Iowa Core Mathematics Standards Focusing on Fewer Topics and Learning More in Marshalltown

The Way It Used to Be enVision Math implemented K-6 four years ago (from a very old, unaligned Investigations curriculum). Previous standards were organized in parallel strands not emphasizing relationships between topics that occur in different strands; random, disconnected pieces of math that were hard for our students to learn. Coverage and spiraling back—a lesson a day, moving on whether students understood or not; spiraling back to fix failed learning experiences; nothing mastered to apply/support upper grade level learning. Randomly deleting topics to create Pacing Guides. We were functioning as grade level islands. Acceptable grade level growth year to year.

The Way It Is Now IC Standards organized into groups of related standards called “domains.” Students experience the elegance of learning math by making logical connections between mathematical ideas within and across grade levels. Focus on IC critical areas and teaching for meaning: In K-6, 314 lessons out of 960 (33%) realigned; more time to teach less; spiraling forward foundations of mastered knowledge to connect to/support learning upper grade level math. Aligning enVision Math into IC Standards versus aligning IC Standards into enVision Math. Interdependence among grade levels: Teachers no longer think of students as “my students” just for their school year; students in every grade are “our students;” teachers own learning in every grade level. Pilot year growth in grade 5 was almost 6%.

5 th and 6 th Grade Data After Four Years Feb., 2013 IA Math: 6 th grade showed 56% proficiency; they did not make their growth goal. Feb., 2013 IA Math: 5 th grade showed 68% proficiency, but they did make their growth goal (almost 6% growth). Fifth and sixth grade teachers suggested that we were covering too much content too fast, moving on before students had a chance to master anything.

The Problem Is Clearly Defined Elementary Math Leadership Team (1 teacher from every grade level; 1 teacher from every building, K-6). Data discussions across the grades indicated that as students progressed scores were declining.

Our Vision Reading the book Focus by Mike Schmoker leads us to our vision: 1.Prioritize standards to identify the most important learning (focus and mastery). 2.Align enVision Math lessons to prioritized standards (focus and coherence). 3.Realign lessons for which there are no standards (focus). 4.Identify and assess mastery content to support students’ learning of upper grade-level math (coherence and mastery).

Piloting Our Vision in 5 th Grade Used our old standards--parallel strands. (prioritization, 5 th, )prioritization, 5 th, Summer, 2012, for the first time we aligned enVision Math into the standards, rather than how we had done past alignments, aligning the standards into enVision Math. Realigned 49 lessons out of 140 (35%). Identified 45 mastery skills (enVision Scope and Sequence). 5 th grade showed almost 6% growth on Feb., 2013 IA Math tests. The success of the pilot along with the IC deadline directed our summer, 2013 work.

Our Process, Our Product Our Process: 1.Prioritize IC Standards. 2.Align enVision Math lessons into prioritized standards; 65%-85% of time spent in IC critical areas. 3.Realign lessons for which there are no standards (focus). 4.Identify and assess mastery content (coherence and mastery). The Products: 1. Prioritized Standards (handout) 2. Alignment Guides Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 5 Pacing Guides Kindergarten Kindergarten Grade Realigned Content Tables (transition) Grade 1 4. Mastery Content Tables Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 5

An Iowa Core Learning Moment

Areas of Weakness enVision Math core lesson components: 1) IC rigor balance: conceptual learning is weak; procedural fluency is excessive. 2) Opportunities for students to deeply experience reading, writing, and talking about math. enVision Math content alignment: number lines, measurement, fractions enVision Math assessments: rigor

What We Learned FOLLOW THE CORE: Letting go of content is never easy, but if there is not an IC Standard to support a lesson, realign it; if there is an IC Standard to support a lesson, leave it in (paperclips). Close read and reread and reread the standards to be certain you understand what the standards are telling you to do. Careful alignment involves technical, detailed, hard work and TIME (underestimates). Look to your core curriculum first for materials to modify/supplement lessons; it is often there outside the core lesson. Discovering the IC Progressions of Content was our most exciting moment (measurement). Discovering Jason Zimba and the IC Design Principles was our second most exciting moment. Even when in doubt, FOLLOW THE CORE (paperclips again).

What Would We Do Differently Next Time? Skim CCSS & ICSS websites; understand the IC Design Principles. Read the Progressions first. Use the word “realigned;” don’t use “skipped” or “deleted.” K-4 first year, then 5 th and 6 th (transitional content, time). Don’t just give a veteran teacher the standards to prioritize and align (reading technically, parting with content, teacher biases); work together with grade level veteran teachers instead.

Iowa Core Resources Focus by Mike Schmoker. How the Brain Learns Mathematics by David A. Sousa (Common Core Standards) (Iowa Common Core) (Progressions of Content) (Illustrative Mathematics) core-state-standards-tools-resources/ (IC Design Principles Video with Jason Zimba) core-state-standards-tools-resources/ (“K-8 Publisher’s Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”) Math_ pdf (“Content Emphases by Cluster K- 8,” both consortia have designated clusters at each grade level as major, supporting, or additional) Math_ pdf