Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative General MAC Meeting October 3, 2012 Report of MAC Performance Exam

1

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

87 Members - School Districts, Charter School Networks, and Schools Albany USD Alvord SD (Riverside County) Antioch Unified SD Aspire Charter School Network Assumption School (San Leandro) Bayshore SD Belmont-Redwood Shores SD Berryessa SD Bolinas – Lagunitas SD Brisbane SD Buckeye SD Cambrian SD Campbell Union ESD Castro Valley USD Charter School of Morgan Hill Chicago Public School Creative Arts Charter (SF) CSU San Bernardino Cotati – Rohnert Park Cupertino SD Dade County Schools (GA) Del Mar USD (San Diego Co) Discovery Charter School Dioceses of Santa Clara Dublin USD East Side UHSD Edmonds Community College Emery SD Etiwanda SD (San Bernardino Co) Gilroy (Brownell MS) Fairfield-Suisun USD Fremont USD Forsyth County School (GA) Hamilton County (Tn) Hayward USD Jefferson ESD Jefferson HSD Las Lomitas SD La Honda-Pescadero Sd Livermore USD Los Altos SD Los Gatos SD Menlo Park SD Monterey Peninsula USD Moreland SD Mountain SD National Council of La Raza New York City PS New Visions for Public Schools Oakland Unified SD Pacifica SD Pajaro Valley USD Palo Alto USD Pittsburgh USD Portola Valley SD Ravenswood City SD Riverside COE Redwood City Schools Sacramento City USD Salinas City Schools San Carlos CLC San Diego COE San Diego Unified School District San Francisco USD SMFC (Park School) San Jose Unified SD San Leandro USD San Ramon Valley USD Santa Clara USD Santa Cruz City Schools Valdosta City (GA) Walnut Creek SD Woodside SD Saint Michael’s School (Poway) Saint Patrick’s School (San Jose) Saratoga Scotts Valley USD SCCOE County Court Schools Sequoia HSD SMCOE County Court Schools South Cook Service District South San Francisco USD Sumter County (GA) The Nueva School Union SD University of Illinois, Chicago Valley Christen (Dublin)

Supporting Teaching and Learning of Mathematics Since 1996

Three Central Authors

Common Core State Standards in Mathematics

Bill McCallum Phil Daro Charges given to the authors: Jason Zimba • All students College and Career Ready by 11 th • Internationally Benchmarked • Make the standards “Fewer, Clear and Higher” grade 3

4

Mathematical Practice

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

4. Model with mathematics.

5. Use appropriate tools strategically.

6. Attend to precision.

7. Look for and make use of structure.

8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

5

CCSS Mathematical Practices

REASONING AND EXPLAINING

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively 3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others

MODELING AND USING TOOLS

4. Model with mathematics 5. Use appropriate tools strategically

SEEING STRUCTURE AND GENERALIZING

7. Look for and make use of structure 8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning 6

Practices for Next Generation Science Standards 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying our investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating and communicating information 7

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Reading: text complexity and the growth of comprehension

The Reading standards place equal emphasis on the sophistication of what students read and the skill with which they read. Standard 10 defines a grade-by- grade “staircase” of increasing text complexity that rises from beginning reading to the college and career readiness level. Whatever they are reading, students must also show a steadily growing ideas and between texts, considering a wider range of textual evidence, ability to discern more from and make fuller use of text, including making an increasing number of connections among and becoming more sensitive to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and poor reasoning in texts.

Writing: text types, responding to reading, and research

The Standards acknowledge the fact that whereas some writing skills, such as the ability to plan, revise, edit, and publish, are applicable to many types of writing, other skills are more properly defined in terms of specific writing types: arguments, informative/explanatory texts, and narratives.

Standard 9 stresses the importance of the writing reading connection by requiring students to draw upon and write about evidence from literary and informational texts. Because of the centrality of writing to most forms of inquiry, research standards are prominently included in this strand, though skills important to research are infused throughout the document.

Speaking and Listening: flexible communication and collaboration

Including but not limited to skills necessary for formal presentations, the Speaking and Listening standards require students to develop a range of broadly useful oral communication and interpersonal skills. Students must learn to work together , express and listen carefully to ideas, integrate information from oral, visual, quantitative, and media sources, evaluate what they hear, use media and visual displays strategically to help achieve communicative purposes , and adapt speech to context and task. 8

3x 2 – y = π A FLU NT 9

The California Algebra Experiment

• • • • In 2012, 59% of all eighth grade students took the CST Algebra 1 exam and more than half were not successful. Even more will repeated the class again in high school.

In 9 th grade, 49% of the students took CST Algebra 1 exam and 75% of those students did not pass.

Research studies indicate nearly 65% of the students who were placed in Algebra in eighth grade are placed in the same level of Algebra in ninth grade. About 46% of the students who were successful in Algebra in the eighth grade (B- grade and Proficient) and who were placed again in Algebra in ninth grade were less successful in their second experience.

It is Algebra Forever not Algebra for All

10

New K-12 Math Curriculum Inspired by The Common Core State Standards

The Gates Foundation and the Pearson Foundation are funding a large scale project to create a system of courses to support the ELA and Mathematics CCSS. These will be a modular, electronic curriculum spanning all grade levels. A Santa Cruz based company, Learning In Motion, is working to write the lessons. 11

Think in Terms of Units

Phil Daro has suggested that it is not the lesson or activity, but rather the

unit

that is the “ of mathematics Sequence.

optimal grain-size for the learning ”. Hence that was the starting point for our Scope and

Developers of High School: Patrick Callahan, Dick Stanley, David Foster, Brad Findell, Phil Daro, and Marge Cappo 12

13

Middle School Curriculum

14

CCSS High School Units

High School Algebra Units:

A0 Introductory Unit A1 Modeling with Functions A2 Linear Functions A3 Linear Equations and Ineq in One Var A4 Linear Equations and Ineq in Two Var A5 Quadratic Functions A6 Quadratic Equations A7 Exponential Functions A8 Trigonometric Functions A9 Functions A10 Rational and Polynomial Expressions

High School Geometry Units:

G0 Introduction and Construction G1 Basic Definitions and Rigid Motions G2 Geometric Relationships and Properties G3 Similarity G4 Coordinate Geometry G5 Circle and Conics G6 Trigonometric Ratios G7 Geometric Measurement and Dimension M4 Capstone Geometric Modeling Project

High School Prob & Stat Units:

P1 Probability S1 Statistics S2 Statistics (Random Process) 15

T R A D I T I O N A L 16

I N T E G R A T E D 17

CCSSM 8

th

Grade are HS Standards

• • • • Algebra / Functio ns 67%

Geometry

(Transformations and Triangle Proofs) 20% Bivariate Data 10% Cross-Concept Project 3% 18

When do we Accelerate?????

19

Where to Accelerate?

Can we live without understanding….

Integer and their operations Division of Fractions Ratio and proportional reasoning Expression, Equations and Inequalities Statistics 20

Where to Accelerate?

Can we live without understanding….

Properties of rational numbers, percents, discounts, markups, etc.

Rate and problems solving using rate Similarity, proportional reasoning Algebraic Modeling with Equations Probability Geometry: Angles, Volume, Surface Area, 3-D shapes 21

When do they Accelerate in Japan?

After 8

th

Grade!!!!!!!

22

Where to Accelerate????

23

When do we Accelerate?????

The Only Reasonable Answer for Learning: 9 th Grade!!!!

24

25

CST – Released Items Algebra 1

26

The design of scaffolded performance assessment tasks

Top

Access

Ramp

27

Apprentice Task

28

29

30

Performance Assessments

To Inform Instruction And Measure Higher Level Thinking Top

Task Design

Core Ramp Access

Entry level (access into task) Core Mathematics - (meeting standards) Top of Ramp (conceptually deeper, beyond)

• • The Mathematics Assessment Resource Service (MARS) is an NSF funded collaboration between U.C. Berkeley and the Shell Centre in Nottingham England.

The Assessments target grades 2- Geometry and are aligned with the State and NCTM National Math Standards.

31

Performance Exams

40,000 – 70,000 students per year since 1999 Students in grades 2 through 10 th /11 th grade are administered performance exams (5 apprentice tasks per exam).

District scoring leaders are trained in using task specific rubrics Student results are collected, analyzed, and reported by an independent data contractor. Random sample of student papers are audited and rescored by SJSU math & CS students. (Two reader correlation >0.95) Student tests are hand scored by classroom teachers trained and calibrated using standard protocols.

32

MAC vs. CST 2012 Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

Mathematics Assessment Collaborative Performance Assessment Exam 2012

33

MAC vs CST 2012

2nd Grade Far Below Basic Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced MAC Level 1 MAC Level 2 MAC Level 3 MAC Level 4

1.0% 1.9% 1.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 2.4% 4.8% 3.5% 0.9% 0.1% 1.2% 5.5% 17.7% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.4% 31.4%

2nd Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total MAC Below MAC At/Above

11.7% 7.1%

Total

18.8% 5.1% 75.9% 81.0% 16.8% 83.0% 100% 34

Elementary Grades 3rd Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total 4th Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total MAC Below MAC At/Above

15.9% 13.7% 29.6% 5.2% 65.4% 70.6%

MAC Below MAC At/Above

16.9% 20.3% 37.2% 2.8% 60.0% 62.8%

5th Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total MAC Below MAC At/Above

20.6% 18.7% 39.3% 3.8% 56.9% 60.7%

Total

21.1% 79.1% 100%

Total

19.7% 80.3% 100%

Total

24.4% 75.6% 100% 35

6th Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total 7th Grade CST Below CST At/Above Total Course 1 CST Below CST At/Above Total Middle School MAC Below

37.2% 25.1% 62.3%

MAC At/Above

1.4% 36.5% 37.9%

MAC Below

33.3% 27.4% 60.7%

MAC At/Above

2.1% 37.1% 39.2%

MAC Below

34.5% 30.3% 64.8%

MAC At/Above

3.6% 31.5% 35.1%

Total

38.6% 61.6% 100%

Total

35.4% 64.5% 100%

Total

38.1% 61.8% 100% 36

8

th

Graders Taking HS Geometry

Course 2 CST Below CST At/Above MAC Below

3.1%

51.3%

MAC At/Above

0.8%

44.8%

Total

3.9% 96.1%

Total

54.4% 45.6% 100%

37

MAC Final Report

Reports

District Reports Tools for Teachers

A very special thanks to Linda Fisher

38

Thank You

Linda Fisher, Director of Assessment and Author of Tools for Teachers and MAC Reports Sally Keyes, Director of Professional Development and Assessment Writer Melissa Adams, Assessment Writer Barbara Scott, Assessment Writer Mia Buljan, Author of Second Grade Tools for Teachers Rosita Fabian, Spanish Translations Donna Goldenstein, Assessment editing Sonya Montelongo, Educational Data Systems Cindy Chin, SVMI Office Manager (she does it all)

MAC Trainers

Jeff Trubey Sandy Devlin Jean Short Barbara Scott Debbie Borda Melissa Adams Kristy Leo Margie TrainerSally Keyes Carol Hatalsky Priscilla Solberg Ford Long Mia Buljan 39

Professional Development Opportunities 2012-2013 Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative www.svmimac.org

David Foster

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

www.svmimac.org

40

•

SVMI’s Resources and Programs

Professional Development

Summer Institutes and Math Workshops throughout the school year.

Problems of the Month Performance Assessments Math Talks

School-wide Problem Solving

Lesson Study Project

Promoting Classroom Discourse and Conceptual Understanding

Math Coaching

Math Network Meetings and Workshops for Coaches and Principals 41 School Team Mini - Grants

SVMI Professional Development Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan

• • • • • San Mateo Co. (TBA) Santa Clara Co. (SJUSD BR) Santa Cruz Co. (TBA) Alameda Co. (OUSD Tilden) Tri-Valley Area (Dublin BR) 42

SVMI Calendar 2012-13

• • • • • • • • May & June 2012: the SCVMP Leadership Institute August 2012: The 13 th Annual Coaching Institute and East Bay Sep. – May 2012-2013: Math Network Meeting for Math Coaches Sep. – Jan : Five Professional Development Workshops (K-Algebra) Sep. – Jan: Lesson Study Project Dec. & Feb. Principal Leader Meetings March 2013: Administer the annual MAC performance exam District Administrator Meetings: October, February, May 43

This site gets 10,000 hits each week. 6,000 to download POMs.

44

45

Curriculum inspired by the CCSS

MAP’s Formative Assessment Lessons and Professional Development Modules

Assessment For Learning

Formative Assessment Lessons (2 days) for High School and Middle School 46

47

Inside Mathematics Website http://www.insidemathematics.org

Mathematics Assessment Project

UC Berkeley & Shell Centre for Mathematical Education http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

http://www.svmimac.org

48

Understanding the Data MAC Administrative Reports

49

Setting The Level Boundaries pg. 9 or 10

• • • Analysis of the tasks and rubrics in relation to the Standards What is the grade level mathematics?

Holistic judgment of sample papers around provisional level standard?

Does this student performance, viewed as a whole, meet the Statistical distribution for the task and test 50

Comparing Student Performance

• • • Different tests each year - sample of standards/ not parallel tests Different student populations - 2005 eighth graders in Algebra, this year high school in geometry 2012 first year with Common Core State Standards 51

Comparing Student Performance

52

Comparing Student Performance

• • • • • Shows the years 2005 to 2012 Gives the number of students tested Gives the percentage at each level Describes trends Stayed the same: Second at 82.5%, Third at 70.1%, Eighth at 25.9% 53

Comparing Student Performance

• Improving Seventh - from 23.7% to 38.7% • • • • • Declining Fourth - from 71.5% to 62.2% Fifth - from 76.5% to 60.6% Sixth - from 43.2% to 38% Algebra- from 46% to 34.5% Geometry - from 50% to 24.6% 54