## Thursday, October 21, 2010

### News from Algebra Forum III

## Monday, October 18, 2010

### Common Core State Standards for Mathematics--Implementation Support from NCTM

**Source: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)**

# URL: http://www.nctm.org/news/highlights.aspx?id=26084&blogid=6806

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has posted a PowerPoint file on its Web site "to inform teachers and to support them in implementation of the Common Core State Standards [(CCSS)]. Other presentations for grade bands are under development and will be made available soon." Download the file from the Web page above.

Also on this Web page is a link to the joint statement in support of the CCSS issued by NCTM, the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics (ASSM), and the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics.

For more information about NCTM's initiatives related to the CCSS, read NCTM President J. Michael Shaughnessy's report located athttp://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=26483

## Tuesday, September 14, 2010

### Free Forum: Grading the Teachers: Measures, Media & Policies

Dear Colleagues -- The following free forum will be streamed live on the Internet. The event Web site (http://gse.berkeley.edu/admin/events/gradingtheteachers.html) contains a number of links that may be of interest/use.

Carol

..................

Grading the Teachers: Measures, Media & Policies

A Free Public Forum

September 27, 1:30-4:30

UC Berkeley

Banatao Auditorium

310 Sutardja Dai Hall

A national debate has raged since mid-August when the Los Angeles Times published its evaluations of 6,000 elementary school teachers in its series, "Grading the Teachers."The paper justified its decision to make the ratings available as an "an important service, and in the belief that parents and the public have a right to the information."

While President Obama's administration has made a priority of compensating teachers, at least in part, for their performance, a big part of the controversy is the evaluation method that the LA Times used in its analysis and whether the paper did enough to make the readers aware of the limitations of the "value-added" approach it employed.

"Grading the Teachers" has been a wake-up call to those in research, journalism and education circles to grapple with the evaluation, journalistic and policy issues raised by theLA Times report. On September 27, UC Berkeley answers that call by holding the first and largest public forum to consider the methods and implications of the LA Timesreport, what promising teacher evaluations are on the horizon and, ultimately, how and whether teachers and students can benefit from them.

## Thursday, September 9, 2010

### Mt. Lassen Math Council Conference

**2010 Fall Mt. Lassen Mathematics Council Conference**

**Saturday October 16, 2010**

**William G. McCallum**

*Dr. McCallum is a University Distinguished Professor of Mathematics and Head of the Department of Mathematics at the University of Arizona. Among many achievements, in 2006 he founded the Institute for Mathematics and Education at the University of Arizona. He was Director of the Institute until 2009 and now chairs its advisory board. In 2009–2010 he led the mathematics writing team that developed the NGA/CCSSO Common Core Math Standards.*

**Chico Christian School**

**2801 Notre Dame Blvd.**

**Chico, CA**

## Monday, August 2, 2010

### Common Core State Standards: Education Policy Roundtable

July 20, 2010, Sacramento

CMC Representatives: Diana Herrington, Kathy Woods

This meeting was hosted by J. O'Connell, CDE and the Council of State Governments (CSG). The meeting was financed by the Gates Foundation.

Background: The CSG supports the work of state governors. They are not a political entity. This Roundtable has been provided in many states to facilitate the conversation around the merits and challenges of adopting the CCSS. The hope was to give legislators and state educational leaders the opportunity to learn about the CCSS and to provide the time to discuss the next steps for the state if the CCSS are adopted. In that vein, the following occurred at the meeting:

The meeting began with brief introductions. Here is a laundry list of organizations in attendance: LAUSD, Fresno USD, Clovis USD, San Francisco USD, CFT, Senator Huff, CATE (Ca Assoc. of Teachers of Eng.), PTA, ACSA, CSBA, CMC, Cal Poly REp, Community College Rep, lots of leg analysts for Assembly and Senate, CTA, CPEC Rep, Curric and Frameworks folks with CDE, Undersecty of Ed, Exec Director of SBE, Chair of ACSC, UC Office of President, CSU Vice Chancellor, Charter School Assoc.

Jack O'Connell welcomed all

Pam Goins, Director of Education Policy with CSG facilitated the meeting

Chris Cross, with James B. Hunt, Jr Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy gave the background on the development of the CCSS. The most important point he made is that the CCSS came about from the state governors and state Chief Officers of Education as a need to address problematic issues in our nation - mile wide inch deep standards, lack of coordination between states, lack of preparedness for the 21st Century, and teacher/parent input that education would be better served by common standards among the states. The mantra was, "fewer, clearer, higher" as the standards were developed. The effort by the governors followed the work of national professional organizations with content specific standards. The CCSS are a result of state (48) initiative - not the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration has accelerated their adoption by states with the gift of funds - ARRA Funding (RTTT). As of July 20 am, the state of NY had adopted the CCSS becoming the 26th state to do so - Mass was expected to follow suite soon.

California has joined the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) Consortium for the development of common assessments for common standards in grades K-8. Florida is the Procurement Manager State, 26 states in the Consortium are identified as Governing States. The rest of the states - Ca included - are participating. These two levels seem to indicate the kind of input the state has in the process. CA can still choose to become a Governing State member.

There are two other assessment consortiums that will develop the High School common assessments for the high school common standards.

All of the assessment consortiums are discussing the use of computer assisted/adaptive formats for assessments with results that can be returned almost instantaneously.

Adopting the CCSS is the easiest part of the work. The adoption begs the question: What about implementation? Implementation strategies will need to be developed in 4 areas:

1. Curriculum

2. Teacher prep and PD

3. Student Supports

4. Assessment - and later Performance Standards that will come out of the content standards.

Cross wanted folks to understand that the issues related to the RTTT and reauthorization of ESEA are separate from the CCSS. Those other issues will need to be worked out by states as they apply for funding. THe CCSS can be used by any state - the adoption of the CCSS became an issue when funding for the state became a part of the picture. He wanted folks to know that these were separate conversations in Education. He also said that the reauthorization process would like be stalled with the current congress and that the discussion will likely start up again, after the election and initial confusion that follows with new congressional representatives.

Greg Geeting, Chair of the ACSC, gave a report of the work of the ACSC. ACSC is recommending CCSS in its entirety with the exception of the ELA appendices, which was huge. Additions to ELA: Penmanship, poetry recitations and one other that I did not catch.

Additions to math: 8th grade CCSS as the "national pathway," Pre Alg Pathway and a "full course of Algebra - a collection of standards that represent Algebra 1 - but to be determined by the local level." Additionally Ca added as its 15% augmentation the CA standards for Calculus, Probability and Statistics.

Geeting felt his job was to listen to the Commissioners. Comments by one commissioner, Dr. M. Kurst (sp?) seemed particularly meaningful to him. Geeting also stated that a concern of the ACSC was who would be in charge of the CCSS once they were in practice, since over time it would seem that these standards would need to be revised. He stated that the weakness of the CA standards is that there was no avenue for revision. He also stressed that it would be important for CA to develop a transition plan as we move from CA standards to CA/CCSS.

Kathryn R-Gaither, Undersecty of Ed gave an overview of the RTTT application. She believes the version created by the 7 districts - most of which are from the Central Valley (sorry about that plug...) - was a much stronger version than the one submitted by the state. On July 26, the finalists for the RTTT will be identified (Ca has since been identified as a finalist). That is not a guarantee of funding - just that they move on to further consideration for the decision for RTTT funding to be made in Sept. This application focuses on the District rather than individual schools, the districts also had well established data systems for monitoring students to use as evidence for that portion of the grant - systems that are better developed than what the state currently offers. Authoring Districts spoke to the application. When writing the RTTT, their assumption was that the CCSS would be in place, and they plan to move in that direction whether CA gets funding or not. Their grant suggests that there needs to be more flexibility in operation with a movement to local control. The state can be "tight" on the "what" of instruction but must be "loose" on the "how" of instruction (strong PLC language there!) They suspect that getting the RTTT will mean that " the adoption cycle construct will no longer be of value." New processes will need to be developed that match what the district needs to manage the "how" of instruction. They stated that the states that seem to be making the quickest gains in closing the gap are those where the state sets education policy and not education procedure. Districts also want choice in who they work with and a reciprocal relationship in terms of IHEs for teacher preparation.

Deb Sigman with CDE gave a presentation on the expectations for common assessments for the CCSS. Expectations are for:

1. Common procedures for who is to be assessed and how the assessment is given for the states within a consortium.

2. States will have to adopt common assessment procedures

3. States will have to adopt common set of item release policies

4. States will have to adopt common test security procedures

5. States will have to adopt common definition of "EL Student"

6. States will have to adopt common policies for students participation and accommodations

Currently, CA spends $51 million for the STAR. If we get RTTT, we will get $160 million for the development of a new assessment system for the consortium states.

Key Dates:

By Spring 2011 we will have completed 2-6 as noted above.

By Summer 2011 we will have CCSS in place.

By 2011/12 piloting of assessment will begin.

By 2012-13 and 2013-14 Field testing will take place.

By Summer 2014 we will have a common set of descriptors for CCSS.

By 2014/15 year, implementation of new assessments will begin.

By Summer 2015 we will have common set of performance and achievement standards. We will also have created the cut scores for proficiency in ELA and Math.

The new assessment will be given 4 times a year, with 25% of the content covered each time. The full test will have been completed by the last implementation. This will allow for faster return of results and will help with pacing, scope and sequence. The assessment events will be summative in nature - not common formative assessments. This format for assessment is expected to provide opportunities for more in depth analysis, multiple measures, opportunities to inform instruction. It will also be a difficult assessment to put together.

PARCC test item types: constructed response and performance tasks. Tests will be given by computers as states have developed that capacity. All consortiums will develop the assessments for the CCSS. However, if a state has prescribed something unique for a grade level - say Algebra in 8th grade, that state would be responsible for the development - cost and effort - of that test.

Until implementation of the new assessment in 2014-15, states will be held accountable to current NCLB process - unless reauthorization changes that. So there will be use of the CST test through 2014-2015 - although it will also be field testing the CCSS items as well.

From there we had lunch and broke into small groups to brainstorm recommendations for transition. Small groups reported out their work. Diana and I should be receiving copies of that work to share with CMC.

## Sunday, August 1, 2010

## Sunday, July 25, 2010

### CMC Statement on the actions of the ACSC

July 24, 2010

On July 15, the California Academic Content Standards Commission (ACSC) approved the recommendation for adoption of an augmented version of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics to the State Board of Education (SBE). The California Mathematics Council (CMC), a statewide organization of classroom teachers, mathematics educators, mathematicians, and parents, endorses this recommendation.

Twelve years ago California started an ambitious project, development and implementation of state-wide standards with the goal of algebra for all in 8th grade. However, over the years we learned and experienced the shortcomings of our state standards in mathematics: too many standards, lack of focus and coherence, and the lack of 8th grade standards for students not prepared to take algebra. The augmented CCSS improves our current state standards by addressing all of these issues.

Arguments have been made that the recommended kindergarten through 7^{th} grade standards do not adequately prepare students to take Algebra I in 8^{th} grade. CMC disagrees. In the early grades, the CCSS have placed a much greater emphasis on number sense and other foundational skills so important for success in mathematics. Many students who struggle in algebra are weak in these foundational skills, which lead to a lack of understanding of important topics such as fractions, ratio, proportion, and similarity. By following the California Standards Test (CST) data for the first group of students to be assessed on their ability to master our current state standards from kindergarten through 8^{th} grade, it is obvious that these standards do not adequately prepare all students for algebra. The longer students take math, the worse they do regardless of ethnicity. Overall, there is a 12-percentage point drop in scores from 2^{nd} to 7^{th} grade. If the goal is to have all 8^{th} graders taking algebra, we need to do a better job of preparing them.

When California created the current standards in 1998, kindergarten through 7^{th} grade standards were developed along with secondary course level standards: Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. The goal was that all students would eventually take Algebra I in 8^{th} grade and be successful in that course. The lack of 8th grade standards other than algebra had unintended negative consequences for both districts and students. Districts that tested students in a course such as a two-year Algebra I or Algebra Readiness had to assess with the General Math CST, which is considered below grade level by the federal government. Additionally, the state of California penalizes schools by reducing the Academic Performance Index (API) score for schools when students take the General Math CST instead of the Algebra I CST in 8^{th} grade. To avoid this sanction, many districts placed all 8th grade students in algebra whether they were ready or not. Students, who were unprepared, were set up for failure by the people who tried to ensure their success. In 2008-2009, 54% of all 8^{th} graders took the Algebra CST, but only 44% of these students scored proficient or above. About 80,000 more students took the Algebra CST as 8^{th} graders than were proficient and above in all of 7^{th} grade. Thus many, if not most, of these students were inadequately prepared for a course they likely repeated the following year. In 2008-2009, 13% of 11^{th} graders and 26% of 10^{th} graders were still taking the Algebra CST with only 8% and 11% of those students scoring proficient or above respectively. While algebra is important, it is equally important to ensure that students have the opportunity to be successful in algebra the first time they take it.

The newly recommended CCSS standards, which include the Standards for Mathematical Practice, provide an opportunity for California K – 8 students to build a solid foundation with experiences in mathematical thinking that will lead to stronger and deeper understanding of mathematics. The CCSS were designed so that students are prepared for algebra and beyond.

Because many of our current students are inadequately prepared for 8^{th} grade algebra, the ACSC recommended options for generating success: a set of CCSS that include Algebra 1 in the 8^{th} grade in addition to the 8^{th} grade CCSS standards as written. While some may see this action as a form of tracking, this is an alternative for students other than repeating courses covering the same content. Failure in a course for which they are inadequately prepared has a more damaging effect than having an extra year to build a solid foundation for success. Strong mathematics instruction coupled with the CCSS standards, will prepare students from kindergarten on to be successful in algebra in grade 8.

Historically, California has offered options in completing mathematics requirements for students. Students could enroll in Advance Placement (AP) classes or take the Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II classes without the AP designation. Both of these student populations were able to pursue college entry, regardless of the option chosen. This precedence in our state exemplifies that options for mathematics instruction can be offered without creating a tracking mechanism leading to remediation. However, this is only part of the picture. Foundational to CMC is the belief that all students have the capacity to become mathematically competent and confident when provided a rigorous and challenging mathematical program supported by high expectations. While we are pleased that some students have had flexibility in how they pursue advanced mathematics, we are discouraged that a very large segment of our student population has been left out of the equation entirely. The current set of options, which provides success for some students, does not address the fact that it is children of color, children of low income and children who do not speak English who end up with limited access to or success in the course that serves as the gateway to college and career success. Taking Algebra 1 ad nauseam is not a viable option for students. CMC recommends that other options for meeting the needs of the diverse student population in our state must be considered if we are truly committed to equity.

Equity is not as simple as placement in an algebra class or a declaration of algebra enrollment at a predetermined grade. If that were all that mattered, we would not be struggling with this very emotional issue now. Genuine equity unites words **and** actions in the development of a plan that assures students emerge from the algebra class successful and ready to learn more mathematics. For more than 75 years, CMC has been a professional organization dedicated to effective classroom instruction. As educators, we have much to bring to the conversation about moving all of our children through algebra and into advanced mathematics instruction. We are confident that with thoughtful dialogue that includes a critical review of our instructional data, our state can develop viable options that address the needs of all of our students, regardless of their starting point in learning mathematics.

While our current state standards may have been considered world class when they were designed, they were based on information and research that is now 15 years old. Since then we have learned a great deal more about how other countries teach mathematics and how children learn. The developers of the CCSS used this new information to create standards that are internationally benchmarked and prepare students for career and college readiness.

CMC congratulates the members of the Academic Content Standards Commission for their commitment to improve education for students and create more opportunities for success as they prepare for college, careers, and their role as productive citizens. While the process was complicated with disagreements and short timelines, the commissioners persevered to find solutions ensuring that California's children have a bright future in mathematics.

The Governor and legislature have commended the work of the ACSC. The adoption of the CCSS standards by the SBE is the next logical step to continue the process for improving education in mathematics for California's children.

The California Mathematics Council stands ready to support all aspects of the implementation of the CCSS standards.

## Thursday, July 22, 2010

### Recommended ELA and Math Standards available

http://www.cmc-math.org/news/commoncore.html

## Friday, July 16, 2010

### Two articles in Ed Week on California's CCSS adoption

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/07/calif_commission_says_yesno_to.html

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/07/more_details_emerge_on_calif_a.html

### Secretary of Education Issues Statement on Academic Content Standards Commission

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 16, 2010 Contact: Aaron McLear Andrea McCarthy

916-445-4571

Secretary of Education Issues Statement on Academic Content Standards Commission

Commission Recommends that State Board of Education Adopt Enhanced Common Core Standards

Secretary of Education Bonnie Reiss today issued the following statement applauding the work of the Academic Content Standards Commission:

"Last night, dedicated Californians serving on the Academic Content Standards Commission, tasked with reviewing the Common Core State Standards on math and English language arts, finished weeks of hard work. Their task to ensure that these standards met or exceeded the state's already rigorous standards and would better serve our students as they prepare for college and the workforce was certainly not easy; and I applaud their commitment to California's children.

"The Governor is especially pleased that the Commission added Algebra 1 to the 8th grade math standards, which education experts agree is a critical factor in college and career readiness. These standards that have been recommended for approval will continue California's high expectations and our belief that every student is capable of learning and success."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

### Videos from last night's ACSC decisions posted

### Final ACSC descision

http://educatedguess.org/2010/07/16/common-core-with-8th-grade-algebra-endorsed/

## Thursday, July 15, 2010

### Approved!

Thanks to everyone who contributed to getting this work complete. Now onto the Framework. Our work is never done!

### ACSC proceedings July 15

Submitted by Gretchen Muller

8:15 AM ELA passed.

20 minute break to review math documents before any further discussion.

8:45 AM

Bruce Grip – Doesn't want to loose the ability to have integrated courses in the high school.

Scott Farrand and Heather Calahan presented a revised version of their plan.

These are the Algebra 1 standards whether they are in 8^{th} grade or not. This is what all students need to know after completing.

Scott Hill – public statement. Heard that there was general agreement about what constitutes 8^{th} grade standards. Adopt an 8^{th} grade standards package and let the SBE define through the framework what would be 8^{th} grade and what would be Algebra.

Heather Calahan – trying to work out a compromise. Yesterday, tried to present a starting place for conversation. What we put forth yesterday was not meant to be perfect and a final product. Right now want to look at 8 CA standards that we feel need input from the commission. Discussion has been limited to 5 minutes per item.

10:10 AM Discussion about the standards of mathematical practice.

10:15 AM Discussion began on considering the SCOE additional 15% considerations at grade 2.

11:35 AM break (done with 3^{rd} except one standard that needed language added)

11:45 AM Continue discussion on 4^{th} grade CCSS

12:45 PM Break for lunch

1:15 PM Public comment by Gretchen Muller regarding that our current state standards are based on information and research that is 15 years old and that since then we have learned a lot more about international comparisons and how children learn. The CCSS have taken this new information into account and she would hope that the commission would take that into account. While CA standards may have been world class when they were designed, a lot has changed. Also the job of how we educate our children does not stop with the standards. The process continues with the development of the framework. The standards tell us what and the framework tells us how. A lot more detail can go into the framework that addresses the concerns you have as well has giving guidance to publishers to develop the instructional materials. The framework committee will have people just as passionate and committed as you with many opportunities for input and more time than you have been given to look at these standards.

continue discussion on 4^{th} grade CCSS

Commissioners are getting frustrated by the tedious process of examining each of Wurman's suggestions, many of which would change the intent of the CCSS.

1:30 PM finished with grade 4, finished the 3^{rd} grade, begin discussion of 5^{th} grade.

2:00 PM Scott Farrand proposed that in order to speed things up, that we go through the SCOE document and only address those proposed changes as they are most important.

Motion passes.

Public comment – Kathy Geither: Does the SCOE document alone adequately prepare students for Algebra in 8^{th} grade? SCOE said yes.

2:15 PM discussion on 8^{th} grade Algebra begins.

3:25 PM break

3:39 PM discussion of 7^{th} grade standards, moving some of the 8^{th} grade CCSS standards to 7^{th} grade

4:10 PM Public comment Mary Alicia McCray spoke to repeated standards and the difficulty assessing repeated standards. Teach to mastery at the grade level.

Discussion about moving 7^{th} grade standards to 6^{th}. Discussion about interpretation of allowable moving CCSS standards "cut and paste" vs "copy and paste". Copy and paste interpretation won.

4:50 PM Pat Sabo moved to approve the 8^{th} grade CCSS as written.

Kathy Geither adopt a comprehensive mathematics package and not just an 8^{th} grade.

Scott Farrand made an amended motion to include the 8^{th} grade CCSS and the 8^{th} grade Alg package.

Motions passed.

5:30 - 8 pm Not Present at the meeting. continued discussion on 5-7 standards and began discussion on HS standards. Decision to continue working until midnight at the latest. Discussion on HS standards postponed.

8 PM – Chuck Weis moved to adopt the K-7 standards as amended. Scott Farrand congratulated the commission on getting to this point. Both Bill Evers and Ze'ev Wurman are against the proposal. They don't think it is good enough.

Public comment by Pat Rucker CTA is concerned that a two track system has been created in grade 8 and about to approve K-7 standards that will feed into that tracking system.

Motion passed.

8:30 Chuck Weis moved to adopt the ELA introductory documents. Bill Evers is opposed as he thinks it is not part of the standards and out of their perview.

Several people are speaking in favor of adopting as this is the only document in the ELA portion of CCSS that mentions English Learners.

8:48 Scott Farrand issue before the house is HS math. He would like to use the document he and Heather put together.

9:05 discussion started on HS standards. This has been limited to 75 minutes. Tempers are starting to flare.

## Wednesday, July 14, 2010

### Blog entry from Educated Guess

> www.educatedguess.org

>

> Quest for compromise on common core

> In a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger that it disseminated in the days leading to a critical vote, an influential group of K-12 and university educators, researchers and policymakers has urged the adoption of the Common Core standards in English language arts and math.

>

> "We believe that the Common Core Standards represent the next crucial step in ensuring California's education system once again leads the way in quality and rigor," Jennifer O'Day wrote on behalf of the California Collaborative on District Reform.

>

>

> Members of the collaborative include former Deputy State Superintendent Rick Miller; Arun Ramanathan, executive director of Education Trust-West; Fresno Unified Supt. Michael Hanson; Holly Jacobson, assistant executive director of the California School Boards Assn.; Ellen Moir, CEO of the New Teacher Center in Santa Cruz; and several noted researchers and foundation leaders. O'Day is a research scientist with the American Institutes for Research.

>

> By tomorrow afternoon, it will become clearer whether the state is going to adopt common core standards as the guideposts for a new curriculum, textbook revisions and future assessments. The 21-member California State Content Standards Commission must decide whether to recommend the national standards intact or with changes to the State Board of Education. This morning, the commission is expected to pass the English language arts standards with some additions incorporating California's current standards.

>

> From there, it's anyone guess. In California, debate on math standards always comes around to Algebra I – whether it should be taught to all students in eighth grade, as Gov. Schwarzenegger and the State Board of Education advocate. Common core standards permit this, but don't push it; instead, strands of algebra would be taught from sixth through ninth grades.

>

> Some commissioners, led by Bill Evers of the Hoover Institution and Ze'ev Wurman, a software engineer from Palo Alto, will likely call for incorporating the state's algebra standards into common core eighth grade standards, while some of the practicing teachers on the commission, frustrated with pushing algebra on students who aren't ready for it, will likely argue to leave common core intact, with between a half and two-thirds of algebra taught after eighth grade.

>

> Both sides will argue that rigor, like God, is on their side.

>

> In her letter, O'Day of the California Collaborative on District Reform states the case for common-core adoption:

>

> "The Common Core Standards are as rigorous as California's current standards. By starting with anchor standards rooted in what it takes to be college- and career-ready and then linking the standards across all grades back to that outcome, the Common Core maintains the rigorous expectations of California's current standards and accountability system."

> "The Common Core Standards in mathematics provide clear steps across the grades to prepare students for success in algebra, a gateway course for both college and career."

> "The Common Core would strengthen our ability to ensure that all California students have equitable access to a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum."

> Focus on 15 percent changes

>

> The sponsors of common core – the National Governors Assn. and the Council of Chief

> State School Officers – are allowing states to supplement common core with up to 15 percent additional standards, although measuring what constitutes that number is imprecise.

>

> The Collaborative on District Reform urges the standards commission to refrain from big changes: "We urge the state to keep any expansion of the Common Core to a minimum so that the Common Core in California will in fact allow deeper exploration of fewer content strands."

>

> Rather than get bogged down in intricate wording changes, the collaborative recommends a two-step process: Adopt common core now and then return at a later date to augment the standards.

>

> But that's not likely to happen, because the Standards Commission goes out of business after Thursday, and the State Board, which is to meet on Aug. 2 to vote common core, with changes, up or down, has no authority to alter what the Standards Commission recommends.

>

> The word I hear is that members of the commission have been working frantically to draft extensive revisions to common core centering on Algebra I, while not messing too much with K-6 common core math standards – an acknowledgment that they're pretty good.

>

> I also hear there's a strong behind-the-scenes effort to compromise.

>

> Perhaps sensing they may not have a majority, Schwarzenegger's folks may be backing off universal Algebra in eighth grade, while still making it a long-term goal. There would be an intact algebra course in eighth grade for the majority of students; currently about 60 percent take it either in seventh or eighth grade, although many repeat it in ninth grade. Shifting some common-core seventh and eighth grade standards down a grade in theory would prepare even more California students to take algebra by eighth grade.

>

> At least that's one option of many. If last week's meetings were a prelude, the next two days' votes will be confusing, and discussions will be difficult. If common core's defenders go toe to toe with Evers, who can be abrupt and imperious, the debate should be interesting, if not tense.

>

> Catch it if you can here.BLOG

>

> www.educatedguess.org

>

> Quest for compromise on common core

> In a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger that it disseminated in the days leading to a critical vote, an influential group of K-12 and university educators, researchers and policymakers has urged the adoption of the Common Core standards in English language arts and math.

>

> "We believe that the Common Core Standards represent the next crucial step in ensuring California's education system once again leads the way in quality and rigor," Jennifer O'Day wrote on behalf of the California Collaborative on District Reform.

>

>

> Members of the collaborative include former Deputy State Superintendent Rick Miller; Arun Ramanathan, executive director of Education Trust-West; Fresno Unified Supt. Michael Hanson; Holly Jacobson, assistant executive director of the California School Boards Assn.; Ellen Moir, CEO of the New Teacher Center in Santa Cruz; and several noted researchers and foundation leaders. O'Day is a research scientist with the American Institutes for Research.

>

> By tomorrow afternoon, it will become clearer whether the state is going to adopt common core standards as the guideposts for a new curriculum, textbook revisions and future assessments. The 21-member California State Content Standards Commission must decide whether to recommend the national standards intact or with changes to the State Board of Education. This morning, the commission is expected to pass the English language arts standards with some additions incorporating California's current standards.

>

> From there, it's anyone guess. In California, debate on math standards always comes around to Algebra I – whether it should be taught to all students in eighth grade, as Gov. Schwarzenegger and the State Board of Education advocate. Common core standards permit this, but don't push it; instead, strands of algebra would be taught from sixth through ninth grades.

>

> Some commissioners, led by Bill Evers of the Hoover Institution and Ze'ev Wurman, a software engineer from Palo Alto, will likely call for incorporating the state's algebra standards into common core eighth grade standards, while some of the practicing teachers on the commission, frustrated with pushing algebra on students who aren't ready for it, will likely argue to leave common core intact, with between a half and two-thirds of algebra taught after eighth grade.

>

> Both sides will argue that rigor, like God, is on their side.

>

> In her letter, O'Day of the California Collaborative on District Reform states the case for common-core adoption:

>

> "The Common Core Standards are as rigorous as California's current standards. By starting with anchor standards rooted in what it takes to be college- and career-ready and then linking the standards across all grades back to that outcome, the Common Core maintains the rigorous expectations of California's current standards and accountability system."

> "The Common Core Standards in mathematics provide clear steps across the grades to prepare students for success in algebra, a gateway course for both college and career."

> "The Common Core would strengthen our ability to ensure that all California students have equitable access to a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum."

> Focus on 15 percent changes

>

> The sponsors of common core – the National Governors Assn. and the Council of Chief

> State School Officers – are allowing states to supplement common core with up to 15 percent additional standards, although measuring what constitutes that number is imprecise.

>

> The Collaborative on District Reform urges the standards commission to refrain from big changes: "We urge the state to keep any expansion of the Common Core to a minimum so that the Common Core in California will in fact allow deeper exploration of fewer content strands."

>

> Rather than get bogged down in intricate wording changes, the collaborative recommends a two-step process: Adopt common core now and then return at a later date to augment the standards.

>

> But that's not likely to happen, because the Standards Commission goes out of business after Thursday, and the State Board, which is to meet on Aug. 2 to vote common core, with changes, up or down, has no authority to alter what the Standards Commission recommends.

>

> The word I hear is that members of the commission have been working frantically to draft extensive revisions to common core centering on Algebra I, while not messing too much with K-6 common core math standards – an acknowledgment that they're pretty good.

>

> I also hear there's a strong behind-the-scenes effort to compromise.

>

> Perhaps sensing they may not have a majority, Schwarzenegger's folks may be backing off universal Algebra in eighth grade, while still making it a long-term goal. There would be an intact algebra course in eighth grade for the majority of students; currently about 60 percent take it either in seventh or eighth grade, although many repeat it in ninth grade. Shifting some common-core seventh and eighth grade standards down a grade in theory would prepare even more California students to take algebra by eighth grade.

>

> At least that's one option of many. If last week's meetings were a prelude, the next two days' votes will be confusing, and discussions will be difficult. If common core's defenders go toe to toe with Evers, who can be abrupt and imperious, the debate should be interesting, if not tense.

>

> Catch it if you can here.

>

### ACSC Meetings July 14, 2010

submitted by Gretchen Muller

General observations:

The day started with introductions and after a quick removal of objections over adding rigor to the math criteria, discussion continued on the ELA standards until lunch. After lunch discussion started on math. It's obvious that Evers is using stalling tactics. Again the commission got bogged down on procedural issues that took up valuable time. At this point, unless something miraculous happens, it looks like neither the recommendation to adopt ELA or math standards will come through. The ELA are close but it depends on when the commission takes them up again – first thing in the morning or after the math discussion. The math discussion is very nit picky by Wurman. A lot of discussion about 8th grade Algebra course and how to prepare students. Concerns about the discussion of pathways could be interpreted at tracking. Some commissioners have brought up the issue that designing courses is not part of their charge. I did record audio from the math portion of the day and will work on posting that material later.

Greg Geeting went over the agenda for the day.

Pat Sabo spoke regarding the daunting task of analyzing the math standards. She urged the chair to allow all commissioners to speak before calling on others to speak multiple times.

Discussion regarding the adoption of a 5^{th} criteria regarding rigor. Scott Farrand pointed out that part of their discussion regarding rigor pertained to an overall evaluation of the standards and not an item by item analysis.

The criteria used to analyze the math standards are as follows.

1. Substantively enhance

2. Address a perceived gap

3. Be defensible to classroom practitioners

4. The original standard remains intact

5. Ensure that the rigor of California's existing standards is maintained.

Commission continued discussion on the ELA standards and proposed changes. A lot of discussion on pronouns and recitation/memorization. Also a lot of discussion regarding dictionaries.

More discussion on the introduction and prefatory sections of the standards. Further discussion has been postponed to tomorrow so that the commissioners can have a chance to look over these sections.

Pat Rucker from CTA spoke in support of adoption of the CCSS.

After lunch, Pat Sabo made a motion to accept the CCSS standards 8 – K as written with a second pathway leading to 8^{th} grade algebra with consideration of proposals that have been worked on.

Discussion on clarity of the motion. Motion seconded by Robert Ellis.

A substitute motion made by Evers, proposing that two common core pathways. One Algebra in 8^{th} grade and another common core 8^{th} grade that would involve more grades level paths than just 8^{th} grade. Starts with the common core standards being part of the work that is being done.

1^{st} vote on Algebra and the note on unprepared students being pushed into 8^{th} grade. Part of this is looking at the proposals

2^{nd} looking at K-5

3^{rd} look at 6-7

4^{th} look at HS courses

Discussion about whether or not HS course pathways are part of their charge.

Wurman seconded

Weiss – concerned that the motion is too complex for the commission to act on. Asks that the motion be removed.

Wurman asks that both motions be withdrawn.

Farrand argued against the substitute motion so that we can move as quickly as possible and move in favor the Sabo motion so that we can get to the business at hand.

Evers his motion proposes a process. Sabo's does not.

Sabo – would accept a friendly amendment to start with Algebra.

Freathy – supports Farrand

Evers withdraws motion, but includes unanimous consent to start with Algebra 1. Not withdrawn. Wurman objected.

Wurman – wants Sabo's motion withdrawn so that we can look at all of the documents without approving the CCSS first.

Weis – against the motion. Concerned that "pathways" means tracking.

Evers - If we don't have pathways, we can't have students taking Algebra in 8^{th} grade. I think it's racist not to have pathways.

Farrand – frustrated that debate on the motion is not occurring and other issues are coming up. I move to close debate. Seconded.

Passed – no further debate on the substitute motion.

Evers requested a roll call vote.

Evers is using stalling tactics.

20 minutes spent on whether or not to do a roll call vote. Defeated (wurman and evers yeah)

Substitute motion – defeated (W-E only yeah)

Evers – I amend this motion to include algebra. Sabo accepted. Seconded by Ellis.

Kathy Gaitner – urged the commission to take other action than this motion.

Evers wants to change the motion to look at two pathways before algebra. Seconded by Ellis.

A lot of frustration expressed by the commissioners. Want to move on to the actual discussion.

Sabo – main motion and amendment withdrawn.

Sue Stickel – proposes that the two proposals be presented then discuss Algebra, then talk about how to proceed through the grade levels.

Scott Farrand presented his proposal. Talked to MDTP group, Achieve Pathways, Jason Zimba, Evers/Wurman proposals. Believes there should be algebra in the 8^{th} grade. Each group had a problem in how to prepare students. Many of the 8^{th} grade CCSS prepare students for Algebra. Sensitive to the problem and how tracking could be a result. Their proposal does not have two different 7^{th} grade courses to differentiate students going into Algebra.

Needed 8^{th} grade Algebra course to subsume some of the 8^{th} grade CCSS. 5 standards would be moved to the 7^{th} grade and still remain at the CCSS 8^{th} grade.

Lori – there are less standards than the CA but that is not a bad thing. 7^{th} grade teachers feel they have too much to cover. I think that adding the 5 standards into 7^{th} grade would not impact the 7^{th} grade CCSS.

Deborah Keys – Can you help me understand pedagogically where students can start to fall off the boat?

Farrand response – CCSS looked at the A+ countries and what they do. CCSS give students the foundation they need especially in number sense. Fractions are also a big area that can "doom" students. Students typically lack the understanding of what a fraction is.

Calahan – there is an unculturing of the curriculum and allows the students to focus on number sense in the early grades.

Grip – This proposal allows a student to take the K-7 courses then either take an 8^{th} grade course or algebra.

Callahan – the 8^{th} grade algebra course includes more of the modeling standards of the CCSS than many traditional Algebra courses and the 8^{th} grade CCSS are incorporated so the 8^{th} grade Algebra 1 course is more integrated.

Jim Lanich – 8^{th} grade Algebra placement is a civil rights issue. This is a preparation challenge.

Evers – wants clarification on the number of standards.

Farrand – this is what we struggled with. Concerned about overpacking courses. Didn't want to have a tracking system in 8^{th} grade.

Lengthy discussion about discrepancy between the larger number of standards that would constitute the 8^{th} grade Algebra course and 7^{th} grade.

Wurman raised an issue about how to assess all of the standards in the 8^{th} grade Algebra course.

Calahan – a mathematically rich task can assess many standards.

Break

Sabo – she does not believe that it is the charge of this commission to make courses.

Wurman – presented his proposal

In grades K-5, a significant amount of content is missing from Common Core. Middle School – if I were to place an algebra course in grade 8, there would be a significant hump in grade 8 so he tried to spread the hump over grades 6-8. One path for all K-5 and then two paths to Algebra or PreAlgebra in 8^{th} grade starting in 6^{th} grade. Not happy with this because of two paths through HS, but is the best that he could come up with.

Evers asked Wurman – what if you just spread out the standards across the two grades (6^{th} and 7^{th}) and every student take the "upper track". He doesn't like the hump in Scott's 8^{th} grade Algebra.

Calahan – We are giving more weight to the number of standards than we should. Illustrated that we do not teach standards as separate entities, but teach them as an integrated package.

Concern that this would track students starting in 6^{th} grade.

Wurman – it's not tracking but laning.

Lori - Einstein doing the same thing but expecting the same results.

Wurman – is there a better way of doing it, and would one of these proposals be better than let's do it.

### Bill Evers proposed notes to accompany the ACSC report to the SBE tomorrow.

The Commission has acted throughout our deliberations on the understanding that the 2009 College and Career Readiness Standards by the CCSI have been superseded, have not been part of our deliberations, and are not part of our recommendations.

The Commission has acted throughout our deliberations on the understanding that the Common Core Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects are part of the Common Core standards that we are recommending to the SBE, that these technical-literacy standards apply to the reading and writing that would take place in history/social studies, science, and technical classrooms, and these standards are not meant to add responsibilities to the ELA teacher.

## Thursday, July 8, 2010

### Handouts from July 6 and 7 ACSC posted

The handouts include the presentations by Drs. Wu and Milgram as well as the suggested changes to the math CCSS by Bill Evers.

### ACSC July 7 Public Comment

^{th}and 8

^{th}grade math at Ishi Hills Middle School in Oroville,CA. The community I work in is very poor economically, but the team of teachers I work with is strong and we have so far met all our AYP and API goals and have stayed out of PI.

^{th}and then into 8

^{th}. After the 6, 7, 8 sequence we should have students very well prepared for the 9

^{th}grade Algebra 1 course. The entire K-12 math standards will give students the computational skills they need but more importantly teach them to use mathematical reasoning and how to solve problems.

^{th}graders took Algebra 1. We decided to increase that percentage with the important principal that students should take Algebra 1 and succeed the first time. We measure success in Algebra 1 as scoring at least proficient on the Algebra 1 CST and for many years around 90% of our students have done that. For 2010-2011 we will be up to 40% of our 8th graders in Algebra1, again maintaining the principal that all Algebra 1 students succeed the first time.

It is a terrible disservice to any student to have them take Algebra 1 in 8

^{th}grade and fail and then have to take it again in 9

^{th}grade when it was known before hand they were almost sure to fail the first time. When we make the decisions about assigning students to 8

^{th}grade Algebra 1 we discuss several sources of data on each student including the CSU Algebra Readiness test and 7

^{th}grade teacher recommendation.

I mention this because I don't think we can improve the 40% very fast. Setting Algebra 1 as the 8

^{th}grade course immediately is not possible for us or the hundreds of schools like us. Only 18% of our 7th and 8th teachers have single subject math credentials. We are still using 10 year old math books because there is no money for new books. Our district is proposing increased class sizes. We had a summer school class at the end of 6th grade for students who needed a little boost to get them to 7th grade level and possibly ready for Algebra 1 in 8th grade and our district ended it for financial reasons. We have increasing numbers of students whose families are in disarray and even substantial numbers of students in foster care.

My school has stayed out of PI status by the skin of our teeth so putting all of our 8th graders in Algebra 1 will doom us to being added to the list of failing schools.

^{th}grade?

^{th}grade and turn it into Algebra 1 is it would then be necessary to make substantial changes in the 6

^{th}and 7

^{th}grade standards to accelerate students enough to be ready for Algebra 1 in 8

^{th}grade.

^{th}grade course.

^{th}grade course. This is just not possible, so making Algebra 1 the required course would guarantee that California will fail.

### ACSC Public Comment by Deborah Burfeind

**Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program:**

**Summary of 2009 Results in Mathematics**

Grade | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Change in Percentage2008–2009 | Change in Percentage2003–2009 |

Grade 2 | 53 | 51 | 56 | 58 | 59 | 59 | 63 | 4 | 10 |

Grade 3 | 46 | 48 | 54 | 57 | 58 | 61 | 64 | 3 | 18 |

Grade 4 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 54 | 56 | 61 | 66 | 5 | 21 |

Grade 5 | 35 | 38 | 44 | 48 | 49 | 51 | 57 | 6 | 22 |

Grade 6 | 34 | 35 | 40 | 42 | 42 | 44 | 49 | 5 | 15 |

Grade 7 | 30 | 33 | 37 | 41 | 39 | 41 | 43 | 2 | 13 |

General Mathematics | 20 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 21 | 27 | 26 | -1 | 6 |

Algebra I ^{†} | 21 | 18 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 3 | 7 |

First time test takers | 26 | 28 | 31 | 3 | 5** | ||||

Repeat test takers | 15 | 17 | 21 | 4 | 6** | ||||

Geometry | 26 | 24 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 24 | 26 | 2 | 0 |

Algebra II | 29 | 24 | 26 | 25 | 27 | 27 | 28 | 1 | -1 |