applications are for policy and practice. So first, why align standard documents? Well, it's probably pretty clear to most of the people here today, early learning standards are a critical component of early care and education systems that support high quality programs for young children, but program administrators and teachers are currently juggling multiple standards documents of varying quality or documents that have somewhat different emphases. States in that context need to create consistency and cohesion among these documents while assuring their quality. Next slide please. Christy, oh there we go, thank you. So what is it that we think alignment will accomplish? Aligning standards can create consistent, cohesive and quality standards that we believe cover a breadth of domains in areas of early learning that are appropriate to children's ages, that encourage an intentional approach to the care and teaching of young children, that articulate expectations for children's learning trajectories that in turn support instructional continuity, that offer a starting point for curriculum and assessment choices that are consistent with what we want children to learn, that can guide professional development efforts to improve teaching and learning. And finally that support high quality programs across multiple settings and programs that are under different auspices. Next slide please. So how do we, this TCUNC research team analyze alignment? Well first of all, when we examine alignment, this is really our, probably our biggest priority is that we look for both match and quality. So this requires more than a crosswalk analysis that looks for one-to-one correspondence among paired indicators in two documents. Match documents, we believe, are not necessarily quality documents. So we suggest that high complexity alignment analyses are important because they consider multiple dimensions of alignment that can in turn reflect both match and quality. Next slide please. So how do we do it? Well we, as I said, there are multiple dimensions in this kind of analysis and I'm gonna talk just about a couple of them. One of them is what we call balance. The balance analysis examines how indicators, we look at the indicator level of standards documents. So the balance analysis examines how those indicators are distributed among five domains of early learning and development. And the results indicate the relative emphasis that states devote to each of the five domains of learning and development. So it can tell them if they are articulating priorities such as social and emotional development or cognitive domain or language and literacy or physical development or approaches to learning, which of those domains are getting the most indicators and thereby articulating a priority for those domains or how well are the indicators balanced across them. And then states can see if the balance of their indicators across the five domains is consistent with the balance in another document such as the Head Start Framework or the Comma Core. And also changes in the balance across age groups. So from comparing younger to older age groups, standards for different age groups, can reflect how states are making the transition from a developmental orientation that's appropriate for early childhood to a more academic orientation that becomes more appropriate at older ages. A second dimension of alignment that we look at is something we call coverage and depth. The coverage and depth analysis examines how indicators are distributed among particular aspects of learning and development within each of those five domains. So the results indicate what states are covering in their standards and in one depth, in what depth they are doing so. States can then see if their coverage and their emphasis of a particular aspect of early learning is consistent with the coverage and emphasis found in another document such as the Head Start Framework or the Comma Core. So in the approaches to learning domain, for example, we have particular areas of learning that we call constructs such as initiatives or willingness to try or persistence in the face of frustration. And they can see, states can see, how much their own standards emphasize those aspects of learning and development and then compare them to other documents such as the Head Start Framework or the Comma Core and see if the emphasis is similar or the same. And then finally, again, looking at these kinds of analyses over time, the coverage and depth analysis over age groups, states can see if their expectations for the trajectory of children's learning is consistent with what they want children to learn and then they can also compare that with other documents. Next slide, please. So what are the implications for policy and practice of doing this kind of analysis and thinking about standards in this way? Well, first of all, standards that are not aligned are clearly confusing to program administrators and teachers and hinder efforts to support quality programs as a result. But we think that standards that are aligned with other important documents help build an infrastructure of quality for quality programs that is consistent, cohesive, and makes sense to administrators and teachers. So with that goal, we believe alignment analyses should consider both match and quality to build a foundation for quality programs. And finally, the high complexity analyses are needed to allow states to consider both match and quality. And that's it. Great, thank you very much, Jean. Obviously, alignment is a complex endeavor that takes a lot of intentionality and extended work. And so this next poll is going to ask you to what extent you think the standards that you're using are well aligned from pre-K through third grade or from birth through third grade. Again, just reflect on the standards documents that are most relevant to your work. Maybe it's just pre-K through third grade. Maybe it's birth through third grade. Maybe it's instance and toddlers aligning with pre-K standards. But just to get a sense of the depth and meaningfulness of the alignment that you think your standards currently have, I can say anecdotally from my travels around the country that a lot of people do the dot-to-dot alignments that Jean mentioned and haven't really focused on the constructs of balance and coverage and depth. So we're appreciative of Jean and Lynn Kagan and Catherine Scott Little's work in this area.  So obviously in this climate where there are so many different standards document, greater attention to alignment is necessary. Our next two speakers, Sophia Pappas and Jen Rosenbaum are with the Office of Early Childhood Education at the New York City Department of Education and they will share how they have both aligned their standards and more importantly how they are linking those to a district-wide professional development approach. So Sophia and Jen, welcome. Great, thank you Kristi and thank you everyone for joining today. I think we'll just wait for the slides to come up in a second. I'm gonna focus on giving you some context for the work. As Kristi said, at the local level in New York City we've really been focusing on implementing the Common Core Standards in a way that's aligned with K-12 and so before I get into the professional development end of it in terms of how we've been supporting teachers and all of this, I think it's important to give some context because there are certain in certain ways what we're doing builds on what we've heard from previous speakers. There are also ways that what's going on in New York is different from what's going on in a lot of other states because of the way that New York State has approached Common Core in the early grades. Next slide, please. Okay, so in terms of context, it's important to note where our implementation of the Common Core fits in the bigger DOE's goal. So Sue talked about how when the Common Core Standards in general are really designed to lay out expectations that are going to ensure that kids are college and career ready by the time they leave our schools. So in New York, we really see early childhood as the first step in that process. And so when we think about that in terms of the standards, the standards are really important for the instructional vision of New York City schools as a whole because basically what we're saying is from the time kids are entering our doors in pre-K, we're gonna have aligned expectations that if you take them from pre-K all the way up through elementary, middle, and high school, by the time kids do leave high school, they will have the skills and the knowledge that they need to really have, to really be college and career ready. So what we have in the slide, you'll notice that there are four priorities starting with raise expectations for teaching and learning. We put these here. These are actually DOE-wide priorities for pre-K to 12. And we're gonna be focusing on the first priority today of raise expectations for teaching and learning because that really gets to the heart of the standard piece of how New York City is raising expectations for what students are learning and then how they're learning on the instructional end of things really by using the common core as the orienting framework for both pieces of that. And so what Jen and I are gonna be focusing on is at the pre-K level, what all of that implementation looks like. And it's important to note that when we talk about pre-K and we talk about kids entering our doors in pre-K, we're talking about kids who are in public schools and in community-based settings. And in New York City, we have 58,000 kids who are in pre-K the year before kindergarten. And two thirds of those kids are in community-based organizations and the rest of them are in public schools. So when we talk about implementing the common core in pre-K, we are saying whether you're in a public school, whether you're in a community-based setting, whether that community-based setting also has head start or doesn't have head start, all kids in New York City by the time they get to kindergarten will have exposure to the common core. So what do we mean by the common core? Because as Sue said, the common core standards nationally actually are K to 12. So this is why it's important to understand the New York context. In New York State, New York State made a decision to develop common core for pre-K. And so these standards are really designed to be a bridge between early childhood and K-12. But it's important to note that the New York State common core pre-K standards, which are known as New York State Pre-K Foundation for the Common Core, have two pieces. One piece, which is connected to K-12 directly, is on the literacy and math side. So these are basically the common core standards that we'll see in K-12, but at the pre-K level, so that you can really say that you have the alignment of math and literacy standards from pre-K all the way through the 12th grade. But we know that there's also needs to be a focus on other domains of development. So the pre-K foundations for the common core, in addition to having those math and literacy standards that are aligned to K-12 Common Core, also have standards in the other domain. So approaches to learning, physical development, social-emotional, and so forth. And by doing all of that, by having both those other domains and the math and literacy aligned with K-12, you know, we have this framework for standards that ensures that we are focusing on the whole child. We are ensuring that kids are getting a solid foundation in all respects in pre-K, but we're also ensuring that the instruction that comes after pre-K is going to build on what happened in pre-K in a way that is aligned. Next slide, please. And so that was on the New York State side of things. In New York City, we really saw the introduction of Common Core in pre-K as an incredible opportunity. And I'm a former pre-K teacher myself and I experienced firsthand how frustrating it can be to not have that connection with K-12, but I also know as being a former pre-K teacher that anytime we talk about building a P-12 system and integrating ourselves with P-12, we wanna do it in a developmentally appropriate way. But Jen and I and our team in New York City really took this as our charge to say, okay, how do we really take advantage of this opportunity to have aligned expectations for teaching and learning, while at the same time, not making this a push down. Really building that foundation that I talked about for the whole child and connecting with the K-12 world. So what I have here is a quote from Shale Taransky, who is the Chief Academic Officer from the New York City Department of that. I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but the point here is to say that Shale in this quote is really capturing the essence of what we're saying with implementing Common Core in pre-K where pre-K is the first step towards getting kids to be college and career ready, and anytime we talk about college and career readiness, we talk about those efforts starting when kids enter our doors, whether that door is a public school door or a door to a community-based organization where most of our kids actually attend pre-K. And the other important thing to note about this context is DOE leadership as a whole has embraced this. So we have the Chancellor speaking about P-12, talking about the Common Core in pre-K, increasingly taking more and more of an interest in what's going on in the early grades. And then we have folks like Shale and his other colleagues really looking at how in pre-K especially and in the early grades, you have the combination of what's going on with math and literacy for the Common Core, but also the social-emotional development that is so important for thinking about kids really having the approaches to learning that are necessary to be on that path towards college and career readiness. So that's the context for what's going on in New York City. I'm gonna hand it over to Jen because we all know that any policy is also requires really strong implementation and support for the teachers who are working with children every day in classrooms. And so Jen's gonna talk about how we approach the development of teachers in order to really implement Common Core in pre-K in a way that is going to give us that connection with K-12, but is also going to be developmentally appropriate. Great, thanks Sophia. So I'm gonna dive in a little bit more about the professional development and other supports that we've provided to teachers. And just as Sophia provided some context on the New York City approach, I think it's important to couch this also in the way that we're approaching the rollout of the Common Core in pre-K to 12 in the city. So we're in a multi-year rollout plan. Our standards will be fully implemented by the 2014-15 school year. And so as part of that plan, last year Sharon, his team and the chance issued a set of city-wide instructional expectations. And those held true for students in pre-K to 12. And the foundation of those expectations is this diagram that you see here. So the focus is really on looking at student work, helping students engage in Common Core-aligned units and tasks, which I'll talk more about, analyzing the work from those units, designing future units in this cyclical process. And just like Sophia mentioned, we do wanna make sure that this is happening in a developmentally appropriate way for a four-year-old. When we say student work, we mean everything from drawings, photos, anecdotal notes, et cetera. And when we talk about units, we're talking about interdisciplinary, thematic units that are taking place across the day and centers and read aloud all of those good early childhood practices. And when we talk about Common Core-aligned tasks, we're talking about intentional, small group learning experiences that kids are engaging in with their teachers. So the way that we've taken this underpinning of the instructional expectations and really made it come alive for our teachers is this diagram that you see here on the slide. So we've called this our data reflection cycle. And this has been the underpinning of all of the professional development that we've done for our teachers this year. So our office provides four PD days, professional development days for teachers across the city in the CBOs and in the public schools. And we've used this year to get them well versed in looking at student work and analyzing it against the Common Core standard. So our first session of the year, we got teachers really familiar with this assessment component. And we wanted to help them understand all of the different ways that they could collect evidence of student learning in relation to their standards. So we talked about the best practices for anecdotal notes, for collecting videos, pictures, all of those rich sources of information. After that, we really focused on the assessment and evaluation. So now that you have that, what can you do with that work? How do you determine if it's aligned with the standards? How do you determine where students' strengths and areas for growth are? If it's a couple of students, where's the posture class? And then the last two sessions of the year, we focused in on these curriculum and pedagogy pieces. Now that teachers were well versed in analyzing the work, what will they do with it? How will they design their curriculum in a way that meets the needs of all the students in their class? And how will they execute that and make sure that they're taking advantage not only of that planned curriculum, but also all of those teachable moments that we know arise in early childhood classrooms? And I think this was a helpful way to ground the PD around the Common Core, the Pre-K Foundation for the Common Core, because it kept everything grounded in the student work. And the teachers are really gonna understand what it looks like to implement these new standards.  And so this was a helpful framework for them to use. And keeping this consistent type of framework throughout the year really helped deepen the level of teachers' conversation. So going to see teachers in October starting to engage with this versus in March in their last session of the year, the level of their conversations and the extent to which they were able to accurately analyze their work dramatically increased. As a part of the curriculum in pedagogy, we also designed these sample Common Core-aligned units. So if we could go to the next slide. Great, so these are, again, part of New York City's multi-year rollout strategy. So we had sample units available for students Pre-K to 12. And the idea behind these units is, again, to help teachers start to understand what Common Core-aligned instruction looks like. All of the units have sample annotated student work so that teachers can see what it looks like for children to engage in this type of work and be meeting standards. So we took this in Pre-K and did the same thing. So we developed these Common Core-aligned units which are based on common early childhood themes. So we'll see in a second. We have things about planting, about shrugs, about five senses, and we refuse the Common Core standards, the Pre-K Foundation for the Common Core with all of the domains of development into there. And so we use these as samples within our professional development to help teachers understand the components of the units, what might be different from what they've done in the past, what's similar to what they've done in the past and where they can build on their current practice. So if we go to the next slide, we see an example of two girls working with their teacher on one of these Common Core-aligned tasks. So this classroom has been engaging in the Trucks unit and the teacher is working with these two children on a Trucks task. So basically what the children are doing is they're practicing the concepts of addition and subtraction. You see the trucks driving along the road. They're talking about how many trucks there are now, one fold off to get some gas, how many trucks are left on the road. And the teacher you can see right next to her has a piece of paper where she's jotting down anecdotal notes about what the children are doing, what they're saying, and their understanding from relation to the standards. On the next slide, you'll see a work sample from a child who is responding to an informational task. The class is engaging in a unit about my five senses. And so they read a book about the five senses and this child, Jelisa, has drawn a picture illustrating several of the senses. And so as Sue mentioned earlier, the focus on drawing, writing, and dictating is huge in the Common Core and the same in our Pre-K Foundation for the Common Core. So we really focused our units on helping teachers understand how to infuse these informational texts into our classroom in meaningful ways for the students. So if you go to the next slide, there's just a list of websites and resources that you can go to. So you can see our Pre-K units. You can also see the units from Pre-K to 12 so that you can feel free to go there, use the units as they're helpful to you and we're also happy to answer questions. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Sophia and Jen. Obviously the City of New York has really extended from the work that the state did in not only linking Pre-K to the Common Core but then ensuring teachers are well-equipped. We're going to do two polling questions right now. One of them we missed during the early technological glitches. This is just so we can get a sense of who is actually listening in. And so we're trying to get a general sense of how many of you are either teachers or administrators in Pre-K programs. So this could be a state-funded Pre-K, childcare, Head Starts. How many of you are elementary school teachers or administrators so working in a K3, K5, K6 environment? How many of you are central office folks working at a school district or some other community-wide community-level entity which could include resource and referrals and other municipal level entities? How many of you are actually engaged in state-level work in a policy office or in a statewide advocacy organization? And then obviously the catch-all other category. This will just give us a sense for who is actually on the phone. And then, so we're almost done polling there. So we can see that we have quite a few state-level folks, 10% in the Pre-K realm and then 12% in that elementary school and school district role. And then obviously the researcher and me really wants to know who that other 41% is but unfortunately our polling results don't allow us to get more than five options. So based on that poll, I'm going to launch the next one which is thinking about the kinds of professional development you have received because I do believe that these kinds of professional development are important no matter if you're working in a classroom or in a state policy role. Have you received professional development that has helped you to do the following things? Understand the relationship among standards curriculum assessments. Understand how to use standards to improve instruction. Understand as Jen just laid out with her pictures what developmentally informed practice actually looks like. To understand how to build teams of teachers across this early childhood and elementary school divide. And then to really understand how policies can and should drive implementation and how implementation can inform policies. So as I said, I think these kinds of professional development are important no matter where we work. And so we'll give just a few more seconds to get an understanding of where PD efforts seem to be residing right now. And as we're closing up this poll, we'll start getting Susan Shachlin geared up for her presentation. Susan is an actual kindergarten classroom teacher in the state of North Carolina who has done quite a bit of work in integrating standards into her own classroom practices. So I think it's interesting to see the results from that last poll that there's been quite a bit of emphasis on what the relationship between standards curriculum and assessment should be. But I think it's the lower scoring ones that are also important about building teacher teamwork and really understanding the connection between policies and implementation and the other one about really using standards to improve instruction. So we're gonna hide these poll results and Susan, I'm gonna turn presentation over to you. Okay, thank you for having me. And thanks everyone for being here. I'm glad to share one teacher perspective on standards in the kindergarten classroom. And I'm also from North Carolina, Walkerton Elementary School there. So next slide please. I wanna begin thinking about teachers' perceptions of standards. When I first started teaching, I came from an early childhood background and I was quite surprised by the amount of practices I saw in kindergarten that appeared somewhat developmentally inappropriate. I was noticing blocks and dramatic play centers were decreasing in size or sometimes altogether. And oftentimes it was in the name of high standards or a teacher said it was because of new standards that they had. So actually in graduate school at UNCG with Catherine Scott Little, I decided to explore this a little bit more by interviewing teachers to gather their perceptions of standards in preschool and kindergarten settings. And so what I found was that while teachers might initially claim that the standards were too high or that they were inappropriate and that's why maybe they could not use developmentally appropriate practices, especially in the kindergarten setting, upon closer look we found that their lines between standards, curriculum, assessments, expectation, they were kind of blurry and even old curriculum and habits that they might have had that the teachers really just needed some help in defining the differences between these things. And when they looked closely at the standards themselves, they found that they were not inappropriate in those cases. And in fact, most teachers do appreciate clearly defined and high standards for their students. They keep us focused, they give us that healthy sense of urgency, they help us define our learning targets, and they keep us moving forward. So the problems occur when translating those standards into practice. So once teachers are clear on these differences, I'm sorry if I'll go back one slide, on between these standards, curriculum and assessments, we sometimes find that it's actually the mandates or the curriculum that isn't enforced, that the idea is that it will meet the standards that truly does cause the frustrations, not the standards themselves, especially if the curriculum is linear or segmented, has a scripted approach. Sometimes then the teachers find it difficult to meet the needs of all their learners in a developmentally appropriate way. And their focus then becomes on implementing a curriculum rather than understanding the standards themselves and helping children meet them. So instead, teachers appreciate high quality staff development in the standards themselves so that we can truly understand what we want children to know and be able to do. And then time. Time needed to discuss those standards with their colleagues and consider what they might look like in the context of best practices for young learners. This then in turn helps us explain and us understand what we're doing and why we're doing it rather than just following something prescribed. Okay, next slide please. So from my perspective, as I've been learning about the Common Core State Standards this year, I see some shifts, Sue mentioned some shifts earlier as well, that I think will actually help teachers merge high standards and best practices for young kids. First, they're more clearly defined and focused and this focus by grade level allows us to go deeper and to make connections to real life and give children real experiences with those standards. And it will help us avoid that 15 minute increments of unrelated instruction to more lengthy and relevant studies. And there's room and even encouragement for making connections across disciplines and to real world and broad concepts, helping us avoid that compartmentalized approach. In kindergarten, particularly, I'm excited about the new emphasis on speaking and listening skills and this recognition for the need for high quality oral language experiences, which can happen in a dramatic play center as you might see here in the picture. So I think that's another support for using developmentally appropriate practices. Also, as Sue mentioned, the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards does mention the use of play in the early childhood setting. I see a new emphasis on the process of learning, which helps children be more aware of this process and maybe the strategies they might use and not just the product or isolated pieces of knowledge. For teachers, if the training opportunities focus on, again, the deep understanding of the standards and opportunities to discuss implementation, then they will have more freedom and more responsibility to examine their practices and their curriculum closely and then make modifications as needed. Next slide, please. So there are some challenges and opportunities in kindergarten with the Common Core. First, weeding out old practices that may no longer be needed. It could just be activities that previously addressed old standards and it can be challenging for teachers to let those things go, but eventually see it as a relief on their time and their ability to go deeper into another facet. With any new standards, teachers need help avoiding the notion of a train of information that just keeps moving despite the learners in the classroom. We've really got to get a hold of a good pacing strategy but still be able to reach backwards and forwards as needed to meet individual learners. And this will take time as we learn the new standards. It also takes time to find meaningful ways to integrate the standards across and within disciplines. In our state, we also have new science and social studies standards. And so my colleagues and I are kind of looking forward to taking control of our curriculum by finding relevant projects and topics related to those standards that we can then integrate high quality literature such as the nonfiction literature mentioned in Common Core and find real math opportunities within those topics. And it just takes time to develop and tweak them as we go. In kindergarten and the primary grades, we need to be especially conscious of keeping the whole child in mind. Dean mentioned in aligning, looking at the balance among domains. And it's a little more difficult in primary grades. It's typically easier to do with early learning standards as they are separated by domains. And in the primary grades, we typically have them separated by content areas. So we want to keep those best practices for the whole child in mind like in this picture using music and movement as we consider translating content into practice. Finally, I think it takes time to study and become more familiar with the standards when we consider vertical alignment from a teacher's perspective. As we first start studying the Common Core, we become very focused on our own grade level and it's easy just to fall back on kind of the horizontal alignment within that grade. And it may take us a while for us to think carefully about what's happening at the grades around us and how we could align our practices to those things as well. Next slide. So I decided to share one attempt at utilizing best practices for kindergarten to meet standards. And this is using ramps and pathways in a kindergarten block center. It's a wonderful addition to any block center and encourages critical thinking, teamwork, engagement. The kids have great discussions. For me, in my state, it was a great way of addressing the forces and motion strand of our science standards and then integrating the Common Core state standards as well. So here on the next slide are some of the Common Core state standards that I saw ramps and pathways addressing in my block center. So we could read and we could compare some nonfiction texts about simple machines, which includes the inclined plane, which is what the ramp is. And as children are working together, they definitely express their opinions and which supports the argument writing found in the Common Core. We would also generate questions together, sort of again, a shared research process about these physical science experiments, such as how can you make a marble go up the ramp or how do different objects behave on the ramp? And we could record our answers together as a class or in individual science journals. We would also do some informal research on where would we find inclined planes and why are they used in society and how are they used? And then there's just lots of great vocabulary that we can expose the kids to as they work in the block center with these ramps and pathways. It also addresses the mathematical practice standards one and three. Number one is to make sense and persevere in solving problems. And in kindergarten, I believe that these problems should be formal and informal. So I see this not as necessarily just traditional math problems. Instead, it's just more of this disposition towards perseverance and solving problems in general. And with ramps and pathways, young children are amazing. The way they focus their attention, they take risks, try different alternatives and exhibit self-regulation and persevere. And when you listen in on children working with ramps and pathways, it's obvious they're working on standard three, which is the arguments one, construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. When you've established this safe risk-taking climate in your classroom, the children will explain their ideas to others, they'll listen to others' ideas and they'll modify their thinking and their strategies as they use the ramps. And then one specific kindergarten standard is this describing measurable attributes. And as you work with children in the ramps and pathways center, you can scaffold this vocabulary as they discuss how the heavier marble behaves differently or that they might need a wider tube for this particular ramp and maybe what shapes they might use when they're building supports for their ramps and pathways project. So I added some links here that you might like to explore later. They're just a few short impromptu videos. They're each under about two minutes. I just took them this year with my cameras. Sometimes I'll take videos to show the kids later to continue the discussion about what would make the ramp work. And so they're just two short videos. And I think you will see many examples of the standards just discussed and they're just fun to watch and listen to the kids as they argue and problem solve together. So overall, I think it's important to know that teachers want high expectations for our children. We need time to process the changes in our new standards and time to closely examine that curriculum, assessments and practices, what might we need to let go of, what supports or does not support the new standards and time to discuss with our colleagues these engaging ways that we might be able to help students meet standards across and within domains of learning. So thank you for letting me share with you today. Thank you very much, Susan. And apologies right now that the video clips could not be shown. Unfortunately, webinar platforms are notoriously bad in supporting video clips. So I'm going to go back. So if you want to jot down these web addresses and go look at the video clips once the webinar is over, I highly encourage you to do so. I think I can say I've heard Susan speak before and have seen her videos before that we all wish we could clone Susan and her practices in kindergarten classrooms. She is, I think truly an example of being kind of the best of early childhood practices in an elementary school context. So I do encourage you to look at the videos. We're now going to launch another poll. We already know we don't have a majority of teachers on this website, but I think Susan has given you an idea of what well-equipped and well-supported and well-prepared teachers can do around standards. And so the current poll is we're going to ask you to reflect on from your experience and your perspective what you think is the biggest barrier that teachers face in this new standard-based climate, whether it's that we have mandated child assessments that are not aligned with standards, whether the professional development systems themselves are one shot and disconnected and therefore not really giving the deep rich perspective that teachers need. If we simply don't have the classroom materials and resources needed to meet standards or if there's a pressure to deliver narrow skills-based curricula rather than thinking about the whole child and really taking an integrative approach and then the catch-all category of other. I think these are probably real barriers that many teachers face, but I do think understanding both teachers' barriers but then getting Sue's perspective, Sue's kind of perspective about the opportunities that standards present really can inform policymakers at the district and state level and thinking differently about the kinds of supports and systems that they put into place, which is a nice segue into our last presenter who is Albert Watt from the National Governors Association. And he's going to spend a few minutes reflecting on this notion of the policy implications of all of this work. We have standards that exist, but how can policymakers really be helping to support implementation and make standards as impactful in a meaningful way that they can? So Albert, I'm gonna hide the poll results and move to your slide. Great, thank you, Christie. Good afternoon, everybody. So as Christie said, we wanted just to spend the last few minutes at the end of this webinar to reflect on some of the potential levers that state policymakers can use to facilitate the great work that we've heard about in North Carolina and New York City and I'm sure in other places. So the first thing, maybe the most obvious thing, and next slide, Christie, is that states can take leadership in standards alignment. And as Gene's presentation said, aligning state early learning standards with a common core can promote a more consistent and coherent learning experience for children if they transition from the preschool years through kindergarten and early elementary years. And I think both presentations from New York and North Carolina illustrate how this can really affect and inform classroom practice. But while districts can do this on their own, there are distinct advantages by having state leadership in standards alignment, many of which Supermintel mentioned in her presentation. So we wanna minimize reinventing the wheel. We wanna promote equity and consistency across communities as well as promote collaboration across districts. So if you have aligned standards at a state level, it's much easier to accomplish those goals. I think it's also important to be aware though that the benefits of aligning early learning standards to the common core are largely dependent on the extent to which early childhood programs in the state are required to use these standards. So in other words, if most preschoolers participate in early childhood programs that don't have to come and implement the early learning standards, then these kids won't experience the benefits that come from aligning these standards to the common core. So what policymakers may need to look at is how they can make the early learning standards that have a greater reach, if you will, across the state, for example, through mechanisms like the quality rating and improvement systems or licensing standards and that sort of thing. Let's actually go back one slide, if you will. The second point I wanna make, and the second bullet point is that alignment can go both ways. States may consider aligning also early elementary, K3 standards, with the early learning standards so that they encompass more companies with domains of learning and development. So Pennsylvania, for example, has done this across the pre-gated second spectrum and I believe North Carolina and Washington state are also planning to develop this fully aligned versus third grade standards. It gets to this issue that Sue Trapplin mentioned about kind of keeping the whole child in mind, not just at the pre-k level, but also in early elementary. And also, and Sue Clement also said the common core developers definitely do not intend to convey that all students need to be college and career ready is proficiency in math and reading. So it's really important to keep the multiple domains of development in mind, social and emotional development, physical and motor development, and children's capacity to be self-directed learners. And I would say that there's also increasing recognition, not just in the early elementary or early child community, but early in different parts of the education spectrum that these skills are not just important for young children but students in all grades. So we need to promote a more coherent and consistent learning experience for all students. Policymakers may want to think about how to embrace more of these comprehensive standards throughout the K-12 arena. Okay, next slide. So the next thing is about educator training and PD. And states can examine the extent to which state policies and investments in early child education teacher preparation and PD professional development enhance or defy teachers' capacity to prepare children for the regular of the common core standards. So the New York City and North Carolina speakers have provided some great examples about how they align standards and form their PD for their preschool teachers. So for states that might be looking at their birth to age, or pre-k to third, teaching license, they could look at whether the requirements in terms of coursework and practicum, et cetera, as well as faculty capacity in these schools of education reflect the demands of the common core. But of course that won't reach most early childhood professionals because most of them are not required to have that kind of certification. So to reach the rest of the field, policymakers may need to look at the broader early childhood professional development system. So thinking about, for example, are your core competencies aligned with, core competencies for early childhood professionals aligned with common core? And how can a common core standards be incorporated into other kinds of pre-service and in-service requirements that early childhood providers have? And then it's not also, I mean, sorry, it's not all about the early childhood teachers, though. And this is the second bullet point on the slide. If we really have fully aligned birth to third grade or pre-k to third standards that embrace comprehensive domains of development, they would need to look at early elementary teachers and leaders as well and how they're prepared to what extent do state policies and lessons in their preparation in PD enhance these individual's capacity to help students reach both the common core standards and standards in other domains of learning and development. Some states are using the kindergarten entry assessment as an opportunity to help kindergarten teachers, for example, work on developed domains that typically aren't emphasized in elementary curricula. So for example, in Connecticut, through in the race to the top of the challenge proposal, even though they didn't get the grant, they're still moving forward with this plan, they've included professional development strategies that help kindergarten teachers analyze the kindergarten entry assessment results and better support students' social emotion development. In other states like Illinois and New Jersey, they're focusing on K-12 leadership training so that superintendents and principals and other administrators can better support pre-k to third approach to teaching in their schools. Okay, next slide. The third thing I wanna talk about is this notion of sort of creating spaces for alignment. And earlier we had a poll question where I think there was a small number of people felt like they had professional development that involved teams of early childhood educators and K-12 educators. And I think this is kind of gets at that. So states can support regional or district level strategies that bring early childhood educators and K-12 leaders practitioners together. To share best practices and engage in joint professional development. So for example, for a while now, Wisconsin and Maine have collaboration coaches who go to different parts of the state to promote collaborations between schools and community-based organizations like early childhood providers when implementing the preschool programs. And through support from the Early Learning Challenge, Delaware, Massachusetts and Washington are creating regional centers or teams that bring early childhood educators and early elementary teachers together. Again, for joint PD. And then the second point is that states can also consider developing governance structures that facilitate and more importantly, institutionalized P3 alignment so that this work is sustained. So this is the second bullet on the slide. For example, states like Maryland and Michigan have brought the major early childhood education programs into the state education agencies. North Carolina and New Jersey both have offices of early learning that take a P3 approach to teaching and learning. The governor of Mississippi also made a director of the state's early childhood advisor council, part of his policy team. And to the extent that governors set the state's vision for school reform, having an early learning advisor in his or her core team can also promote alignment of policies and strategies broadly. Okay, and the final slide that I have is about this issue of resource allocation or reallocation because I think alignment also requires to look at this issue. In this economy, states are constantly having to revisit their investments across early childhood K-12 and post-secondary education systems to make sure they're spending the limited resources wisely. And the policy makers goal is to raise the bar through the common core standards and maybe other kinds of reform efforts. And at the same time, if we know, if we understand the research behind the importance of the early years, the potential impact of high quality programs in early education and the fact that the achievement gap appears well before kindergarten, if we understand all that and we wanna raise the bar starting the kindergarten. Then, I think it's a reasonable policy question to ask about whether the state is allocating adequate resources within its overall education budget to give kids the best chance to reach higher standards when they enter kindergarten. If states don't have new resources to invest and that's usually the case these days, one strategy might be to look at whether states can find efficiencies within its overall P-16 budget and apply those cost savings to increase the quality and access to early childhood programs with minimal fiscal impact. So I think it's really important to think about for how states are investing in things like high quality pre-K and full day kindergarten and things like that that really prepare kids to again give them the best chance to reach the higher standards that the common core represents. So those are my concluding thoughts and I guess I'll turn it back to you, Christie, for Q and A. Great, thank you very much, Albert. And thanks to all of our speakers for doing what I think was a pretty daunting task which was to cover classroom to state policy standards issues in one hour. So thank you very much for sticking to your time. I do urge anyone who's listening in if you have questions to send those our way, we're going to try to address as many of them as possible. I have a couple that have come in that have really been grouped around this notion of supporting common core implementation in grade K-12. One particular question to Sophia and Jen about what's happening in New York City if there has been any sort of attention to changing or expanding the K-2 standard to be more reflective of the multiple domains of learning that you've paid so much close attention to on the pre-K side. So Jen and Sophia, do you want to answer that question? Yep, so I'm actually not sure about the actual standards development but what I tend to speak to is the instructional expectations for next year in that the expectation is that people are integrating the common core aligned units into science, social studies, all the other areas of academics that are present in pre-K-12. So we're expecting that people are doing literacy aligned common core tasks within science units or within social studies units and the same for math. So we're really promoting this interdisciplinary approach where it's helping teachers focus on thematic units across all the grades. Great, thank you very much. A similar question around grade K-2 is more of an assessment issue, I think, and this, Albert, might be something that you want to address because I know you have been thinking about it. And the question comes from a superintendent in New Jersey who's wondering what student learning assessment practices are recommended to support common core implementation in grades K-2. Is there anything beyond observational data? Right, so one thing to mention is that the PARC consortium, there are two consortia that are developing assessments that kind of grow out of the common core or aligned with the common core. The PARC consortia is working on formative K-2 assessments that are aligned with the common core. Now, unfortunately, I think the rollout of those tools will be a few years down the road. So in the meantime, I think one of the questions I would think about is what the purpose is, if it's really for formative purposes to inform instruction. Then I'm not an inexperienced assessment, but I imagine there are a contendium of assessment tools that are out there that I know that are set up for pre-K and kindergarten and so there might be some contendia that might be helpful in a dynamism assessment. If we're thinking about tying any assessment to teacher evaluation, that sort of thing, then that's a tougher question. I don't know if there are any assessments out there that maybe other presenters here have some thoughts about that, whether that might be, it will be appropriate to use those assessments in that kind of context in terms of teacher evaluation and other high stakes purposes. So yeah, so I think I would stop there and let others chime in if they have any other thoughts. Yes, Sue or Sue, I wonder if either of you have thoughts on this question of assessment practices in grades K-2 and while you're gathering your thoughts, I will also note that a future webinar hosted by the pre-K-3rd grade national work group is going to look at child assessment issues and so at that time, we will be sure that our presenters address these notions of what good and appropriate and meaningful child assessment looks like across the full pre-K-3rd grade span, so that is something to look forward to over the next month. So Sue or Sue, I don't know if that's something you wanna weigh in on. So this is, yeah, this is Sue Pimentel this is sort of, I maybe underscore what Albert said is, I do know that they're just beginning to look into this, the K-2 arena now. I do think that the only thing I can say and maybe this other group is going to be informing what's going on in Park is I do know they're looking for ways to look at more than just observational data and of course that becomes tough when you're talking about the little ones, but there's a sense that there may be able to be able to use technology in ways we haven't used it before and since talking to the things, other kinds of ways that they can show what they're learning. I think we're just at the beginning stages of this and so stay tuned. So hearing from others about what makes good sense and what feels appropriate and what will give good information for teachers and I think there is a strong desire to go beyond just observational data in a way that it can be aggregated and the teachers can learn from it in addition to observational data. Great, Albert, you had something you wanted to add? Yeah, just one more thought. So I know of Wednesday, North Carolina, that is planning to develop K-3 assessments, formative assessments that are aligned to the Common Core as well as I mentioned that they're building broader comprehensive learning standards across the first to third grade. So they're also building, developing assessments that align to those broader standards as well. So at the beginning stages, if this person who asked the question is interested in learning more about that effort and getting connected to folks in North Carolina, I'd be happy to help them or her do that if they email me. Terrific, thanks very much. So presenters, I have two big questions. I'm gonna say both of them out loud right now so you can gather your thoughts and then I'll give you all a chance to respond. The first is around the notion of dual-language learners and wondering to what extent the Common Core and your individual efforts are really paying attention to using standards to provide what the questioner is asking to create cognitively demanding learning experiences in their first language as they acquire and learn English. So the first question is around our dual-language learners and the second question that I'll pose for you all to think about is how can community-based providers, so this would be community-based childcare, family childcare, and then other informal institutions like museums be engaged in the standards work. So let's go back to the DLL question and see if anyone wants to weigh in on that. This is Supe Mantel and this may not be a direct answer but there's something called the Understanding Language Project that is being run by Kenji Hakuda out of Sanford and in the domains of math, English-language arts and science, they are working on a variety of tools for teachers to teach English-language learners. So I know in the ELA group that we're working in that we've got a unit that teachers are actually going to practice with. This summer, give us feedback about what's working and what's not. That doesn't go directly to learning in one first language but there are elements of using a student's first language skills and all the benefits that that brings and applying that to their learning so that it's not just use your English. It's also one of the big issues that's being promoted by this project is that students not be siloed off until you kind of pound English into them and then you think that they're at a certain level and only then will you let them come in and learn the content of math, the content of science, the content in English-language arts and there's a sense of helping them along the way but not keeping them from that content. The other piece that I'll just let you know and this is under the auspices of CCSSO we're in the process of putting together an English-language provisioning development framework which is to help states and districts put together good ELP or ELD standards that are a bridge and support the implementation of the Common Core and the next generation science standards and there are drafts of that that will soon be out and for use in states and districts which really try to package the language demands that are included in the Common Core state standards for math and ELA and also for the next generation science standards and those are really, there's a sense of great opportunity and a lot of challenge. Great, Sue could you please repeat those names, the names of the organizations associated with the understanding language project? Yes, understanding language project and it's Kenji Hakuda who's out of Stanford and it's supported by Gates and by Carnegie, it's a two year project and it has many moving parts. I think you can probably, I think there's a website up now and there are teams of people working in math and in science and in English-language arts and then the other one is under the auspices of CCSSO in terms of developing a guidance document, a framework document if you will for states and districts that are developing or adapting their English-language proficiency or English-language development standards. Kristi, can I add a few things to that topic? So another group that people might want to look into is the acronym is WIDA, it stands for World Class Instructional Design and Assessment and they've been doing some work on English-language learners on the K-12 arena and now they are developing, what I understand is that they're developing early learning development standards for dual-language learners for kids between three and five years of age. So it's another consortium of states that they're working with states to do that. I think they're at the beginning stages but I should have some content information that people are interested. And then I think another place to look at is there are a couple of states that I think have interesting early learning standards in this regard. Alaska particularly, their early learning standards include standards about first language development so if people might be interested in how states are doing that, that might be one place to look. And then I think in California their learning standards incorporate, basically they have these English-language development standards that are different and separate from the typical language and literacy development because to reflect the notion that the dual-language learners their learning trajectory in English is different from native English speakers so they've developed a whole set of standards that are for that population. So California standards might be another place to look. Great, thanks. So with just about five minutes left I wonder if we can turn to the question about how to better engage the community-based partners whether it be on the preschool side, the community-based childcare, family childcares or the broader community partners such as museums in supporting implementation of standards. Does anyone have thoughts on that? I heard Jennifer from New Jersey mention sounded like some shared staff development between preschool teachers and kindergarten teachers or maybe K-3 teachers and I've been doing a little bit of that in my district as well and I find it really powerful when you can bring in those community-based teachers with the public school teachers and just start the conversation about the Common Core, about standards and about practices. Yeah, this is Jen from New York. I was just about to chime in, thank you. So we've done two things that might be interesting for people. One, we do do the same professional development sessions for our community-based organization pre-K teachers and our public school teachers. So they're both getting the same content, the same expectations around the Common Core. They think that's really powerful. We've done a couple of things to bring together the leaders from our community-based organizations with the leaders from our public schools. So even in just the past month, first we held a kindergarten transition summit in collaboration with the administration for children and families who oversees the Head Start and we brought together leaders from elementary schools, from charter schools and from community-based organizations to talk about the transition to kindergarten. And so by default, within those conversations came about conversations about standards and what we're doing to prepare children for schools, how schools are preparing for children, et cetera. And the other thing that we did was have about 120 of our community-based organization directors come to the Chancellor's Principal Conference, which was held two weeks ago. And so there they heard a lot of messaging around this key to 12 implementation of the Common Core in New York City, but the issues that we're all grappling with as we're implementing it, I think that was a really powerful message again for people to understand. Here we are, leaders at the front end of this key to 12 continuum. And here we are, all grappling with and all trying to raise expectations in the same way. Great, and this is Kristi Cowers with the Pre-K through 3rd grade National Work Group. And I would just weigh in that I think this partnering with community-based organizations is crucial. And this is going to answer another question that's come in about the need to create spaces for these partners to come together and do the alignment work. I think those who have the position and the resources to offer professional development, which does include states, it does include school districts, it does include many schools and many community-based organizations need to think more comprehensively about who needs that kind of professional development. And if you are doing some sort of PD around standards, inviting, as has just been described that happens in New York, not just the community-based preschool teachers, but do bring in the local libraries, do bring in after-school programs, do bring in summer camp providers to give them some understanding of the kinds of standards that are being used in the school system and giving them strategies or how they can be integrating those into their own work. I think in many instances, it's just needing to think a little more broadly and creatively about who to include in our professional development effort because all of these partners want to be participating and helping to close achievement gaps. I'm wondering if there's any final comments from presenters that you want to weigh in on. We're down to our last three minutes, so I'll put up our last polling question and close the webinar unless anyone has other comments they want to make. Anyone? All right, good. So our last poll is asking you to reflect on whether or not the last hour and a half has really helped you think differently about standards, the role of standards and the linkages between standards themselves and implementation in classrooms. While you are voting, you should be able to see, at least partially, on your screen that the next webinar to be hosted by the Pre-K through 3rd-grade National Work Group is going to be in September. We're taking the summer months off because we know that many of you do that. So the next webinar is Wednesday, September 19th. On that, in that webinar, we're going to be focusing on curricula, not just sort of what elements of curricula matter, but how curricula should be selected and who should be involved in implementing. We also want to thank the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for underwriting the technology costs behind this webinar. In general, we do this as a volunteer basis, but the technology itself required resources and the Melinda Gates Foundation have made that possible. And then as has been noted several times throughout the webinar, there will be both a recording that includes the actual presentation and voices of the webinar, as well as a copy of the slide deck itself posted at the website noted below. www.pre-k through 3rd-grade nationalworkgroup.org. So we thank you all very much for your participation. Hope you learned something. I always learn something every time I listen in, and we look forward to seeing you all in September. And thanks very much to all of our speakers. Thanks, Christy.


States are central to international law. As we have seen, international law was created by states for them and it was primarily designed to apply between them. And states are said to be active subjects of international law. But what is a state as a legal subject under international law? Well true, we all know intuitively what a state is. But have you ever met with a state? And while we would all agree that, say, Uruguay is a state, it is very likely that we would disagree on the statehood of some other entities like Palestine or Kosovo or South Ossetia. And what about the so-called Islamic state today? How can we tell that an entity is a state within the meaning of international law? It is usually considered that three elements characterize a state, a territory, a population and an effective government. Those three elements are notably recalled by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a convention concluded during the Seventh International Conference of American States in 1933. The convention is set to codify the criteria for statehood and to codify also the declarative theory of statehood, something I'll come back to. The Montevideo Convention adds a fourth element, namely I quote the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. However, let us consider that this fourth element is somehow included in the notion of effective government. It is indeed the external aspect of an effective government to be able to entertain international relations. A quick word on each of those elements. First, territory. There is no state without a territory that is an area of land attached to the crust of this planet. This is because us human beings will live on the ground, not in the sea or in the air. And it must be a natural territory, not an artificial platform above the waves. However, there is no need to have a territory with clear and undisputed borders all around. What matters is the control over a certain territory. The size of the territory does not matter. There are huge states like Russia and micro states like Monaco. If size of the territory does not matter, it nevertheless remains that, as some have said, international law is obsessed with territory. And it is true that many disputes have existed and still exist today between states on issues of title, of title to territory and about border delimitations. In this course, it will be just impossible to review all the principles and the rules applicable to territorial issues, but some of them you will see will be mentioned. This being said, it is important to realize that the concept of state sovereignty is intrinsically linked to territory, so much that territorial sovereignty is key to statehood. In 1928, in an arbitration between the Netherlands and the United States of America about the sovereignty over the island of Palmas, which is also called Miangas and which is situated in the Pacific Ocean south of the Philippines and north of Indonesia, in that award, Max Hubert, acting as sole arbitrator in the case, famously wrote that, I quote, Sovereignty in relation to a portion of the surface of the globe is the legal condition necessary for the inclusion of such portion in the territory of any particular state. Sovereignty in relation to territory is called territorial sovereignty. Sovereignty in the relations between states signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise their reign to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a state, end of quote. Second, a population. There is no state without a population, without human beings living on the territory of the state. Again, the size of the population does not matter, but it must not be an empty space, nor a space with wild animals only. And the population should live on the territory on a permanent basis. It can, of course, move around according to the seasons, but it must be there. It does not matter if the population has the nationality of the state or nationalities of several other states. That is another matter, and it is possible, even if it has never occurred, it is possible that a state decides not to grant its nationality to anyone. Third, an effective and independent government. By this, what is required is that the population living on the territory be socially organized, governed and represented by authorities that can effectively enforce the international obligations of the state on the territory and the population. And those authorities must be independent, that is, they must not obey orders from outside and must act in an autonomous way. Traditionally, states are free under international law to choose whatever form and nature of government they prefer. A state may choose to be a republic or a monarchy, to be a federal state, or a very centralized state. It can also choose to be a military dictatorship or a liberal democracy under traditional international law. And on that last point, international law is indeed traditionally indifferent to the nature of the political regime of the state. Moreover, international law prohibits outside interference in what are called the sacrosanths domestic affairs of a state. This being said, more and more states agree in treaties to have a democratic form of government and to respect some fundamental political freedoms. Those treaties are mostly concluded at the regional rather at the universal level. However, if such treaties have been concluded and are binding on the state concerned, it is not free anymore under international law to have an undemocratic government, while the way to govern its people is also curtailed by rules of international law. The process by which those three elements meet at a certain moment in time and that a state comes to existence, that process is essentially a factual process. Historically, states have established themselves as states because they were able to do so as a matter of fact. And this may explain why territory, population, effective and abandoned government are sometimes said to be constitutive elements of states. However, I submit that this is a misconception if by constitutive one considers that the state stops to exist as a state if one of the three elements comes to be missing. In fact, this is not the case. The state survives and does not disappear if, notably, it lacks an effective government. For instance, Germany was left without any central government after the fall of the Third Reich, but it did not disappear as a state. And closer to us, Somalia did not stop being a state despite lacking an effective government for many years. Therefore, instead of considering those three elements as constitutive of states, it is a better view to see them as criteria for the identification of states. By this, I mean that they help to identify that what we have in front of us is indeed a state, rather than something else like a tribe or an international organization. Just like the shape of leaves helps us to identify that the tree in front of us is an oak and not a chestnut. The act by which existing states officially take notice of the existence of a new state and admit it as one of their peers is called state recognition. It is a very old institution of international law and it is a decision of fundamental importance. And this is because if becoming a state is essentially a factual process, being a state on your own, without being admitted in the family of nations and considered as a state by the other states, well that is rather meaningless. The next video will deal with state recognition.


Hey guys, so this is my review of episode five of Westworld season one again. I have issues I just I'm away on a little vacation, so I'm very limited with what I have so it's very straight up either way This episode is probably one of the most intriguing episodes of the entire show weird sex orgy shit Robots figuring out who they are and Anthony Hopkins actually making contact with one of the hosts or start one of the guests This episode really more so talked about just what's going on with the Loris. There is definitely Hindrances there's everything that she has said she's done has been a false hood She is lying on herself And she is getting these messages possibly from Arnold are from someone else This is also connected in with someone who's trying to sabotage the park as we found out that minor guy Who's crashed in his head in actually had a satellite uplink up his arm But the one thing of the show has really started to do is it started to establish different characters Thank God they got rid of the British narrative guy for now because that guy was a terrible actor in my opinion But we're focusing more so on the people who construct with the park aka one of the butchers Who is having his own fascinations basically? We find out that everyone in this park is screwed up in some sort of way that you can't create something without basically having some sort of Animalistic urge that's what this place is is about bringing out the animalistic side But the thing that I like the most was at the very beginning of the episode Where Anthony Hopkins is talking about how he had a dog and then a chased a cat killed it But then didn't know what to do and I believe that's really reflecting on himself as he's created everything that he's wanted to But he can't figure out what's to go next like once he achieved the ultimate Enhancements of AI where to go through next if not to cause his own destruction or to Bring up something different. So this is why I'm still on the fence of whether he's actually self-sabotaging Or he's building something so epic that he might cause self-sabotage or he's slightly lost his marbles Even though he said he didn't I'm still on the fence the thing that was also interesting is Jeffrey Wright was in it for like Like what 30 seconds this time which is interesting because he's been a mainstay in each episode. So the fact that this Episode took a much more different narrative leap as well as it also had the much more of a different character of Dolores I very much enjoyed this episode very intense very Intriguing we saw different characters size. We saw that Ben Barnes got left by his buddy because he's an asshole But oh, I'm very much enjoying the show each episode is always just another layer of intrigue on top of itself There's always something new that this episode shows I'm sorry that the show shows and Honestly, I don't know if we're ever gonna really get to the bottom of anything in this season Like we're still getting places. We're still like getting established. So which is why if What if I'm correct? There should be three episodes left after this So if we don't figure out anything from this season, I won't mind because that's probably what's gonna happen I unless there's ten true detective was eight. So this might be eight. This might be ten I haven't really checked into that yet either way. I'm gonna give this episode a six out of seven I thought those was a very good episode very intriguing I was on my the edge of my seat the whole time and I was very much into this episode and I'm also trying to figure out now the timelines because we start seeing these people in different times and I wonder if it's all the same narrative over for seeing something from different times either way I really enjoyed this episode. I hope you guys did too, and I'll see you guys next time


Hi there, how are you going? I'm breaking my own process here because today, I'm doing an initial impressions video. If you're new here, I'm Tech, this is my channel Boot Lossophy, and usually I only review boots after I've worn them for a few months. But just after one month, I'm already in love with this, the Parkhurst Richmond Boot in Seidel's Natural Veg Retain. So I've had these Parkhurst Richmond boots for about a month. You can watch my unboxing video up here. I am so impressed by them that I thought I'd break with my own process and bring you my initial impressions after only a month's wear. Usually, I'll review my boots after I've worn them over a few months, even up to a year. I want to make sure that when I review boots, I bring you some pretty genuine impressions gathered over some real wear over some length of time. That way I hope I'm giving you some good information about how they look and wear instead of just out of the box. But these are different. I usually wear or break in new boots by wearing them every day for two weeks solid first. Then I put them into a frequent rotation, maybe two or three times a week for the next two to four weeks, before I put them into my regular rotation of over 50 boots. On some of these 50 plus pairs of boots, that might take as long as once a month. Then there are some favorites where I put them on almost every week. These are going to be favorites. They're actually factory seconds discounted from 362 US dollars to 238 dollars. To be honest, the defects are so minor as to be completely inconsequential. There was a small mark on the toe cap here. I can hardly see it now and there was some stuff up in the stitching inside the boot, sewn over a couple of times. You can't really see it. From past experience, I know that Parkhurst's quality control is pretty good. For those of you who don't know, Parkhurst is a small batch manufacturer started by founder Andrew Savisco in 2018. He really is very much a one-man bang. He focuses on unique rugged letters on rugged but sleek looking, almost vibrant like styles. Once that batch of highs is done, that makeup may be retired or put aside for a while until a fresh supply can be secured. Because of this unique need to almost hunt for a model and the very personal service from Andrew, Parkhurst attracts a very enthusiastic and loyal following. The Parkhurst Richmond boot is a cap-toe service boot. As you can see, it follows the six inch block heel design of a World War II military style boot, particularly worn by the US military. This is one of my favorite boot styles because you can mix it up. Depending on the materials used, it's a style that suits casual wear from rugged styles to smart and even business casual. Anything from jeans and chinos, and if it's a dressy enough leather, dress pads. In the Parkhurst 602 last, the foot-shaped mould that the boot is built around, it's a good cross between a roomy work boot and a sleek dressier casual boot. The 602 is a combination last. It's indeed with the heel and waist opening up to an E-width at the ball of the foot and rounding off at the toe. From the side, it looks pretty sleek, but looks like deceiving. This last volume is sufficiently generous. It doesn't have that bulbous work boot toe box like an Iron Ranger or some Pacific Northwest boots, but there's enough room to wiggle my toes in it. Let's take a look at how they're put together. But before we do a quick reminder, click on the like button to let me know you like this kind of video. If you haven't already, click on subscribe as I intend to put up way more boot reviews and unboxings. I've already made enough videos about Goodyear Well construction that you can catch up on up here, and I'll go into more detail in my longer-term review, of course. But just for now, I'll just recognise that the construction method here is a 360-degree Goodyear Well construction that connects the sole to the uppers. Goodyear Well construction is meant to be more water-resistant than simply sewing the uppers directly through the soles. Those stitch holes would let water directly inside, see? It's also meant to be easy to re-sole when we craft when the soles wear down. The sole is a Ridgway sole made by the same UK company that makes the ubiquitous daylight sole. It's a hard compound rubber made into these wavy lumps that provide commando sole grip without picking up gravel and stuff like a commando sole does. On the side, the way the wavy lumps are placed in-board, the sole doesn't stand up like a commando. Although there is height, it actually looks quite flat and slim like a Daynard sole. These Richmond boots have a Benz leather midsole, a cork filling, a fiberglass shank, a leather insole, and a leather heel pad. Combined with the Rumi Ridgway sole, they feel great on the foot. They're leather lined in the toe-box of the vat, but the shaft itself is unlined. Now, looking at the uppers, the uppers are what gets me. They are Seidel's full-grain, veg, re-tanned leather. My understanding is that in tanning this leather it's first preserved with salts to stop that rotting. And then at the start of the tanning process the salts are removed and it's tan using a variety of vegetable tannins, oils and waxes, hence re-tanned. Now, if you look at the top, it's a combination tan, but it displays all the characteristics of a veg tan leather probably because all the salts got washed away at the start of the tanning process. It has a bright, natural, undyed colour. It smells great. It has quite a firm feel and while supple feels tough it's reasonably thick, two mils, but stands pretty firm unlike other softer chrome tan leather at that thickness. It sounds quite stiff when you first put it on, but like all veg tan leathers it softens with use and becomes more supple and moulds to the shape of your foot. In this case what surprised me is that it softens so quickly after only about a week. Like all veg tan leathers it will also absorb moisture and temporarily darken and spot if you get rain on it, but it dries back to this colour pretty quickly. I put a thin smear boot conditioner in the first week I wore it to hold off and beat the moisture. As soon as I finish this I am going to condition it again with a leather balm. As you can see the leather is a matte full-gram that wears in patinas quite quickly. This is a month and it naturally feels a little dry, almost like newbuck so I think a balm will condition it and protect it without soaking in like a cream or an oil. The toe cap and heels are formed with solastic to give them shape and structure. The heel counter are external and covered by a single piece backstay which covers the heel counter and the stitching of the shaft. The toe cap is not, I think, a real toe cap. I don't think it's a layered leather on top of the leather of the vamp and the toe box but rather it's two pieces of leather that's sewn together at the cap toe stitch. In this version of the Richmond boot it's a triple stitch in a 2 plus 1 pattern. The edge of the collar is rolled and a piece of leather is sewn to back it as it is along the back of the hardware. The hardware is brass, eight big eyelets, no speed hooks, unbacked, just pressed back to hold them. In my opinion it's very nicely proportioned especially with these rounded wax laces like all Parker's boots. The tongue is unlined and semi-gusseted up to the fourth eye. When I first put them on I was quite worried about breaking them in because they felt so stiff. That's the Vagetan leather for you. But by the end of the first day they moulded to my feet and were feeling much better. By the end of the first week they were completely broken in and felt supple and form fitting. Now a month later after two weeks solid wear and about two weeks of wearing them a couple of times a week I cannot describe how supple and comfortable they are yet tough. They feel like lambskin gloves on my feet. The look of the leather and the comfort and fit is why I felt I had to do a quick review to recognise just how comfortably made these are. Even the quick breaking of the Ridgway Soul pretty hard to break into my earlier richmans in Waxy Ray's Reverse Moho they're now super comfortable under foot and absorb shock really well. I'm really taken with the natural colour. The feel of it on foot and under my hands and the way that it's softened how the leather quickly shows wear and character. A couple of years ago new quality boots and character leathers I would have cried to see all these scuffs and shifting around of oils and colours now they're a satisfaction. I can't wait to see how these are going to patina even further I fully intend to wear them as hard as I can. I'm not going to build a house or anything in them but I'm not going to baby them either they're built to be worn hard I think. Okay so that's it guys just a quick record of my initial impressions as usual I'll keep wearing them and I'll bring you a proper catch up review after somewhere maybe a year's way to see how they're holding up. In the meantime of course I'll bring you more boot reviews and unboxings so subscribe to make sure you don't miss any. Until then take care and I'll see you soon.


What is going on everybody?   I just had a shower. I'll be hitting the gym sometime today But I've had a few things in my mind lately, which are finance related so I Did I did say in a previous video that Having a mortgage is is making my finances not not so good anymore. Well, it's not the mortgage. It's not it's really not the mortgage I mean, I'm paying three seventy five a week To have my place But then on top of that you've got rates. You've got body corporate fees. You've got insurances I've got my car payment. I've got health insurance.   So what I've basically done is I've Decided not to put all my cash Onto my credit card and onto my car and everything and get down to and and pay it off I've basically decided to save my cash have them in an account and then keep like just just keep those debts At bay, you know what I mean like so just pay pay interest The principal is not really coming down But what I've done is saved my cash in other accounts and now I've got an amount That's at least five percent of a deposit of a second place Because when I first bought my place that my main goal was to buy a second one as soon as possible.