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

2. Supporting Teaching and Learning of Mathematics Since 1996
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
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)
Valdosta City (GA)
Walnut Creek SD
Woodside SD
Supporting Teaching and Learning of Mathematics Since 1996

3. Three Central Authors Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
Phil Daro
Bill McCallum
Jason Zimba
Charges given to the authors:
• All students College and Career Ready by 11th grade
• Internationally Benchmarked
• Make the standards “Fewer, Clear and Higher”

5. Mathematical Practice
Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Model with mathematics.
Use appropriate tools strategically.
Attend to precision.
Look for and make use of structure.
Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

6. CCSS Mathematical Practices
REASONING AND EXPLAINING
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
OVERARCHING HABITS OF MIND
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
6. Attend to precision
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

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

8. 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 ability to discern more from and make fuller use of text, including making an increasing number of connections among ideas and between texts, considering a wider range of textual evidence, 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.

9. My Child is in pre-natal Algebra 3x2 – y = π
A FLU NT

10. 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 9th 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

11. 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.

12. Think in Terms of Units
Phil Daro has suggested that it is not the lesson or activity, but rather the unit that is the “optimal grain-size for the learning of mathematics”. Hence that was the starting point for our Scope and Sequence.
Developers of High School: Patrick Callahan, Dick Stanley, David Foster, Brad Findell,
Phil Daro, and Marge Cappo

14. Middle School Curriculum

15. 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)

16. TRADI T
IONAL

17. INTEGRATED

18. CCSSM 8th Grade are HS Standards
Algebra/Functions 67%
Geometry (Transformations and Triangle Proofs) 20%
Bivariate Data 10%
Cross-Concept Project 3%

19. When do we Accelerate?????

20. Where to
Accelerate?
Can we live without understanding….
Integer and their operations
Division of Fractions
Ratio and proportional reasoning
Expression, Equations and Inequalities
Statistics

21. 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

22. When do they Accelerate in Japan?
After 8th Grade!!!!!!!

23. Where to Accelerate????

24. The Only Reasonable Answer for Learning: 9th Grade!!!!
When do we Accelerate?????
The Only Reasonable Answer for Learning: 9th Grade!!!!

26. CST – Released Items Algebra 1

27. The design of scaffolded performance assessment tasks
Ramp
Top
Core
Core
Access

28. Apprentice Task

31. Performance Assessments To Inform Instruction And Measure Higher Level Thinking
Ramp
Access
Top
Core
Entry level (access into task)
Core Mathematics - (meeting standards)
Top of Ramp (conceptually deeper, beyond)
Task Design
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.

32. Performance Exams
40,000 – 70,000 students per year since 1999
District scoring leaders are trained in using task specific rubrics
Students in grades 2 through 10th/11th grade are administered performance exams (5 apprentice tasks per exam).
Student tests are hand scored by classroom teachers trained and calibrated using standard protocols.
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)

33. MAC vs. CST 2012 Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative
Mathematics Assessment Collaborative Performance Assessment Exam 2012

34. MAC vs CST 2012
2nd Grade
MAC Level 1
MAC Level 2
MAC Level 3
MAC Level 4
Far Below Basic
1.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
Below Basic
1.9%
2.4%
1.2%
Basic
1.3%
4.8%
5.5%
Proficient
0.4%
3.5%
17.7%
3.4%
Advanced
0.9%
23.4%
31.4%
2nd Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
11.7%
7.1%
18.8%
CST At/Above
5.1%
75.9%
81.0%
16.8%
83.0%
100%

35. Elementary Grades
3rd Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
15.9%
5.2%
21.1%
CST At/Above
13.7%
65.4%
79.1%
29.6%
70.6%
100%
4th Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
16.9%
2.8%
19.7%
CST At/Above
20.3%
60.0%
80.3%
37.2%
62.8%
100%
5th Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
20.6%
3.8%
24.4%
CST At/Above
18.7%
56.9%
75.6%
39.3%
60.7%
100%

36. Middle School
6th Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
37.2%
1.4%
38.6%
CST At/Above
25.1%
36.5%
61.6%
62.3%
37.9%
100%
7th Grade
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
33.3%
2.1%
35.4%
CST At/Above
27.4%
37.1%
64.5%
60.7%
39.2%
100%
Course 1
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
34.5%
3.6%
38.1%
CST At/Above
30.3%
31.5%
61.8%
64.8%
35.1%
100%

37. 8th Graders Taking HS Geometry
Course 2
MAC Below
MAC At/Above
Total
CST Below
3.1%
0.8%
3.9%
CST At/Above
51.3%
44.8%
96.1%
54.4%
45.6%
100%

38. Reports A very special thanks to Linda Fisher MAC Final Report
District Reports
Tools for Teachers
A very special thanks to Linda Fisher

39. 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 Debbie Borda Margie Trainer Sally Keyes
Sandy Devlin Melissa Adams Carol Hatalsky Ford Long
Jean Short Kristy Leo Priscilla Solberg Mia Buljan
Barbara Scott

40. Professional Development Opportunities 2012-2013
Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative
David Foster
Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

41. SVMI’s Resources and Programs
Professional Development
Summer Institutes and Math Workshops throughout the school year.
Promoting Classroom Discourse and Conceptual Understanding
Math Talks
Problems of the Month
School-wide Problem Solving
Performance Assessments
Math Coaching
Math Network Meetings and Workshops for Coaches and Principals
School Team Mini - Grants
Lesson Study Project

42. 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)

43. SVMI Calendar 2012-13 May & June 2012: the SCVMP Leadership Institute
August 2012: The 13th Annual Coaching Institute and East Bay
Sep. – May : 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

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

46. Curriculum inspired by the CCSS Assessment For Learning
MAP’s Formative Assessment Lessons and Professional Development Modules
Assessment For Learning
Formative Assessment Lessons (2 days) for High School and Middle School

48. http://www.svmimac.org Inside Mathematics Website
Mathematics Assessment Project
UC Berkeley & Shell Centre for Mathematical Education
Silicon Valley
Mathematics Initiative

49. Understanding the Data
MAC Administrative Reports

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

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

52. Comparing Student Performance
What trends do you notice? When do big changes occur? What are realistic goals? What are implications for instruction?
Give time for pair/share, then group discussion.

53. 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%

54. 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%