Lessons Learned on CCSS Dr. Dianne K. Kelly Assistant Superintendent of Schools Revere, Massachusetts

Agenda Context A little history Challenges What helped us

Revere Public Schools Small (6648) urban district just north of Boston 45% Hispanic, 41% White 12% ELL, 51% FLNE 76% low income 16% SPED 81% high needs FLNE = First Language not English

MA DESE Actions July 2010 – CCSS adopted by MA 2011 MA Curriculum Frameworks but based on CC Provided working drafts of our 2007 framework revisions ESE staff on working teams developing standards Formally submitted comments of 6 drafts MA teachers served on external review and validation teams. June 2010 – Mathematics Common Core Review Panel We had already started revising our Frameworks in 2007. We had done so much of the leg work, performing well on national and international assessments, we were already ranked as one of the top states for rigorous standards. We were in a unique position. Review Panel discussed: The foci of these discussions have been our individual and collective assessments of the both the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCM) and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics Working Draft (MCFM) dated June 2010. Both documents would support Massachusetts’ quest for rigorous state standards in mathematics and the quest to prepare all students for college and career. In addition, both documents exhibit comprehensive inclusion of the necessary content with generally appropriate rigor, clarity, vertical alignment, and measurability. Dianne K. Kelly, Co-Chair, Assistant Superintendent, Revere Public Schools Glenn Stevens, Co-Chair, Professor of Mathematics, Boston University Anne Marie Condike, Mathematics Coordinator, Westford Public Schools Solomon Friedberg, Professor of Mathematics and Chairman, Department of Mathematics, Boston College Douglas Holley, Director of Mathematics, K – 12, Hingham Public Schools Katherine Richard, Associate Director Mathematics Program, Curriculum and Instruction, Lesley University Wilfried Schmid, Professor of Mathematics, Harvard University

4% additional Standards 10 K-8 additions No additions in Kindergarten, grade 3 or grade 8 One addition in grade 4, grade 5, and grade 7 Two additions in grade 1 and grade 2 Three additions in grade 6 9 high school additional standards Included in conceptual categories: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, and Geometry Grade 1: Write and solve number sentences from problem situations that express relationships involving addition and subtraction within 20. Identify the values of all U.S. coins and know their comparative values (e.g., a dime is of greater value than a nickel). Find equivalent values (e.g., a nickel is equivalent to 5 pennies). Use appropriate notation (e.g., 69¢). Use the values of coins in the solutions of problems. Grade 2: MA.2.a. By the end of grade 2, know from memory related subtraction facts of sums of two one-digit numbers. MA.7.a. Know the relationships of time, including seconds in a minute, minutes in an hour, hours in a day, days in a week, a month, and a year; and weeks in a month and a year. Grade 4: MA.5a. Know multiplication facts and related division facts through 12 × 12. Grade 5: MA.1. Use positive and negative integers to describe quantities such as temperature above/below zero, elevation above/below sea level, or credit/debit. Grade 6: MA.3.e. Solve problems that relate the mass of an object to its volume. MA.4.a. Apply number theory concepts, including prime factorization and relatively prime numbers, to the solution of problems. MA.1.a.Use the relationships among radius, diameter, and center of a circle to find its circumference and area. MA.1.b. Solve real-world and mathematical problems involving the measurements of circles. MA.4.c. Extend analysis of patterns to include analyzing, extending, and determining an expression for simple arithmetic and geometric sequences (e.g., compounding, increasing area), using tables, graphs, words, and expressions. HS: MA.3.a.Describe the effects of approximate error in measurement and rounding on measurements and on computed values from measurements. Identify significant figures in recorded measures and computed values based on the context given and the precision of the tools used to measure.  MA.3.a. Solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable involving absolute value. MA.4.c. Demonstrate an understanding of the equivalence of factoring, completing the square, or using the quadratic formula to solve quadratic equations. MA.8.c. Translate among different representations of functions and relations: graphs, equations, point sets, and tables. MA.10. Given algebraic, numeric and/or graphical representations of functions, recognize the function as polynomial, rational, logarithmic, exponential, or trigonometric. MA.11.a. Prove theorems about polygons. Theorems include: measures of interior and exterior angles, properties of inscribed polygons. MA.3.a. Derive the formula for the relationship between the number of sides and sums of the interior and sums of the exterior angles of polygons and apply to the solutions of mathematical and contextual problems. MA.3.a. (+) Use equations and graphs of conic sections to model real-world problems.  MA.4. Use dimensional analysis for unit conversions to confirm that expressions and equations make sense. 

Hopes PARCC or state deliver scope and sequence (YLPs) Continuity for our transient population Curricula materials aligned to our standards. Initially disappointing but became an opportunity. Text books created for California and Texas – not little old Massachusetts!!

Challenges Helping teachers understand the new standards and creating new pacing guides Teacher content knowledge (upper Elem and MS) Standards for Mathematical Practice Helping administrators understand the standards and know what to look for during classroom visits Administrator content knowledge

Challenges Standards for Mathematical Practice Traditional vs. integrated courses at HS level Content Knowledge Curricula materials Getting ready for PARCC Educator Evaluation

What helped us Math coaches, math specialists Common planning - ANet 5DP Funding and support from state/federal gov. RTTT MSP Grant DSAC EDWIN – model units Common Planning: ANet data meetings instrumental in generating opportunities to really dig into the verbiage of the standards and discuss whether teachers instructed content as intended 5DP: Best people – instead of 1 or 2, we have 9 or 10 “all star” teachers developing YLPs and UbD Units MSP Grant – Content training grades 4-8 and Grades 7-12 DSAC sponsored courses of teachers across the state on both content and digging into the Standards for Mathematical Practice EDWIN – Warehouse for everything for historical assessment data to model UbD units and assessments aligned to CC standards. Developed in partnership with the State of Ohio

Helping teachers understand Professional development How to read standards Crosswalk of old standards to new Vertical looks at standards Time to break down and dissect the standards 16 hrs PD in 11-12; 10 hrs for selected teachers 13-14 Coach follow-up 5DP work Best teachers crate YLPs Model Units What is a conceptual category? Cluster? Code? Modeling Symbol? Standard? Domain?

Helping teachers understand Professional development Math coaches led this work Coaches met weekly to share notes and collaborate 5DP met over the summer – included many coaches (RTTT funding) Math coaches are instrumental in the job-embedded professional development that is necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the course work and meeting-based PD we also provide. Coach meetings: also do work like exploring district wide areas for improvement then research and develop district instructional strategies.

Helping administrators understand Professional Development on what to look for during classroom observations – APs and VPs Less work with dissecting standards but still some Some crosswalk of old standards to new Math content PD from Curriculum Director Videos for inter-rater reliability Mostly during monthly meetings 10 hours in 11-12, 5 hours this year Required focus for evaluation where possible The videos were made in our own classrooms with teachers who volunteered for the project. Seeing our students and our teachers made the work real for administrators and eliminated the “oh well our district is just nothing like the folks in this video” complaint that we often here when using on-line video resources.

Standards for Mathematical Practice Professional Development Discussion about what each looked like in the classroom Brainstorm activities that would enable teachers to identify how best to assess the SMPs Identify tasks and activities that do NOT measure student progress on SMPs Discussed how colleagues could help us measure student achievement in these areas (science especially but also PE and Geography) The richer tasks like open ended questions, and tasks with multiple solutions that engage the Standards for Mathematical Practice naturally require more time both for instruction and for student contemplation. To facilitate this need, we extended our learning blocks to 90 minutes at the elementary level, 65 minutes at the middle level, and 80 minutes at the HS level. This provisioning of time enables teachers to engage students with tasks involving the standards for mathematical practice on a regular basis. 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.

Traditional vs. integrated courses at HS level Dual Pathways created by state Most of our kids take the traditional Path We offer 1 section of each integrated course (Math I, II, III) for transfer students Courses converge after Algebra II We were initially curious about switching to an integrated path (clearly that is what the CC authors intended for all of us). So after 10 hours of PD during which our HS teachers investigated the traditional path and the integrated path, they were split almost exactly down the middle with 50% on each side. However, the 5DP decided to move down the traditional path and so we did. I still wish we had been a little bolder in this decision but perhaps that will come when other major projects such as understanding the standards and the implementation of PARCC become routine

Teacher content knowledge Courses offered through Lesley University Used Title II A funds All offered to participate MSP Grant (all teachers, SPED, ELL) Mathematics Licensure Math Specialists at grades 4 and 5 SPED and ELL teachers K-8 Math Coaches Job coaches participate in course work so they can follow up in the classroom and through common planning sessions.

Curricula materials ELEM (none); Middle (Agile Mind); HS (Flipped model) Investments in technology instead (Projectors, document cameras, iPads, Lap tops) Many preferring to use online resources (FREE) Plans to work with 5DP to leverage volume purchases down the road At the elementary level, we did a new adoption in 2008 of the EnVision Math program which is a Pearson product. At the time, we knew the state was developing new Standards documents; however, we were used to buying texts that were not aligned to our standards anyway! I mentioned how they only made them for you guys, Florida and Texas! We had to modify all adoptions anyway. Document cameras are instrumental in discussions of the Standards for Mathematical Practice – this is how the teachers can relay to students ways to communicate their ideas more effectively.

Getting ready for PARCC Agile Mind (Dana Center) NWEA item bank in EDWIN Pilots this spring We are looking primarily at item types and endeavoring to make students familiar with the new item types But even more importantly, we want students to become familiar with taking online assessments. We started administering our district-wide interim assessments at the elementary level several years ago and quickly discovered that there is a learning curve for students in this regard. We need to teach students that their task when taking as assessment online is very different than what is expected from them when they are on a computer playing a video game.

Educator Evaluation SMART Goals menu Rigor, Relevance Observation focus on mathematics when possible MA did pass new Educator Evaluation Legislation which for RTTT districts went into effect last school year. The main intents are two fold: First, the intent is about increasing student achievement through improved instruction. Our mantra in Revere has been “We’re all in this together!” And I could spend another hour talking about our new Educator Evaluation system but since the focus is on CC, I just want to emphasize those parts of the changes that have helped us with implementation of the new standards. The new system enables us to visit classrooms, unannounced, an unlimited number of times. Huge departure from the old dog and pony shows we used to visit 3 times a year for new teachers and as infrequently as once every other year for veterans. The evaluation cycle begins with the teachers completing a self-assessment and using the achievement data from their own students to set goals for professional growth and student learning. Administrators look for evidence of work on the goals during the unannounced walkthroughs and immediately provide feedback to the educator on what they observed. We influence this work by providing a “menu” of goals from which teachers could choose and we designed these goals around district initiatives like: “I will increase academic rigor by engaging students weekly in learning experiences that employ higher level thinking and involve the use of technology. These learning experiences will also provide access to relevant social, societal topics. By the end of the year, ________ percent of my students will consistently earn a 4 (or A level work) on these tasks.”

Summary Professional Development is key Don’t forget to train administrators Collaborate as much as you can to leverage experts and increase economy of efforts Leverage the necessary resources Class time Money Best teachers Use evaluation as a resource for data on effective implementation