News from Algebra Forum III

The 3rd statewide Algebra Forum concluded last night to much praise and optimism. Over 100 math educators gathered for the past 2 1/2 days at the Santa Clara County Office of Education to hear presentations by William McCallum on the Common Core Standards, Margaret Smith on high cognitive demand tasks, Lena Licon Khisty on increasing the instructional effectiveness with Latinas/os and many others. There were many opportunities to network with colleagues, reflect on the presentations, and discuss next steps in the regional teams. Several themes emerged from the forum. Among the most important are that the Common Core Mathematical Standards of Practice are front and center to everything we need to do and students need to be actively involved and engaged in problem solving and high cognitive demand tasks in which they are discussing and reasoning using the language of mathematicians. The Algebra Forum has developed a public website full of resources, research, and many of the presentations from the previous two forums. Visit http://www.cacompcenter.org/cs/algebrap/print/htdocs/algebra/home.htm to access these resources and for more information about the forum.

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

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

Submitted by Carol Fry Bohlin

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.

Mt. Lassen Math Council Conference

2010 Fall Mt. Lassen Mathematics Council Conference 

Saturday October 16, 2010 

Registration: 8:00 a.m. 

Conference activities: 8:45 a.m.- 3:30 p.m. 

Key Note Speaker: 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. 

The conference includes three Sessions of varying content and grade levels, K-12. 

There will also be a Giveaway Room! (See registration form for more details) 

Where: Chico Christian School 

2801 Notre Dame Blvd. 

Chico, CA 

Registration: $30 postmarked on or before September 24, 2010 

$40 after September 24, 2010 

(Full-time Students/Student Teachers: $20) 

Registration includes: Choice of sessions, continental breakfast, catered lunch, and a one-year membership in Mt. Lassen Math Council! 

More information and registration form at: http://mountlassenmathcouncil.googlepages.com 

Contact: Chris Yakes MtLassenMathCouncil@gmail.com 

Or check us out on Facebook: Mt Lassen Mathematics Council 

Common Core State Standards: Education Policy Roundtable

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.

YES

The State Board of Education has unanimously approved the ELA and mathematics CCSS.

CMC makes the Sacramento Bee blog

Read the entry by Pia Lopez
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_swarm/

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.

Recommended ELA and Math Standards available

The English-Language Arts and Mathematics Standards recommended by the Academic Content Standards Commission are available for viewing. These standards go before the State Board of Education on August 2.
http://www.cmc-math.org/news/commoncore.html

Two articles in Ed Week on California's CCSS adoption

The Education Week blog posted two entries today on the ACSC decision last night.

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