Silicon Valley Mathematics
Initiative
General MAC Meeting
October 3, 2012
Report of MAC Performance Exam
1
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
Valdosta City (GA)
Salinas City Schools
Walnut Creek SD
San Carlos CLC
Woodside SD
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
Supporting
Sumter County (GA)
Teaching and
The Nueva School
Learning of
Union SD
2
University of Illinois, Chicago Mathematics
Since
1996
Valley Christen (Dublin)
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
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.
5
REASONING AND EXPLAINING
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in
solving them
6. Attend to precision
OVERARCHING HABITS OF MIND
CCSS Mathematical Practices
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
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
6
Practices for Next Generation
Science Standards
1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems
(for engineering)
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying our investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing
solutions (for engineering)
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating and communicating information
7
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 writingreading 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
8
adapt speech to context and task.
A FLU NT
3x2 – y = π
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 All
10
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 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)
15
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
16
I
N
T
E
G
R
A
T
E
D
17
CCSSM 8th Grade are HS Standards
• Algebra/Functio
ns 67%
• Geometry
(Transformations and
20%
• Bivariate Data
10%
• Cross-Concept
Project 3%
Triangle Proofs)
18
When do we Accelerate?????
19
Where to
Accelerate?
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
th
8
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
Top
Core
Core
Ramp
Access
27
Apprentice
Task
28
29
30
Performance Assessments
To Inform Instruction And Measure Higher Level Thinking
Top
Task Design
Core
Ramp
Access
Entry level (access into task)
Core Mathematics - (meeting standards)
Top of Ramp (conceptually deeper, beyond)
•
•
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.
31
Performance
Exams
40,000 – 70,000
students per year
since 1999
Students in grades 2
through 10th/11th grade are
administered performance
exams (5 apprentice tasks
per exam).
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)
District
scoring
leaders are
trained in
using task
specific
rubrics
Student tests are hand
scored by classroom
teachers trained and
calibrated using standard
protocols.
32
MAC vs. CST 2012
Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative
Mathematics Assessment Collaborative
Performance Assessment Exam 2012
33
MAC vs CST 2012
2nd Grade
MAC Level 1 MAC Level 2 MAC Level 3 MAC Level 4
Far Below
Basic
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
2nd Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
1.0%
1.9%
1.3%
0.4%
0.3%
MAC Below
0.3%
2.4%
4.8%
3.5%
0.9%
0.1%
1.2%
5.5%
17.7%
23.4%
MAC At/Above
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
3.4%
31.4%
Total
11.7%
7.1% 18.8%
5.1% 75.9% 81.0%
16.8% 83.0% 100%
34
Elementary Grades
3rd Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
4th Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
5th Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
MAC Below
15.9%
13.7%
29.6%
MAC Below
16.9%
20.3%
37.2%
MAC Below
20.6%
18.7%
39.3%
MAC At/Above
5.2%
65.4%
70.6%
MAC At/Above
2.8%
60.0%
62.8%
MAC At/Above
3.8%
56.9%
60.7%
Total
21.1%
79.1%
100%
Total
19.7%
80.3%
100%
Total
24.4%
75.6%
100%
35
Middle School
6th Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
7th Grade
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
Course 1
CST Below
CST At/Above
Total
MAC Below
37.2%
25.1%
62.3%
MAC Below
33.3%
27.4%
60.7%
MAC Below
34.5%
30.3%
64.8%
MAC At/Above
1.4%
36.5%
37.9%
MAC At/Above
2.1%
37.1%
39.2%
MAC At/Above
3.6%
31.5%
35.1%
Total
38.6%
61.6%
100%
Total
35.4%
64.5%
100%
Total
38.1%
61.8%
100%
36
8th Graders Taking HS Geometry
Course 2
MAC
Below
CST
Below
3.1%
MAC
At/Above
Total
0.8% 3.9%
CST
At/Above
51.3% 44.8% 96.1%
Total
54.4% 45.6% 100%
37
Reports
MAC Final Report
District Reports
Tools for Teachers
A very special thanks to Linda Fisher
38
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
Sandy Devlin
Jean Short
Barbara Scott
Debbie Borda
Melissa Adams
Kristy Leo
Margie TrainerSally Keyes
Carol Hatalsky
Ford Long
Priscilla Solberg
Mia Buljan
39
Professional Development
Opportunities 2012-2013
Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative
www.svmimac.org
David Foster
Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative
www.svmimac.org
40
• SVMI’s Resources and Programs
Professional Development
Math Talks
Summer Institutes
and Math
Workshops
throughout the
school year.
Problems of the Month
Promoting Classroom Discourse
and Conceptual Understanding
Performance Assessments
School-wide Problem Solving
Math Coaching
Lesson Study Project
Math Network Meetings and
Workshops for Coaches and
Principals
School Team Mini - Grants
41
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)
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 CCSS
MAP’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
Mathematics Assessment Project
UC Berkeley & Shell Centre for Mathematical Education
http://map.mathshell.org/materials/lessons.php
Silicon Valley
Mathematics Initiative
http://www.svmimac.org
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