> 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.
>
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
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 5th 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 8th 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 8th grade and another common core 8th grade that would involve more grades level paths than just 8th grade. Starts with the common core standards being part of the work that is being done.
1st vote on Algebra and the note on unprepared students being pushed into 8th grade. Part of this is looking at the proposals
2nd looking at K-5
3rd look at 6-7
4th 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 8th 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 8th grade. Each group had a problem in how to prepare students. Many of the 8th grade CCSS prepare students for Algebra. Sensitive to the problem and how tracking could be a result. Their proposal does not have two different 7th grade courses to differentiate students going into Algebra.
Needed 8th grade Algebra course to subsume some of the 8th grade CCSS. 5 standards would be moved to the 7th grade and still remain at the CCSS 8th grade.
Lori – there are less standards than the CA but that is not a bad thing. 7th grade teachers feel they have too much to cover. I think that adding the 5 standards into 7th grade would not impact the 7th 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 8th grade course or algebra.
Callahan – the 8th grade algebra course includes more of the modeling standards of the CCSS than many traditional Algebra courses and the 8th grade CCSS are incorporated so the 8th grade Algebra 1 course is more integrated.
Jim Lanich – 8th 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 8th grade.
Lengthy discussion about discrepancy between the larger number of standards that would constitute the 8th grade Algebra course and 7th grade.
Wurman raised an issue about how to assess all of the standards in the 8th 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 8th grade starting in 6th 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 (6th and 7th) and every student take the "upper track". He doesn't like the hump in Scott's 8th 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 6th 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 California State Academic Content Standards Commission recommends that the State Board of Education update the Academic Performance Index incentives so that taking Algebra 1 by grade 8 will continue to be encouraged, but pushing unprepared students into Algebra 1 by grade 8 will be discouraged. One possibility would be changing the state accountability from subtracting API points for students in 8th grade who are not in Algebra 1 to giving extra API points for having students who achieve scores of basic or above in Algebra 1 in 8th grade. A plan like this or something better that performs the same function is what we are recommending.
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 math handouts and presentations not available on the ACSC page on the Sacramento County Office of Education website are now posted on the CMC website in the on the Common Core Standards page under News and Information. More handouts related to the ELA Common Core State Standards will be posted by Friday PM.
The handouts include the presentations by Drs. Wu and Milgram as well as the suggested changes to the math CCSS by Bill Evers.
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
Good afternoon.
My name is Jim Burfeind. I am a member of the CMC and I teach 7th and 8th 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.
I am really excited about the possibility of having the opportunity to teach the CCS. The carefully focused, but beautiful, flow of ideas is exciting. The sixth grade course is very well designed to lead into the 7th and then into 8th. After the 6, 7, 8 sequence we should have students very well prepared for the 9th 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.
It is a terrible disservice to any student to have them take Algebra 1 in 8th grade and fail and then have to take it again in 9th 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 8th grade Algebra 1 we discuss several sources of data on each student including the CSU Algebra Readiness test and 7th grade teacher recommendation.
I mention this because I don't think we can improve the 40% very fast. Setting Algebra 1 as the 8th 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.
I think the ACSC should adopt the CCSI standards essentially unchanged. These are excellent standards and provide a well thought out sequence leading to Algebra 1 in ninth grade. Now what about the question of algebra 1 in 8th grade?
CA currently allows qualified students to take Algebra 1 in seventh or eighth grade and that provision should be continued with the new standards. A strong statement should be included setting the goal of increasing the numbers of students taking Algebra 1 in eighth grade.
One reason we shouldn't rewrite the CCSI standard for 8th grade and turn it into Algebra 1 is it would then be necessary to make substantial changes in the 6th and 7th grade standards to accelerate students enough to be ready for Algebra 1 in 8th grade.
I understand the sentiment that the ACSC should decide on the best standards first without regard to other considerations like funding. On the other hand maybe some have forgotten the staggering amounts of money that would be needed to make Algebra 1 the required 8th grade course.
Jack O'Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, released The California Algebra 1 Success Initiative in 2008. I have a copy here.
Mr. O'Connell estimated $3.1 billion as the cost of making Algebra 1 the required 8th grade course. This is just not possible, so making Algebra 1 the required course would guarantee that California will fail.
Thank you for listening.
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
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 |
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
