Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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%

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Mathematics and Special Education Leadership Protocols

Mathematics and Special Education Leadership Protocols

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google