Ccss smarter balanced_assessments

Editor's Notes

• #2: Play music
• #50: Many have heard of the complaint that our curriculum is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” These Standards are a substantial answer to that problem. It is important to note that “fewer” is no substitute for focused standards. Fewer standards would be easy to do by resorting to broad general statements. Instead, these standards aim for clarity and coherence.
• #51: Schmidt and Houang* (2002) say that standards are coherent if they are: Articulated over time Reflect he hierarchical nature of the content Evolve from particulars to deeper structures Development of the standards began with research-based learning progressions detailing what is known today about how students’ math knowledge, skill and understanding develop over time.
• #52: Emphasis in the Common Core introduction is placed on understanding mathematics. While it is sometimes difficult to assess this, one hallmark of understanding mentioned is the ability to justify, in a way appropriate to the student’s math maturity, why a particular statement is true or where a rule comes from. It is clear from the document, page 4 of Common Core, that both understanding and procedural skill are equally important and can be assessed with rich tasks. International benchmarking was done using a number of top-performing countries: Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Finland, etc. Three characteristics of standards found in top-performing countries are rigor, focus and coherence.
• #53: The following two slides deal with what the standards do and don’t do. They set standards for grades K-8. Remind them that in CA there are no Grade 8 standards and the default set is Algebra 1. In the CA CCS (CCSS) there is a set for grade 8. Since the CCS did not include a set of standards identified for a course, Algebra 1, the commission created one. Therefore in eighth grade a student would have the option of taking either grade 8 or the Algebra 1 set of standards. This insured that there would be no lowering the bar for CA students. Explain that this will discussed later on in the presentation in greater detail. The high school standards are organized by conceptual clusters as opposed to courses. So in the Algebra cluster, there will be standards for both Algebra 1 and 2. Explain that how these standards become courses will be determined at a later date as part of the CA Common Core implementation plan. This also will be discussed later in more detail. As with ELA, the Math CCS provide clear signposts toward the goal of college and career readiness.
• #54: Emphasize that these are content not pedagogy standards.
• #55: One of the biggest changes to our standards is the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Proficiency These are a set of eight practices which describe the varieties of expertise that educators should seek to develop in their students. These also carry across all grade levels. These also relate to the idea of balanced as defined by the CA Mathematics Framework. It is important to point out the use of the word practitioners to describe the math student. The expectation is that students will be “doing” mathematics. Another focus is on the engagement with the tasks. The practices are asking for a deeper interaction with the content and this should be noted. The last emphasis underscores the idea that all students from elementary through high school can demonstrate these skills but at the appropriate maturity level.
• #56: Underneath is a short statement highlighting some of the information from the paragraph that describes each practice. Explain that there is a strong emphasis on student problem solving, reasoning and “practicing” mathematics.
• #57: It might be important to note that the tools listed under # 5 practice include: paper and pencil, concrete models, ruler, protractor, calculator, spreadsheet, computer algebra system, statistical package, dynamic geometry software and digital content located on a website. If time, have participants discuss the implications of these practices for both teaching and assessment.
• #58: The CCSS are consistent with the goal that all students succeed in Algebra 1. Students who master the content and skills through grade seven will be well-prepared for algebra in grade eight. Recognizing that all students must continue their study of mathematics, the CCSS move students forward with grade eight standards that prepare them for higher mathematics, including Algebra
• #59: The High School standards are listed by conceptual cluster, not by course. The structure of domain, cluster and standard is the same as in K-8.
• #60: Explain that the high school standards specify the math the all students should study to be college and career ready. The standards also identify additional standards that students should learn in order to take advanced courses such as calculus, advanced statistics and discrete mathematics. These are indicated by (+). The standards commission added two California courses, Calculus and Advanced Placement Statistics and Probability, to the CCS. Development of suggested course descriptions will be done by CDE as part of their long-range implementation plan. It is expected to include pathways for both traditional and integrated courses.
• #61: Now that the structure of the K-12 standards has been explained, it is important to point out that there are many more similarities than differences between the CCS and California standards. The following three slides are a small sampling of the similarities starting with Kindergarten and moving through to high school. Give participants some time to review
• #64: It is important that until there is further direction from CDE, districts should stay the course. The current work of teaching a balanced math program, using quality formative assessments and providing opportunities for teachers to collaboratively plan should continue and be supported.
• #78: Purpose: Determine what distinguished the reading performance of students likely to succeed in college and not. Process: Set benchmark score on the reading test shown to be predictive of success in college (“21”) . Looked at results from a half million students. Divided texts into three levels of complexity: uncomplicated, more challenging, and complex.