Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

General MAC MeetingOctober 3, 2012

Report of MAC Performance Exam

1

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative87 Members - School Districts, Charter School Networks, and Schools

Etiwanda SD (San Bernardino Co)Gilroy (Brownell MS)Fairfield-Suisun USDFremont USDForsyth County School (GA)Hamilton County (Tn)Hayward USDJefferson ESD Jefferson HSDLas Lomitas SDLa Honda-Pescadero SdLivermore USDLos Altos SDLos Gatos SDMenlo Park SDMonterey Peninsula USDMoreland SDMountain SDNational Council of La RazaNew York City PSNew Visions for Public SchoolsOakland Unified SDPacifica SDPajaro Valley USD Palo Alto USDPittsburgh USDPortola Valley SDRavenswood City SD

Albany USDAlvord SD (Riverside County)Antioch Unified SDAspire Charter School NetworkAssumption School (San Leandro)Bayshore SDBelmont-Redwood Shores SDBerryessa SDBolinas – Lagunitas SDBrisbane SDBuckeye SDCambrian SDCampbell Union ESDCastro Valley USDCharter School of Morgan HillChicago Public SchoolCreative Arts Charter (SF)CSU San BernardinoCotati – Rohnert ParkCupertino SDDade County Schools (GA)Del Mar USD (San Diego Co)Discovery Charter SchoolDioceses of Santa ClaraDublin USD East Side UHSDEdmonds Community CollegeEmery SD

Riverside COERedwood City SchoolsSacramento City USDSalinas City SchoolsSan Carlos CLCSan Diego COESan Diego Unified School DistrictSan Francisco USDSMFC (Park School)San Jose Unified SDSan Leandro USDSan Ramon Valley USDSanta Clara USDSanta Cruz City SchoolsSaint Michael’s School (Poway)Saint Patrick’s School (San Jose)SaratogaScotts Valley USDSCCOE County Court SchoolsSequoia HSDSMCOE County Court SchoolsSouth Cook Service DistrictSouth San Francisco USDSumter County (GA)The Nueva SchoolUnion SDUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoValley Christen (Dublin)

Supporting Teaching and Learning of

Mathematics Since 1996

Valdosta City (GA)Walnut Creek SDWoodside SD

2

Three Central Authors Common Core State Standards in Mathematics

Bill McCallum Phil Daro 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”

3

4

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 Practice

5

CCSS Mathematical PracticesO

VER

AR

CH

ING

HA

BIT

S O

F M

IND

1. M

ake

sens

e of

pro

blem

s an

d pe

rsev

ere

in

solvi

ng th

em6.

Atte

nd to

pre

cisio

n

REASONING AND EXPLAINING2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others

MODELING AND USING TOOLS4. Model with mathematics5. Use appropriate tools strategically

SEEING STRUCTURE AND GENERALIZING7. Look for and make use of structure8. 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 models3. Planning and carrying our investigations4. Analyzing and interpreting data5. Using mathematics and computational thinking6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing

solutions (for engineering)7. Engaging in argument from evidence8. Obtaining, evaluating and communicating information

7

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, suchas 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.

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts

8

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 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 All10

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 “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

12

13

Middle School Curriculum

14

CCSS High School UnitsHigh School Algebra Units:A0 Introductory UnitA1 Modeling with FunctionsA2 Linear FunctionsA3 Linear Equations and Ineq in One VarA4 Linear Equations and Ineq in Two VarA5 Quadratic FunctionsA6 Quadratic EquationsA7 Exponential FunctionsA8 Trigonometric FunctionsA9 FunctionsA10 Rational and Polynomial Expressions

High School Geometry Units:G0 Introduction and ConstructionG1 Basic Definitions and Rigid MotionsG2 Geometric Relationships and PropertiesG3 SimilarityG4 Coordinate GeometryG5 Circle and ConicsG6 Trigonometric RatiosG7 Geometric Measurement and DimensionM4 Capstone Geometric Modeling Project

High School Prob & Stat Units:P1 ProbabilityS1 StatisticsS2 Statistics (Random Process)

15

TRADITIONAL

16

INTEGRATED

17

CCSSM 8th Grade are HS Standards

• AlgebraAlgebra//FunctionsFunctions 67%

• GeometryGeometry (Transformations and

Triangle Proofs) 20%• Bivariate DataBivariate Data

10%• Cross-Concept

Project 3%

18

When do we Accelerate?????

19

Where toAccelerate?

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 8th Grade!!!!!!!22

Where to Accelerate????

23

When do we Accelerate?????

The Only Reasonable Answer for Learning: 9th Grade!!!!24

25

CST – Released Items Algebra 1

26

The design of scaffolded performance assessment tasks

Core Ramp

Access

Top

Core

27

Apprentice Task

28

29

30

Performance AssessmentsTo Inform Instruction And Measure Higher Level Thinking

• 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.

RampAccess

Top

Core

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

Task Design

31

Student tests are hand scored by classroom teachers trained and calibrated using standard protocols.

Students in grades 2 through 10th/11th 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)

Performance Exams40,000 – 70,000 students per year since 1999

32

MAC vs. CST 2012

Silicon Valley Mathematics InitiativeMathematics Assessment Collaborative

Performance Assessment Exam 2012

33

MAC vs CST 20122nd 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% 0.0%

Basic 1.3% 4.8% 5.5% 0.3%Proficient 0.4% 3.5% 17.7% 3.4%

Advanced 0.3% 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%Total 16.8% 83.0% 100%

34

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%Total 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%Total 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%Total 39.3% 60.7% 100%

Elementary Grades

35

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%Total 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%Total 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%Total 64.8% 35.1% 100%

36

8th Graders Taking HS Geometry

Course 2MAC

BelowMAC

At/Above Total

CST Below 3.1% 0.8% 3.9%CST At/Above 51.3% 44.8% 96.1%

Total 54.4% 45.6% 100%

37

ReportsMAC Final Report District Reports Tools for Teachers

A very special thanks to Linda Fisher38

Thank YouLinda Fisher, Director of Assessment and Author of Tools for Teachers and MAC ReportsSally Keyes, Director of Professional Development and Assessment WriterMelissa Adams, Assessment WriterBarbara Scott, Assessment WriterMia Buljan, Author of Second Grade Tools for TeachersRosita Fabian, Spanish TranslationsDonna Goldenstein, Assessment editingSonya Montelongo, Educational Data SystemsCindy Chin, SVMI Office Manager (she does it all)

MAC TrainersJeff Trubey Debbie Borda Margie Trainer Sally KeyesSandy Devlin Melissa Adams Carol Hatalsky Ford LongJean Short Kristy Leo Priscilla Solberg Mia BuljanBarbara Scott

39

Professional Development Opportunities 2012-2013

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiativewww.svmimac.org

David FosterSilicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

www.svmimac.org

40

• SVMI’s Resources and ProgramsProfessional Development

Summer Institutes and Math Workshops throughout the school year.

Problems of the Month

School-wide Problem Solving

School Team Mini - Grants

Lesson Study Project

Math Coaching

Math Network Meetings and Workshops for Coaches and Principals

Performance Assessments Promoting Classroom Discourse and Conceptual Understanding

Math Talks

41

SVMI Professional DevelopmentSep, 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 13th 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 CCSSMAP’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

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

http://www.svmimac.org

Mathematics Assessment ProjectUC Berkeley & Shell Centre for Mathematical Education

http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php

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 - Does this student performance, viewed as a whole, meet the standard?

• 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