ACSC Public Comment by Deborah Burfeind

Remarks made during public comment to the Academic Content Standards Commission during a discussion about whether to adopt the Common Core Standards and whether to add up to 15% additional standards.  Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Good Afternoon, my name is Deborah Burfeind.  I received my credential in 2000 and have been teaching second grade in Orland for the past ten years.  Orland is about 90 miles up the road from Sacramento and my K-2 school serves approximately 500 students in the Orland area. 

When I began working in 2000, slightly over 50% of the students came from homes where English is a second language.  In the ten years since, more than 75% now come to school from homes where English is a second language.  Most of the students from English speaking homes are living below the poverty line.  Many classrooms have only 1 or 2 students from traditional English speaking middle class households.

I would like to speak in strong support of the Common Core Standards without additions.  For ten years the highly dedicated team of teachers at my school have worked diligently to meet all of the California State Standards and have done a remarkable job.  We are 20 miles down the road from Chico State University where a large pool of candidates compete for each opening in our school, allowing us to hire truly excellent teachers. 

Our staff has analyzed the standards and used curriculum based assessment data to improve our teaching of the standards.  We are amazed each year as we see our students gains in all areas of the curriculum.  Our second grade scores have steadily increased each year.

In spite of all that, our analysis of this process has revealed that we are teaching too many things for too little time.  Many teachers have been energized by hearing about the Common Core Standards (CCS) which would allow us to focus on fewer concepts so that we can provide in-depth learning experiences.  When I told teachers in various schools that California was considering piling on as much as possible on top of the CCS, the reactions included confusion, dismay and even horror.

I believe it has been established again and again, when comparing the United States to countries where students are achieving the highest level of mastery, that our curriculum tends to be a mile wide and an inch deep versus curriculums in other countries that are narrower and deeper.  This is why teachers all over the state are applauding the Common Core Standards because they might actually allow us to achieve mastery.  Fewer standards does not mean LESS RIGOROUS.  More standards does not mean MORE rigorous.  The well crafted and rigorous Common Core Standards can lead students to a deeper mastery that will stand the test of time.

If you were to think of the curriculum as a meal, we are anxious to serve our students a balanced diet with reasonable portions which will allow them to grow and thrive rather than a smorgasbord which will give them indigestion. 

I would like to finish my remarks by focusing on math with an eye to supporting the Common Core standards as they stand with the fewest possible additions. 

I recently completed three years of participation in a combined professional development / research project called Math in the Early Grades.  This was an amazing project which resulted in tremendous professional growth for the almost 30 teachers from several northern California districts.  We participated in workshops, assessments, classroom coaching, and laboratory style teaching opportunities.  Our project was created in response to the need to address the weak number sense that plagues students as they leave the primary grades.

If large numbers of buildings were falling to the ground all over California because their foundations were crumbling after 4 years, we would all agree that the materials and building standards for foundations should be fixed.  The state's STAR system shows that the foundation of our student's math is crumbling starting in grade 5.  Although CST math scores have increased steadily since 2003 at every grade level, when you compare CST math scores between grade levels, they consistently increase through grade 4 and begin dropping starting in grade 5.  For example, in 2009, 63% of all second graders scored proficient or advanced on the CST rising to a high of 66% by fourth grade.  In fifth grade it drops to 57% and drops precipitously so that by eighth or ninth grade only 21% of the students in Algebra I are proficient or advanced.  The percentages remain under 30% for Geometry and Algebra II.  See the California State STAR table below for a comparison of all the grades in the years from 2003-2009.

I believe that the CCS are the beginning of the process to change this trend.  Primary teachers are building the foundation.  The three year project that I just finished gave me a glimpse of how primary teachers can deepen math instruction and develop the kind of number sense that will allow students to thrive mathematically in the upper grades.  The CCS supports my experience in this project and I strongly encourage this commission to be very cautious about adding things to the CCS.  I fear that most additions that I have read about would undermine the chance for deeper and richer math experience in all grades.

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program:

Summary of 2009 Results in Mathematics

Table 5: Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient and Above*

Grade	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Change in Percentage 2008–2009	Change in Percentage 2003–2009
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

Public Comment by Gretchen Muller at ACSC meeting 7/7/10

12 years ago California started an ambitous project - common standards
and the goal of Algebra for all in 8th grade, but over the years we
have learned and experienced the shortcomings of our state standards
especially in mathematics - too many standards, lack of focus and
coherence, and the lack of 8th grade standards. The common core
standards improves the CA standards by addressing all of these issues,
particularly the lack of 8th grade standards.

From my experience as a middle school math teacher and a project
coordinator working with several districts on curriculum and
instruction issues, the lack of 8th grade standards other than Algebra
has had negative consequences for both districts and students.
Districts that test students in a course such as a two year algebra
course or algebra readiness, considered below grade level by the
federal government are penalized on their API score. Many districts,
to avoid this penalty, place all 8th grade students in Algebra whether
they are ready or not. The students who are not ready are being set up
for failure by the people who are trying to ensure their success. I
have looked in the eyes of these students and feel helpless that I
can't put them in an appropriate course. We cannot in good conscious
continue this practice. We need to be able to offer choices so that we
can place students in the best possible position for success.

Everyone agrees that successful completion of Algebra1 and Algebra 2
are important, but everyone learns at different rates. Math is the
only subject that has a sequential layering of topics. There are
learning progressions. If along the way a student starts to become
lost or to develop gaps in their understanding, it becomes very
difficult to correct misunderstandings and fill the gaps if we are in
a hurry to have all students ready for Algebra in 8th grade. Wouldn't
it be much better to allow these students the time to learn the
mathematics and enjoy mathematics rather than pushing them through a
system that doesn't care about their learning and success. Students
who are successful in learning the K-7 mathematics CCSS standards can
still take Algebra in 8th grade. Even Achieve in a document on their
website states: "While the CCSS were not specifically develop with the
goal of preparing students for Algebra 1 in grade 8, students wh are
successful in achieving the expectations set in these standards for
grades K-7 should have the content knowledge to be well prepared for
Algebra 1, or its equivalent, in grade 8", but by having a set of 8th
grade standards where those students who need more time to learn the
foundational skills for succes in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 and other
higher levels of mathematics we can meet the needs of all of our
students. Isn't that after all the goal? Success for all.

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.

 

Lunch

 

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.

 

Questions

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.

 

Discussion

 

(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)

CMC statement for the ACSC for July 6, 2010.

We applaud your commitment to this important work for students in CA. You are here, because as a teacher you make a commitment everyday to ensure that our children learn math, apply math and will be prepared to pursue mathematics in their futures. You understand the realities and challenges of taking on this very important role.

California Mathematics Council (CMC) is a professional organization that represents teachers of mathematics and educators across the state from pre-K through college/university. As a voice for teachers of mathematics CMC supports the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We believe that the standards are a natural next step for students, not a change in direction. The CCSS provide a careful and thoughtful coherence across grades with a focus on fewer concepts for each grade. Teachers will be able to provide the necessary in-depth learning experiences for students.

A look at the development of fractions shows this articulation and depth. The CCSS provide a more detailed description of how students learn fractions, which in turn, gives teachers more focus on helping students understand and use fractions. We often have to reteach fractional concepts that have already been taught. Reteaching of fractions takes a tremendous amount of time and energy in the classroom. This logical and in-depth progression for students through fractions can have a great impact on the learning of other mathematics content. There is no shortage of research that understanding fractions is foundational and critical for student success in algebra. CCSS provides a coherent progression for developing crucial understandings, which in turn provides preparation for and success in algebra.

The CCSS also provide a balance of skills and reasoning thus supporting the teaching of mathematical understanding and reasoning. State assessment is problematic in assessing student reasoning. The expectation is that new assessments aligned with CCSS will emphasize reasoning and problem solving. This is further reinforced in the reauthorization of ESEA.

CMC supports strong instruction in algebra. The progression and coherence with a focus on algebra across the grades will prepare students to be successful in algebra. To get to this point for all students requires careful consideration of the transition period from the current standards to the CCSS. As teachers we have seen many, many students inadequately prepared for algebra being inappropriately placed in a course where they were unsuccessful. Many of those students continue to fail and the residual damage for students is tremendous. The time and energy of teachers as they try to support these students is a tragic source of frustration and a sad waste of resources. Better to have students prepared so that the teaching is focused and students successful.

CMC believes that the CCSS provides the opportunity for students to be successful in learning mathematics so that they can apply and pursue mathematics at the higher levels required by a global economy in this 21st century. Because truly, the issue before us is that we are preparing students for their future.

The implementation of CCSS will require work by everyone who teaches and supports mathematics. CMC is committed to supporting mathematics and the teaching and learning of mathematics. We have worked diligently to support teachers in the implementation of the current standards and we will continue to focus our work during this transition to a revised set of standards. We believe that teachers will see these new standards as an opportunity to focus instruction and will recognize the benefit for students. Our commitment to professional development will not waiver as we once again work to align instruction and assessment in support of our members.

Your role in this outcome is critical. You know first hand that we can do better for our children. The CCSS provide a timely opportunity. You also know that the real work is ahead of us. Working collaboratively, we will manage the challenges as they come. CMC stands ready to support this very important effort.

ACSC Meeting Day 3 July 6, 2010

Submitted by Gretchen Muller

Today was a lot of carefully scripted/designed presentations to the commission. There was little time left at the end of the day to discuss the ELA standards and what, if any, additions would be made. There is a lot of confusion about procedures and what their exact charge is. Hopefully, many of the procedural items and processes have been clarified so that further discussions can focus on the content and not on how to reach agreement or have a discussion.

After introductions and a general agreement to use Robert's Rules of Order as the procedural process, public comment was taken. The only person to speak at this time was Dr. Doug McCrae - retired test publisher from Monterey. He spoke to what other states that are adopting CCSS are doing.
August 2 deadline comes from RTTT, 20 states have adopted. WY and WV have adopted CCSS but are not participating in Race to the Top (RTTT).
two consortia developing assessments, 19 states in the consortia have adopted CCSS.
2 states - MA and VA; MA is looking at adopting only by the end of July but will address 15% additions later.
VA not adopted CCSS, not in RTTT or consortia. Will look at aligning their standards to CCSS if needed.

Item 3 - Mark Colonico? from SCOE
Presentation on College and Career Readiness. Power Point handout (posted on SCOE website under the ACSC section)
Background/history on development of College and Career Readiness

Ze'ev Wurman asked about the relationship between the adoption of the CCSS and college/career readiness standards. Sue Stickel said that the adoption of the CCSS does not assume the adoption of the college/career readiness standards.

Scott Farrand - Wasn't sure how this group was going to determine the college/career readiness of the CCSS. There are documents with statements of competencies from Higher Ed as to what is necessary.

Item 6 - Deb Sigman
powerpoint and handouts (I will scan and post later)
Assessment in California and recent developments with the national consortia.

Assessments follow the standards. Not all standards are assessed.
CA did not sign MOU with Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium, but is participating in the PARCC (Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) consortium. 26 states are participating and this consortium is partnered with Achieve. The Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium has 31 states and is partnered with West Ed.

Item 5 – phone call with Sandra Stotsky. She was one of two members of the validation committee that did not sign off. The other person was Jim Milgram. She shared a letter that was an explanation of why she did not sign off. (I will scan and post).

Phone call with David Pearson - UC Berkeley signed off on validation committee
Powerpoint (I will scan and post)

Question from the commission on balance between informational text and literature - this comes under the shared responsibility for middle and high schools. Needs administrative support to make sure it is done.

Item 4 - International comparisons
Powerpoint on the SCOE/ACSC website

Ze'ev comment addressed to David Chun - failure to address other forms of fractions such as decimals and percents.

Vic Hovsapian - public comment: in Japan they teach in Japanese

Kathy Harris - what does it mean to be internationally benchmarked?

Scott Farrand - don't get lost in comparisons of cultures, top performing countries have more focus, spend more time on number in lower grades. Cursory comparisons may miss the "meat" of what other countries do such as development of topics.

Bill Evers - referred to the National Math Panel document that states the grade level skills and competencies.

Jim Lanich - stressed that we are comparing apples to oranges, standards to international assessments. Shouldn't we be comparing the CCSS to international standards and not assessments.

Item 6 continued - Sue Stickel spoke to the relationship of the academic content standards to other aspects of public education such as frameworks, instructional materials, professional development, and school and district intervention. (I will scan and post her powerpoint.)

Item 5 continued - Tom Adams shared the results of using the Achieve Tool for comparing state standards and the CCSS. I will scan and post his handout.

SCOE draft of suggested 15% additions/changes for the ELA standards. These are posted on the SCOE/ACSC website.

Discussion
Bill Evers generally likes the CCSS for ELA, weakness in formal presentations, need to look at literary genres

Jean - CA standards has a tendency to use parentheticals to guide instruction. Thinks CCSS are superior. Doesn't see any weaknesses.

CTA during public comment expressed concerns about the 15%. They did an independent review and feels the CCSS downplays the CA standards. Generally not supportive of the CCSS for ELA.
Has questions for the commission - If the commission is to add 15%, what criteria will the commission use to select the 15%, what will the vetting process be, should the purpose of adding be to develop an exhaustive list of skills.

Item 7
Bill Evers - proposal: recommend to take all of the add suggestions plus most of the additions on his sheet. motion seconded by Scott Farrand

Discussion
Motion is premature
How the standards are written, can we include some parentheticals
Haven't discussed the CCSS themselves. can you approve the 15% without adopting the CCSS
Clarification - yes it includes adopting the CCSS with the additions.
Ze'ev - doesn't want to adopt unless the additions are included.
Evans wants to divide the question, Pat Sabo seconded.

Confusion among some of the commissioners about their exact job is.

Kathy Gaither under secretary of education - she believes after listening to the group that these standards are not as rigorous as CA. The governor will not support adoption without additions.

Roberts rules of order confusion

Motion to divide did not pass

Agreed to discuss the SCOE version item by item. Got through kindergarten and 1st grade today. Will continue going through the remaining grade levels tomorrow before moving on to math.

Public comment by Sheri Willebrand, Gretchen Muller, Jim Burfiend, Deborah Burfiend, Bob Lucas,
Spoke to supporting the common core standards, limit additions, separate 8th grade math from algebra, and multiple pathways.

Wu will be speaking to the math CCSS at 8 am tomorrow.

Standards Commission Updates

Thank you so much for updates on the work of the Standards
Commission. This information and the link to view the meetings
electronically are the only place that I hear discussions about these
new standards. We are potentially looking at some big changes coming
our way. It sure would be nice to chat with other folks and share
thoughts... Kathy

ACSC meeting notes June 18

June 18, 2010

Day 2 at the ACSC Meeting

Submitted by Kathlan Latimer

The bulk of the meeting time was devoted to an overview of the CA content standards and an in-depth comparison of CA and Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI) K-7 standards. Once the crosswalks were made available the sense of relief in the room was palpable; commissioners were under the impression that that was the work that they had ahead of them. Thanks to the yeoman work of Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) staff, the crosswalks provided a clearer picture and matches and misses became apparent. The crosswalks are available on the SCOE website.

The group will work as one body and not break up into smaller ELA and Mathematics workgroups during the commission meetings nor will they break up into smaller workgroups between meetings. While most of the commissioners have indicated a specific specialization, many have not and are interested in the deliberations relating to both subject areas. Also, only one room at the county office can be video streamed and the commission wants to honor its commitment to the public for openness and transparency by providing the web cast. Relating to meetings between commission meetings:

• Meetings of workgroups with more than 2 members require ten-day public noticing and public attendance availability per Bagley-Keene.
• No additional funding is available for interim meetings.
• Video or phone conferencing is allowable; however Bagley-Keene does apply.

Given these constraints, the work will be completed within the remaining four commission meeting days.

Course specific standards for mathematics were not discussed; the body wants to wait until the course descriptions are available at the end of the month. It was noted that

the high school descriptions are being compiled by Achieve and are not the work of the CCSI work group.

There was discussion about creating the best possible standards without concern for assessment, Race to the Top, ESEA funding, etc. Although relevant, most speakers felt that development of the best set of standards possible for the students of CA comes first and concerns for accountability later. Assessment may include formative as well as summative components. Standards may include more than what is assessed in multiple choice formats; some may be classroom-based.

Towards the end of the day, as a means of providing direction and focus to the work of the commission, agreement was made (No formal vote was taken) to use the CCSI standards in their totality as the base for the standards to be developed with the idea of supplementation with CA standards. An exception was noted for further discussion of the literacy standards as well as grade 8 mathematics.

The CCSI standards include literacy standards for history-social science and other content areas (pages 61-62 of ELA CCSI standards). These standards may be adopted with the ELA standards, or within the content area standards. The purpose is shared responsibility for literacy (See pages 3-4 of ELA CCSI standards introduction). The literacy standards generated discussion regarding ELA teachers having responsibility to teach content area topics and content teachers to teach literacy and interdisciplinary collaboration. The bottom line question: Whose job is it to teach language? Majority response: everybody’s. Comments were shared regarding the need for high expectations coupled with support as required for both our students and our teachers.

Algebra 1 at grade 8: Speakers acknowledged the need for alternatives at this grade level. Concerns arose for accountability (particularly federal), but the discussion returned to the question: What do our students need? Not all are ready for Algebra 1 at grade 8. Do we take the CCSI standards for grade 8 and supplement them with Algebra 1 topics? Create an Algebra 1 course that can be taught at grades 8 or 9? Propose both grade 8 and Algebra 1 standards for this grade and let the chips fall where they may? To summarize the discussion: some students are ready; others are not. How might the commission craft standards to meet all needs at this grade level?

This will be the challenge for the commission. What might our input be?

Other questions raised:

· What happens to the ELD standards which are intricately linked to the current ELA standards? Plan to revise?

· Do the standards meet the needs of the jobs of tomorrow? Will they allow students to be the next innovators?

Reference was made to the EdSource publication California and the Common Core provided in the packet provided to commissioners.

Given Bagley-Keene requirements, agenda topics for the remaining four meeting days

were brainstormed: parliamentary procedures, literacy standards, international benchmarking, algebra in grade 8, high school mathematics, adoption of CCSI standards, supplementation of the standards, meaning of college and career readiness, assessment.

Meeting dates: July 6, 7, 14, 15.

Location: SCOE, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Academic Content Standards Commission Website

View agendas, resources, and video webcasts and archives regarding the Academic Content Standards Commission and the adoption of the Common Core Standards process at http://www.scoe.net/castandards/index.html

Academic Content Standards Commission Meeting June 17

Day 1 at the  ACSC meeting - submitted by Kathlan Latimer

 

In  case you did not watch the web casting of the meeting, here are some notes.

 

First off, the work of the commission has been funded by the Broad Foundation and another foundation yet to be announced.  Sac COE provided facilities and staff. Otherwise there would have been no way for the work to be done, apparently. 

 

On the commissioners' reading list: A Primer on America's Schools by Terry Moe andTesting Student Learning, Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness by Bill Evers and  Herbert Walberg (both published by Hoover Press; copies were donated to each commissioner by Bill Evers).

 

Greg Geeting was elected chair by acclamation; there were no other nominations.

 

The day was fairly routine (logistics, introductions, review of Bagley-Keene, and the like) until around 3:00 when SBX 5 1 was reviewed by Sue Stickel. Following the review, Dan Maguire (sp?), attorney for the Governor, interpreted the 85% section to mean that the CA standards could have 85% of the Common Core (CCSS) and CA would add 15%. CDE (Gavin Payne) and Scott Hill (SIA) weighed in with 100% CCSS supplemented by 15% from CA. The latter sentiment was echoed by David Coleman and Jason Zimba, CCSS writing team members. While lauding CA standards, they stressed maintaining the focus and coherence of the CCSS. They expressed the rules, which seemingly diffused the controversy, as follows:

1) "We have a pen, but no eraser. " This is to say that we can add, but not take away.

 

2) "We can copy and paste." We cannot cut and paste. If we want to "move" a standard to a different grade level that would be allowed, but it would still be tested at the CCSS grade level. This has implications for assessment; unless we wanted to have a separate test, we would need to be in a consortium with similar additions.

Apparently, the writers received input from CA folks around placement of first grade basic facts, long division, and a few other standards.  Additionally, this rule also stirred discussion as it was seen to contradict the possibility of Algebra 1 at grade 8. The movement of Algebra 1 to 8th grade is an allowable exception and is not included in the 15% (nor would additional courses such as Calculus).  CCSS does not preclude Algebra 1 at 8th grade.

 

3) We can add requirements. We can supplement. The idea of the 15% supplement is to give states the opportunity to add a bit without compromising the integrity of the CCSS. The 15% would not be nitpicked quantity-wise. It is not acceptable to take CA standards and weave in CCSS.

 

4) Additions do not need to be separate (Referred to as the decimal rule; e.g., We can add a 3.5 standard between standards 3 and 4). 

 

  High school course descriptions should be available by the end of June.

Tomorrow the commissioners will review side-by-side comparisons of CCSS and CA standards.

 

Some impressions:

The CCSS writers seemed to want to be CA-friendly by suggesting that the aforementioned changes/moves were few in number and doable and by lauding algebra at 8th grade as if there was already consensus about these things. It seems to me that the placement of Algebra 1 is a larger controversy for this commission than is adding or placement of standards overall.

 

Sorting folks out as math, ELA, or other, based on the introductions, there is heavy representation of math folks so it will be interesting to see how this plays out (math: 2 MS, 4 HS, 2 Post-Sec. This does not include an additional 3 multiple subjects teachers, although 1 is clearly ELA). Some of the teachers on the panel are fairly new and have only taught using the current standards. Experience ranged from 5 to 42 years of teaching. The Chair seems to be aware of the affiliations of those at the table; at one point he referred to CTA folks. Many folks have or have had some affiliation with Subject Matter projects.  At least 2-3 math folks shared their interest in real life connections, applications, and providing contexts for mathematics. Concerns for equity were expressed by many commissioners.

 

.