Educational Consulting & Instructional Coaching

Grade Level Analytic Rubrics Aligned to Common Core and PARCC Assessment Models

Posted on Jan 13, 2014 | 7 comments

Share This Post

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Dr. Dea has created Common Core and PARCC aligned writing rubrics.

Dr. Dea has created Common Core and PARCC aligned writing rubrics.

 

New Writing Rubrics Coming Soon…along with student friendly reflection checklists!

On Monday, September 8th, PARCC released revised rubrics for use in assessing prose constructed responses. The revised rubric is not vastly different from PARCC rubrics released in 2013; PARCC’s greatest change is the development of a separate rubric for scoring narrative writing. In the next two weeks, I will be publishing updated rubrics aligned to PARCC and the Common Core for grade K-12. The new rubrics will also provide a corresponding student reflection checklist.

In the meantime, use the rubrics shared on these pages–high quality (and really, not greatly different) from the revised editions to come. These rubrics are offered as a tool to support grade-level evaluation of writing mastery aligned to the Common Core Standards. The rubric is adaptable to assessing argument (opinion) writing, informational writing, and/or narrative. Modeled after PARCC’s expanded scoring rubric at each grade, the rubric includes PARCC’s 5 criteria for assessment: reading comprehension; development of ideas; organization; clarity of language; and knowledge of conventions. The rubric also addresses specific grade-level language standards for expected mastery.

Complete the form below to download Checklist Rubrics for Grade levels 1-11.

First
Last

Follow Me

facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

7 Comments

Join the conversation and post a comment.

  1. Deb Brady

    Dr. Conrad-Curry,
    Can you explain why you have 3 as the highest category through grade 5?
    Thanks.
    Debby Brady

  2. Deb

    Thank you for explaining PARCC’s rationale and for translating it into the classroom. I really appreciate the depth of your thinking and the work that went into this very concise and teacher-friendly rubric.
    I have been concerned that the NCLB focus on bringing everyone to proficiency put a ceiling on expectations and left high expecctations behind. Do you think that these national expectations are sufficiently high? Do these 3′s say the same thing? I know that you work with so many teachers across the U.S. and would really like your read on this. I know how carefully you’ve studied PARCC and literacy.
    Deb

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry

      I agree with your concerns regarding NCLB’s misguided thinking regarding proficiency. In my opinion, the language and expectations framed within the document is one of the many oversteps government has made in the area of education. Of course there is no error in establishing an environment of high achievement among all learners and for all teachers; however, to think that achievement for the fastest 2-footed runner can be measured with an identical tool to the runners of a three-legged race is absurd (hoping you follow my analogy). On the other hand, the Common Core Standards clearly state that they are not intended for either the gifted or the special needs: “The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students” (Common Core State Standards, p.6).

      This said, I do think the standards are sufficiently high and I do think that for the most part, PARCC’s assessment is a quality tool for measuring the standards. The unfortunate aspect to the NCLB, CCSS, Assessment (PARCC, SBAC or any of the others currently under design), is NCLB’s requirement regarding testing. If the standards are not specifically written for either the gifted or those of special needs, how can an assessment designed to measure the standards truly measure the achievement of those for whom the standards are not specifically designed? A conundrum–one I would appreciate having the opportunity to work with but no doubt, will not be invited to that table if is ever set. As I blather on…to definitively determine who is gifted and who is special needs is itself a conundrum. The fact is…some people are both…and where does that put those? Oh, methinks this is too much for a reply to a blog comment/question and more than perhaps you intended!

  3. Fran

    Dea,
    Love, love, love this idea.

    I really, really like the grouping of the standards by the headers!
    1. Would there be any form of a “Unit Organizer”?
    2. Tell me more about why you have text resources first. Would those not also be a part of the resources?
    3. I’m also wondering about the order of Assessment and Results Desired when I think about UbD planning.
    4. The new piece added by Wiggins and McTighe that I really like is “Transfer Goals”. Have you seen that? It’s that bigger piece about what students should be able to do independently.

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry

      Thanks for posting, Fran. I’m not sure what you mean by the first question…
      But you have given me pause on the second. I see the teaching texts as separate from and part of the resources list. I’ll have to go back and take a look at how I labeled that section. Question 3: Wiggins says the design I he outlines Understanding by Design is not hard and fast. In the text itself, he states you can really start in many different places. BTW, did you see his post today: How do you plan?

      So, given the food for thought you’ve offered, I’m going to take another look and see what I can do. Really appreciate your time and thoughtful attention to the work I am doing.

    • Dr. Dea Conrad-Curry

      Hello Again!
      Now I get it. I was referring to the planner as lesson planners as well as unit planners. That is “me” thing. I no longer see one day and done lessons as viable in the classroom. I also do not think four and six weeks units are very effective. Teachers and students need more change-up than that. And…I don’t believe teachers can effectively plan for periods of study that exceed two to three weeks. Therefore, I have gone to talking about multi-day lessons. But…I do see this as problematic. As a result, I have renamed the docs as unit planners but I will soon need to blog on the theories I am advancing in this comment. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
      Kind regards,
      Dea.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: