Transcript Common Core State Standards Initiative
Barbara J. Reys
Conference October 20-21, Missoula
University of Missouri - Columbia
Barbara Reys University of Missouri Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum
About this Session
5 Challenges and 1 Opportunity (CCSS)
Challenge #1:
Widespread perception that mathematics is a set of facts, rules, and procedures to be mastered.
This perception leads to:
•
teaching that focuses on presentation rather than student engagement.
•
a general public which values math but doesn’t like it or feel comfortable using it.
Is there room in today’s curriculum (or classroom) for exploration?
Challenge #2:
Many current textbooks reinforce the perception of mathematics as a set of rules, procedures.
•
They don’t offer teachers good guidance for engaging students.
Challenge #3:
Lack of student interest in and motivation to learn mathematics.
• •
Many students don’t think that learning mathematics is important.
Some students are not willing to work hard to learn mathematics.
Challenge #4:
There is no coherent system for improving teaching practices ( professional development).
•
The teacher work day lacks “space” for continual professional development OR for serious collaboration with colleagues.
U.S. teachers spend about 80 percent of their total working time engaged in classroom instruction, as compared to about 60 percent for teachers in many other nations.
Professional Learning in the Learning Profession (2009)
National Staff Development Council
Challenge #5:
Annual high-stakes assessments are currently the primary tool for gauging school/teacher success (accountability).
An
opportunity
to focus on improvement:
Common Core State Standards Initiative
Common Core State Standards (CCSSM)
Initiated by:
National Governor’s Association and Council of Chief State School Officers
How much do you know about CCSSM?
1 – Nothing (except the last slide), that’s why I’m here.
2 – A little (I know what “CCSSM” stands for and I’ve been introduced to it).
3 – Some – I’ve read/reviewed some or all of it.
4 – A lot, I’ve thought about implications for my classroom/work.
5 – A whole lot – I could facilitate this session.
Common Core State Standards Initiative
• State consensus on learning goals (standards) for mathematics, K-12 • State collaboration to develop and use improved assessments to monitor student learning
Common Core State Standards
(Math) Adopted by all but 6 states (as of 9/20/11) 14
• • The 2011 Montana draft standards are the CCSSM with the addition of embedded Indian Education statements.
• Public Hearing: Oct. 24, 2011 Action on Adoption (Montana Board of Public Education): Nov. 4, 2011
Common Core State Standards
(Math) Adopted by all but 6 states (as of 9/20/11) 16
Why a common core curriculum?
Potential to increase the quality of …
- instructional materials - high stakes assessments
Common standards address one cause of the U.S. “mile-wide, inch-deep” curriculum.
Are/were state standards alike or different (many were based on the NCTM Standards of 2000)?
Example: 4 th grade mathematics standards 10 largest states.
- 108 “unique” standards
Gr. 4 mathematics standards common across 10 largest states in 2006:
• Read, write, compare, and order whole
numbers.
• Read, write, compare and order decimals. • Add and subtract decimals. • Solve problems involving whole number
multiplication and division.
(4 of 108 learning goals)
Gr. 4 standards unique to only one of ten states (examples):
• Use concrete materials and symbolic notation to
represent numbers in bases other than base ten, such as base five.
• Compare decimal number system to the Roman
numeral system (using the Roman numerals I, V, X, L, C, D, and M.)
• Use models to identify perfect squares to 100. (28 of 108 learning goals)
The differences across state standards (and related assessments) regarding
what
to teach and
when
to teach particular mathematics topics practically guarantees curriculum materials that are “a mile wide and an inch deep.”
•
What are the CCSS and how are they organized?
•
How are they different from current state standards?
23
Standards for Mathematical Practice
Carry across all grade levels Describe habits of mind of a mathematically expert student
Standards for Mathematical Content
K-8 standards presented by grade level Organized into domains that progress over several grades Grade introductions give 2–4 focal points at each grade level High school standards presented by conceptual themes (two “pathways” included in Appendix – single subject and integrated)
The standards are not intended to define HOW to teach.
Standards for 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.
Mathematical Processes/Proficiencies/Practices
NCTM (2000) Adding it Up (2001)
Problem Solving Strategic competence Reasoning Adaptive reasoning Connections Conceptual understanding CommunicationsProcedural fluency Representations Productive disposition
CCSSM (2010)
Make sense and persevere in problem solving Reason abstractly and quantitatively Express regularity in repeated reasoning Construct viable arguments Look for and use structure Use tools strategically Attend to precision Model mathematics 26
Opportunity of Common Core
The standards: Attention to mathematical practices/processes Focus on understanding Some attention to learning progressions More generally: Energy and activity focused on same learning goals: Curriculum development Professional development Assessments (high stake)
How is the Common Core different from previous state Standards?
Use of precise mathematical language to convey learning goals.
Increased emphasis on some models Some content moved to earlier grades Less emphasis on data analysis and probability in K-5 More emphasis on transformational geometry in high school.
Little attention to or acknowledgement of technology as a tool for doing or learning mathematics At high school level, standards are listed by “conceptual category” - not by course.
Example of grade level shift
Topic: Fluency with basic facts for multiplication and division.
Current MT standard:
Recall basic multiplication facts to products up to 100 and related division facts. (Grade 4)
CCSSM standard:
By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products
of two one-digit numbers. (Grade 3) 29
Use of precise mathematical language
Grade 3:
“Understand a fraction 1/b as the quantity formed by 1 part when a whole is partitioned into b equal parts; understand a fraction a/b as the quantity formed by a parts of size 1/b.”
Grade 3:
“Represent a fraction 1/b on a number line diagram by defining the interval from 0 to 1 as the whole and partitioning it into b equal parts. Recognize that each part has size 1/b and that the endpoint of the part based at 0 locates the number 1/b on the number line.” “Represent a fraction a/b on a number line diagram by marking off a lengths 1/b from 0. Recognize that the resulting interval has size a/b and that its endpoint locates the number a/b on the number line.”
Use models to represent equivalent fractions. Represent fractions using an area model, and/or parts of a set model and locate points on a number line model. (Gr. 3)
Use models to identify equivalent symbolic representations of improper fractions and mixed numbers. (Gr. 4)
Compare and order fractions using area, set, and linear models. (Gr. 5)
Teachers need many opportunities to study, discuss, and plan for the changes in approach, sequence or intended models in the Common Core State Standards. 33
Standards: Important but not sufficient
The Standards must be partnered with a
content-rich curriculum, focused professional
development and robust assessments aligned to the Standards.
CCSS-aligned Assessment
35
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC) $160 million 31 states, including MO Washington – lead state 36
“SBAC will create state-of-the-art adaptive online exams, using “open source” technology. The online system will provide accurate assessment information to teachers and others on the progress of all students, including those with disabilities, English language learners and low- and high-performing students. The system will include: • the required summative exams (offered twice each school year); • optional formative, or benchmark, exams; and • a variety of tools, processes and practices that teachers may use in planning and implementing informal, ongoing assessment.” 37
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Consortia: $170 million 26 states Florida – Lead state Achieve “The proposed assessment system will be computer-based and will measure student progress at key times during the school year, rather than on one test at the end, to allow for instructional adjustment and extra support to students who need it.” 38
Work underway to support implementation of CCSSM
Textbooks ‘aligned’ to CCSS
http://www.inkling.com
/
The next generation of curriculum materials
Gates Foundation Project
Provided $3 million to support a joint effort with Pearson Foundation to develop curriculum centered on Common Core -Instructional system of 24 online courses covering K-12 English/language arts and K-10 math. -One course for each grade level. -Four of the courses - two in each subject area in the early to middle high school grade levels - will be contributed as free and open resources.
42
Illustrative Mathematics Project
Set of activities/tasks/problems that illustrate the type of mathematical work that students will experience in a faithful implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
http://illustrativemathematics.org/ 43
CCSSM Curriculum Analysis Tool
Set of mathematics curriculum analysis tools that allow K–12 textbook adoption committees, school administrators, and K–12 teachers to analyze mathematics curriculum materials with regard to their alignment to the Common Core http://commoncoretools.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/m athematics-curriculum-analysis-project/ 44
Inside Mathematics
http://www.insidemathematics.org/