Wednesday, July 7, 2010

ACSC Day 4 Notes - July 7, 2010

ACSC Day 4 Notes

July 7, 2010

submitted by Gretchen Muller


The day started with a conference call with Dr. Wu. He was on the committee that developed the CCSS math standards. Afterwards the commission continued the discussion on the ELA standards until lunch. After lunch, there was some public comment from one of the remote sites and then a conference call with Dr. Milgram. Dr. Milgram was on the CCSS validation committee. The last hour of the day was spent on presentations by the SCOE staff on the HS crosswalks and the draft of suggested items for the 15% additions in K-7. There was some debate about adding another criteria for evaluating the math CCSS, but this was postponed to the beginning of the meeting next Wednesday.


Dr. Wu – Handout (I will scan and post).

CCSS much more coherent. Pays much more attention to what students need to do well in mathematics. Currently are students really prepared for the demands of each course/topic. The CCSS have been carefully crafted to ensure that the important issues have been dealt with for success. Instead of "learn linear equations", the CCSS have looked at what are the key ideas/concepts that have to be understood to understand linear equations.


Questions - Bill Evers - In the CCSS there is material in teaching in the HS Geometry on similar and congruent triangles, are there places in the world that this type of teaching have been successful? Wu - HS geo has never really been successful. With the CCSS, in our country current standards don't work.


Commissioner Keyes - You wrote "a burning question of the moment is whether CCMS prescribes the teaching of Algebra 1 (or equivalent) in grade 8. The answer is that CCMS asks that roughly half of the topics of Algebra 1 be taught in grade 8, but devotes the other half of grade 8 to the teaching of the needed geometric materials which will prepare students for not only similar triangles but also high school geometry." When should the other half of the Algebra 1 topics be taught?


Mark Freathy - started teaching similar triangles and found a lot of growth with in student understanding of slope. With backwards mapping, similar triangles goes back to proportions and then back do equivalent fractions. Wu - shows the need for geometric understanding for algebra. Need to give students time to assimilate understanding of similar triangles.


Ze'ev Wurman - Wanted to draw your attention to not only do we have standards, but we have a framework that particular draws attention to similarity. You have been a member of the NMAP which has Recommendation 6 - prepare students for algebra in 8th grade, also on a task force that looked at A+ countries from the TIMMS that dhave students that study algebra and geometry in grades 7 and 8. What made you change your mind?  The latest indication from the TIMSS data are striking, countries that do algebra early are successful.


Heather Callahan - placement of decimal, percent, fractions in the CCSS, should all representations of fractions be introduced at the same time. Can you shed some light on why the decision was made? Wu -No serious discussion on this topic. Believes there is no major concern about the learning trajectory.


End of Wu presentation


Next order of business


Clarification of procedures


continuation of discussion of ELA CCSS with additions.




Public comment by Hope Bjerke and Lisa Sandberg. Both spoke in support of the CCSS based on their experiences as teachers and professional development providers.


Phone call with Dr. Milgrim.

3 handouts (I will scan and post)

Reminded the group of the seriousness of the job at hand

slide on nasa - same population getting older, has to hire US Citizens. US is not producing citizens that are good enough to work at NASA.

4 states with standards that are marketably better than the CCSS: MA, MI, IN, CA. Missouri and Indiana are not adopting the CCSS. Feels that all other states should adopt the CCSS.


The CCSS HS standards make it difficult to create courses. A lot of the key standards are not research based.


Examples using two standards. The problem is the term "fluently". To add to the confusion, there are very solid standards that add to the same standards elsewhere. the CCSS appears to a document that is "at war with itself."

In high achieving countries, arithmetic is done quite well and students become quite expert in basic arithmetic. Long division is done too late in the CCSS.

Fractions (see handouts)

first two examples are fine, but the 3rd example has issues: Part b, the visual fraction model are 3 disconnected models.

Equivalent fractions - particularly bad for use with visual models.



Mr. Evers: Fractions, decimal fractions, percents issue These are separated in the CCSS but together in the NMAP report. Did you find that this was underdeveloped in the CCSS? Milgram – this idea ultimately goes to ratios and isdeveloped satisfactorily.


Jim Lanich - you made a comment that many of standards are not research based, can you expand on that. Milgram - 2 types of research - math ed and international comparison/differential studies. What do students do in countries that are doing things well? Lanich - How does that differ from our current standards in terms of being research based? Milgram - they were loosely based on international comparisons.


Ze'ev Wurman - wanted to talk about the slide on experimental approach in grade eight. Milgram continued with the slide show.


Item 11 - Math Crosswalks for grades 8 -12 (posted on the ACSC page on the Sacramento COE website)

The course pathways are not available yet to look at how an Algebra course is defined and structured. This created limitations in the development of the crosswalks for HS.


First document is a comparison between the NMAP benchmarks for critical foundation for Algebra and the CCSS


Ze'ev Wurman asked a clarifying question.


Second and third documents - several CA standards may be covered by CCSS mathematics practice standards. Partial matches may occur because  the language was explicity the same or the standard was not explicitly stated.


High School standards are not structured by courses but by conceptual properties.


Item 12 - David Chung presented consideratons for the additional 15% for grades K-7 (posted on the ACSC page on the Sacramento COE website). No considerations were given for 8th grade and up. Biggest challenge is what will happen in 8th grade. The document does not address moving standards at all.


Jim Lanich - Would like guidance on where the 8th grade Algebra issue is?

Kathy Gaither, Governor's representative, responded that we need to maintain or exceed the current rigor. Research shows that Algebra is a gateway/access subject. Since we have had Algebra in place, we have made astounding gains. This only would occur if we had not made Algebra in 8th grade our goal. 60% of our students are taking Algebra. The Governor's office expects to have 8th grade Algebra, but there is an expectation that not all students will be ready for Algebra.


Lanich – the reason he asked this gets to the letter – "we will fully participate". (This letter is posted on the SBE meeting agenda for July 15 under item 24)


Evers – this gives me an opportunity to revisit the criterion used to decide on the ELA items. Can we add the statement in the statute about rigor.


Objection - what is the definition of rigor and exceed?


Motion made to call for a vote by Evers, seconded by Wurman.




(These are the criteria used for the ELA standards with the addition of #5 by Evers.)

1. Substantially enhance

2. Address a perceived gap

3. be defensible to classroom practioners

4. The original statement remains intact

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


Mark Freathy - would you consider an algebra standard that is moved to another grade level maintaining the same rigor?


Ellis – I make a motion to postpone further discuss to the next meeting/


Wurman - finds it astounding that our basic charge is being debated.

Calahan - is this an appropriate criteria for analyzing item by item.

The motion passes with two no votes (Evers and Wurman).


Public comment by Gretchen Muller (posted separately on CMC blog)

No comments:

Post a Comment