Putting the Core into Practice: Instructional Practice Guides Sandra Alberti

Student Achievement Partners – Who We Are SAP is a nonprofit organization founded by three of the contributing authors of the Common Core State Standards Currently a team of approximately 30; office in NY and team members located throughout the country Funded by foundations: GE Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Helmsley Charitable Trust Our mission: Student Achievement Partners is devoted to accelerating student achievement by supporting effective and innovative implementation of the CCSS.

Our Principles – How we approach the work We hold no intellectual property Our goal is to create and disseminate high quality materials as widely as possible. All resources that we create are open source and available at no cost. We encourage states, districts, schools, and teachers to take our resources and make them their own. We do not compete for state, district or federal contracts Ensuring that states and districts have excellent materials for teachers and students is a top priority. We do not compete for these contracts because we work with our partners to develop high quality RFPs that support the Core Standards. We do not accept money from publishers We work with states and districts to obtain the best materials for teachers and students. We are able to independently advise our partners because we have no financial interests with any publisher of education materials. Our independence is essential to our work.

Our Plan for the Day Background on the Content Tour of AchievetheCore.org Instructional Practice Guides

Results of Previous Standards, and Hard Work Previous state standards did not improve student achievement. Gaps in achievement, gaps in expectations NAEP results High school drop out issue College remediation issue This is about more than just working hard! So despite a lot of effort, our past efforts to implement standards have not generally led to broad student achievement. Instead, we have lots of evidence that we are still falling short. We continue to have significant gaps in achievement among racial/ethnic groups, income levels, etc. While standards were supposed to define the minimum expectations for all students, we have actually had persistent gaps in expectations for students as we attempted to implement a set of standards which simply could not have been thoroughly taught –or learned. Despite smaller class sizes and a doubling of spending on education over the last four decades, we have had little signs of improvement on the literacy assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) commonly referred to as “our nation’s report card.” While we have had a slight increase in 4th grade results, 8th grade results have been flat, and the results we get from the 12th grade assessment show a slight dip in proficiency levels. Another piece of evidence that indicates the need for reform is the data from the ACT assessment. These 2012 results show alarming gaps between the knowledge and skills needed to earn a diploma and the knowledge and skills to actually be prepared for education and training after high school. This of course leads to incredibly high rates of remediation, costing many of our young adults a significant amount of time and money. Compounding the costs is the fact that remedial students are more likely to drop out of college without a degree. Less than 50 percent of remedial students complete their recommended remedial courses. Less than 25 percent of remedial students at community colleges earn a certificate or degree within eight years. Students in remedial reading or math have particularly dismal chances of success. A U.S. Department of Education study found that 58 percent of students who do not require remediation earn a bachelor’s degree, compared to only 17 percent of students enrolled in remedial reading and 27 percent of students enrolled in remedial math.

Why are we doing this? We have had standards. Before Common Core State Standards we had standards, but rarely did we have standards-based instruction. Long lists of broad, vague statements Mysterious assessments Coverage mentality Focused on teacher behaviors – “the inputs” Is it working?? for students?? In this time of implementing the Common Core State Standards, it is very easy to approach this as yet another round of “standards revision.” Many of us have lived through such revision processes, multiple times. Even though we have had standards across the country since the 1990s, we have not had systemic standards based instruction. There are plenty of reasons why previous versions of standards so rarely led to standards based instruction. Typical state standards which preceded the Common Core were excessively long and broad. Even if a teacher wanted to teach all of the standards included in a typical grade, there simply are not enough school days in a year – perhaps in several years – to teach what was listed. In addition the standards themselves were often made of exceptionally broad statements. Many student learning objectives could be aligned to very broad descriptions of learning. One might think that the assessments designed to evaluate student learning of these standards would be a point of guidance to teachers working from a list of standards too long to teach. State assessments however were often built on vague blue prints that often surveyed or sampled the standards. Teachers are therefore often left with the “best worst option” of simply covering as many of the standards as possible in order to hedge their bets for what would appear on the assessments. This has created an intense pressure of time which has considered the level of student learning only after the pacing charts. For decades the long lists of standards coupled with accountability pressures have led to an unbalanced focus on what is being taught, rather than on what is being learned.

Fewer - Clearer - Higher(Deeper) Principles of the CCSS Fewer - Clearer - Higher(Deeper) Aligned to requirements for college and career readiness Based on evidence Honest about time So, where do the Common Core State Standards fit in with this conversation? In order to improve education, we need to have a set of standards that are powerful, meaningful, and achievable. During the development of the Standards, the design principles were often described as fewer, clearer, and higher. Although these are relevant, and perhaps even subjective terms, it is worth understanding how these make the Common Core State Standards different in approach than typical state standards. By fewer, the design principle is that these standards can be learned within a year. There is very little repetition from year to year of the same standards. The standards are clearer in that they more precisely describe outcome expectations, rather than vague or broad descriptions of learning. The standards are higher with respect to what is meant by higher – not harder – standards. Having higher standards means that what is included in the Common Core State Standards is actually intended for all students each year; there is congruence between what is stated and what is expected. The next issue then is how to get to fewer, clearer, higher. Unlike typical standards development or revision processes in which groups of stakeholders are gathered in committees to advocate for their individual positions, preferences, pet topics, these standards relied on evidence for what students need to be prepared for college and careers. It turns out that a lot of what we spend time and energy on in school K-12, doesn’t buy students much after graduation. This of course wouldn’t be a problem if time was not such a finite resource. Because time is limited however, decisions had to be made. Rarely in education do we pay so much attention to the limited resource of time. We often, rather, keep adding and adding initiatives. It is always easy to add one more thing. These Standards will built with the awareness that each additional expectation came at the cost of time spent on what was already included. It is exceptionally important in understanding these Common Core State Standards that we acknowledge and accept the power of the eraser as well as, perhaps after, the power of the pen.

Implications What implications do the CCSS have on what we teach? What implications do the CCSS have on how we teach? This effort is about much more than implementing the next version of the standards: It is about preparing all students for success in college and careers.

ELA/Literacy: 3 shifts Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational In discussing the Common Core State Standards, it is exceptionally helpful to be mindful of the “big picture” implications. These implications have been commonly referred to as “The Shifts.” You can think of these as understanding the forest from the trees. There is certainly a lot of detail not included here and yet very important to the Standards. Understanding these shifts deeply is a very powerful way to start. There are three shifts in ELA/Literacy and three in mathematics. The idea here is not just to hear these shifts, but to internalize them. Listen closely and learn so that you know these shifts and what they mean for you in your role. The first shift in ELA/Literacy is to build knowledge through content-rich nonfiction. I like to think of the two parts of this statement. First we are building knowledge from text. Students use the text as a source of knowledge. This of course means that in addition to reading stories, students are reading nonfiction. The CCSS requires that in elementary school about half of what students read should be fiction and about half of what they read should be nonfiction. In order for these texts to support the building of knowledge, students should read a coherent set of texts that actually support the building of knowledge through text. This is different from what is typically happening in classrooms now. Currently as much as 80% of what students read is fiction and when they do read nonfiction, it is often as an isolated “experience in reading nonfiction” such as in a weekly news magazine. These texts don’t build knowledge through a series of nonfiction texts. They rely on a great deal of knowledge outside of the text. In middle and high schools the standards require attention to literacy across the content areas. In order to work toward college and career readiness students need the specific literacy skills of science and social studies. This means that science teachers and social studies support student literacy as a way to enhance knowledge and skills in the content area. There are standards included in the Common Core that specifically describe these expectations. They are an important component, not a suggestion for implementation, not an appendix but an essential part. In looking at a student’s reading requirements across the school year, across all classes middle and high school students should be reading about 70% nonfiction and 30% fiction. When the content areas are on board, this means that the English class still focuses on literature with some addition of nonfiction. The second shift seems rather obvious, but incredibly it is a significant shift from current typical practice. In this second shift students work on the text as a source of evidence. This is a strong college and career-ready skill. In response to text, students are actually required to use evidence from the text. This is contrasted with typical current practice in which students are often asked to answer questions, make arguments, give opinions, construct projects in response to text while requiring no knowledge, comprehension or experience with actually reading the text. We often refer to this with the slogan of reading like a detective and writing like a reporter.

Non-Examples and Examples Not Text-Dependent Text-Dependent In “Casey at the Bat,” Casey strikes out. Describe a time when you failed at something. In “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King discusses nonviolent protest. Discuss, in writing, a time when you wanted to fight against something that you felt was unfair. In “The Gettysburg Address” Lincoln says the nation is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Why is equality an important value to promote? What makes Casey’s experiences at bat humorous? What can you infer from King’s letter about the letter that he received? “The Gettysburg Address” mentions the year 1776. According to Lincoln’s speech, why is this year significant to the events described in the speech? Text-dependent questions require students to pay attention to the text at hand and to draw evidence from that text. What does this look like in the classroom? Teachers insist that classroom experiences stay deeply connected to the text on the page and that students develop habits for making evidentiary argument both in conversation, as well as in writing to assess comprehension of a text. Students have rich and rigorous conversations and develop writing that are dependent on a common text.

Example? EXAMPLES James Watson used time away from his laboratory and a set of models similar to preschool toys to help him solve the puzzle of DNA. In an essay discuss how play and relaxation help promote clear thinking and problem solving. Here is another great example. It is an excerpt from a high school biology textbook. Students are given the excellent opportunity to read an excerpt from James Watson’s memoir about the discovery of DNA. The excerpt gives a great description as a first-person account. Then take a look at the question that students answer in response. Here is a hint: the answer to the question cannot be found in the text. In fact, you clearly do not need to read the text in order to answer the question. Imagine that students put in the work of closely reading and making sense of this piece. The question provides no reinforcement, no reward, no “pay off” for that work.

ELA/Literacy: 3 shifts Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational Regular practice with complex text and its academic language The third shift concerns what students are reading. In the research that informed the development of these standards it was found that students were required to read texts significantly more complex in both college and career training programs than that which they had read in high school. This is one of the reasons why students face such challenge in those post-secondary programs. In addition to the skills of ELA/literacy these standards also include a staircase of complexity throughout so that students complete high school ready for the challenging texts they will need to read and understand. Text complexity refers to the themes and concepts of the text as well as the vocabulary and syntax of the text. The language referred to in the shift as “academic language” includes vocabulary and sentence structure that supports students in reading complex text across the content areas. The specific vocabulary here is not the typical content-specific vocabulary, but rather to words such as dedicate, ignite, consequence as examples that support student reading.

In order to lead this work… You need metrics What will it look like? How will you know?

Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Mathematics: 3 shifts Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. In mathematics there are also three shifts. You could engage in an interesting discussion with the ELA/Literacy standards as to whether or not to address all three shifts at once, or where to start. For the mathematics standards there is no option. You must start with focus. Mathematics education in this nation is often described as a “mile-wide and an inch-deep.” We cover lots and lots of topics year after year. The pressure of coverage makes little time available for students to build a strong command of anything, including the understanding and skills which they will be required to build upon as they progress toward more complex mathematical concepts. The Common Core State Standards have modeled the standards of high-performing countries by focusing on a more narrow set of math concepts and skills to make room for deeper understanding. The potential for the CCSS to improve math education can only be realized if we first make room in the classroom to support student learning. Jason Zimba, one of the lead of authors of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics has said that “focus compromised is not focus.” This points to the great risk is simply going through an alignment study in preparing to implement the Standards. In order to change the outcomes for students we need to commit to narrowing the focus and simply cutting out or delaying some of the topics typically found in our math curriculum.

The shape of math in A+ countries Mathematics topics intended at each grade by at least two-thirds of A+ countries Mathematics topics intended at each grade by at least two-thirds of 21 U.S. states 1 Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, “A Coherent Curriculum: The Case of Mathematics.” (2002).

Traditional U.S. Approach K 12 Number and Operations Measurement and Geometry Algebra and Functions Statistics and Probability This slide presents a visualization of how U.S standards used to be arranged, giving equal importance to all four areas - like “shopping aisles.” Each grade goes up and down the aisles, tossing topics into the cart, losing focus. This visualization, and the curriculum which it represents, shows no priority. The CCSS domain structure communicates the changing emphases throughout the elementary years (e.g., Ratios and Proportional Relationships in grades 6 and 7).

Focusing attention within Number and Operations Operations and Algebraic Thinking Expressions and Equations Algebra  Number and Operations— Base Ten The Number System Number and Operations—Fractions K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 High School In contrast to the prior slides visualization, this picture shows a shape. Early emphasis on operations and algebraic thinking and number and operations – base ten build to more sophisticated concepts in middle school and then to authentic algebra, rather than the all too common “experience with algebra” for all.

Priorities in Mathematics Grade Focus Areas in Support of Rich Instruction and Expectations of Fluency and Conceptual Understanding K–2 Addition and  subtraction  - concepts, skills, and problem solving and place value 3–5 Multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions – concepts, skills, and problem solving 6 Ratios and proportional reasoning; early expressions and equations 7 Ratios and proportional reasoning; arithmetic of rational numbers 8 Linear algebra and linear functions This chart shows the major priority areas in K-8 math. These are concepts which demand the most time, attention and energy throughout the school year. These are not topics to be checked off a list during an isolated unit of instruction, but rather these priority areas will be present throughout the school year through rich instructional experiences.

Cluster Emphases Grade 6 Achievethecore.org/focus

Widely Applicable Prerequisites Major Work in High School is known as "Widely Applicable Pre-Requisites." Achievethecore.org/prerequisites

Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Mathematics: 3 shifts Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics In the second shift of coherence, we take advantage of focus to actually pay attention to sense-making in math. Coherence speaks to the idea that math does not consist of a list of isolated topics. The Standards themselves, and therefore any resulting curriculum and instruction, should build on major concepts within a given school year as well as major concepts from previous school years.

Coherence: Link to major topics within grades Example: data representation Standard 3.MD.3 Instead of bar charts being “yet another thing to cover,” detracting from focus, the standard is telling you how to “aim” bar charts back around to the major work of the grade. This is in contrast to typical practice in which it is not uncommon for instruction that focuses on data representation to miss the opportunity to reinforce work with operations by having students use calculators when they are not working on “calculation.”

Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Mathematics: 3 shifts Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics Rigor: In major topics, pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application The third shift is Rigor. This word can mean many different things. For purposes of describing the shifts of the standards, it does not mean “more difficult.” For example, stating that “the standards are more rigorous” does not mean that “the standards are just harder.” Here rigor is about the depth of what is expected in the standards, and also about what one should expect to see happening in the classroom, in curricular materials, and so on. The Standards do not offer a choice between focus on conceptual understanding or fluency or application. They instead require equal intensity of all three. In practical terms, it is not enough to merely know your multiplication facts in third grade, but students must also understand the concept of multiplication and what it represents and be able to apply that understanding and fluency to solving real-world or unexpected application problems.

Required Fluencies in K-6 Grade Standard Required Fluency K K.OA.5 Add/subtract within 5 1 1.OA.6 Add/subtract within 10 2 2.OA.2 2.NBT.5 Add/subtract within 20 (know single-digit sums from memory) Add/subtract within 100 3 3.OA.7 3.NBT.2 Multiply/divide within 100 (know single-digit products from memory) Add/subtract within 1000 4 4.NBT.4 Add/subtract within 1,000,000 5 5.NBT.5 Multi-digit multiplication 6 6.NS.2,3 Multi-digit division Multi-digit decimal operations This chart shows a breakdown of the required fluencies in grades K-6. Fluent in the particular Standards cited here means “fast and accurate.” It might also help to think of fluency in math as similar to fluency in a foreign language: when you’re fluent, you flow. Fluent isn’t halting, stumbling, or reversing oneself. The word fluency was used judiciously in the Standards to mark the endpoints of progressions of learning that begin with solid underpinnings and then pass upward through stages of growing maturity. Some of these fluency expectations are meant to be mental, others need pencil and paper. But for each of them, there should be no hesitation about how to proceed in getting the answer with accuracy (for example, in grade 3, with adding/subtracting within 1000).

Conceptual understanding of place value…?

Conceptual understanding of place value…?

In order to lead this work… You need metrics What will it look like? How will you know?

Reflect Please reflect on what you will be able to observe (see, hear) when you have successfully implemented Common Core State Standards in your schools and districts.

Opportunities require clarification Standards aligned vs. Standards based Standards vs. Standardization Standards vs. Curriculum Not a ceiling, but a message about priority Based on evidence v. Researched

Newly emerging thoughts… The difference between sympathizing and supporting teachers The difference between supporting and making it easy The difference between making it simple and focusing on a few things

www.achievethecore.org

Key Characteristics of Leading Organizations Systems Thinking Learning Organizations Know – Really Know – the expectations

Pathways for Learning, and doing!

Are You Doing the Core? Instructional Practice Instructional and Assessment Materials Professional Development

Guiding Ideas for this Session Implementation of the Common Core State Standards has implications for both “the what” and “the how” of teaching. Our work in designing and supporting the implementation of the CCSS must be focused and coherent. This work starts with a shared understanding of the expectations of the Standards and then specific descriptions and discussions of what these expectations look like in practice. Professional development, coaching, feedback and professional learning community conversations can be focused and coherent to support these expectations.

Instructional Practice Guides The guides are: Designed to guide assessment of effective integration of the Common Core shifts into instructional practice. Intended to support teachers in developing their practice, and to help coaches or other instructional leaders in supporting them to do so. For example, through: Teacher self-reflection Teacher-to-teacher learning in PLCs, grade-level meetings or other collaborative structures Coaching and feedback from instructional coaches or leaders People often ask what does Common Core look like in practice, creating explicit observation and self-reflection tools helps to answer this question and lead teachers on a path of incorporating CCSS into their teaching. By analyzing the practice of teaching through individual lessons – or a series of lessons – and over the course of the year, teachers can focus their work and develop specific practices critical for implementation of CCSS. The instructional practice guides are designed as tools specifically to support teachers in developing their practice, and to help coaches or other instructional leaders in supporting them to do so. The guides are intended to be used to assess effective integration of the Common Core in a single lesson and over the course of the year. This process of shifting instructional practice to meet the expectations of the Common Core must be developmental and “sensitive” to the hard work teachers are doing in implementing the strategies required by the Core. In support of this, we imagine multiple possible contexts for using the evidence guides, including in: - Teacher self-reflection - Teacher-to-teacher learning in PLCs, grade-level meetings or other collaborative structures - Coaching and feedback from instructional coaches or leaders

CCSS Instructional Practice Guides– Design & Structure There are CCSS Instructional Practice Guides for ELA/literacy (K-2, 3-5, 6-12, History/Social Studies, Science & Technical Subjects) Mathematics (K-8, HS) Each CCSS Instructional Practice Guide includes a tool for a single lesson and a tool for over the course of the year Each CCSS Instructional Practice Guide for a single lesson has 3 Core Actions and each Core Action has 3-6 indicators 2 min – Take a look at the guides themselves All guides are available at achievethecore.org/instructional-practice.

Common Language Instructional Practice Guides Daily Lessons or Over the Course of the Year Core Actions Key Practices (numbered sections) Indicators Observable (lettered details under each Core Action)

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE GUIDE: ELA/Literacy

Video Lesson

ELA & Literacy: Three Shifts Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational Regular practice with complex text and its academic language

CCSS Instructional Practice Guide Daily Core Actions in ELA/Literacy Focus each lesson on a high quality text (or multiple texts). Employ questions and tasks that are text dependent and text specific. Provide all students with opportunities to engage in the work of the lesson.

ACTIVITY: Making the Connection with Core Actions Choose a DAILY LESSON and OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR Instructional Practice Guide in any grade band or content area (K – 2, 3 – 5, 6 – 12, or Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects). First individually, then with a small group answer the following questions.

ACTIVITY: Making the Connection with Core Actions Support your responses with details from the two Instructional Practice Guides that you selected. What is the intention of the Daily Instructional Practice Guide? What is the Daily Instructional Practice Guide and detailed Core Actions looking for? What are key practices prioritized in the Core Actions of the Daily Instructional Practice Guide? Now take a look at the Yearly Instructional Practice Guide. How does it connect to the Daily Instructional Practice Guide? Align the Core Actions from both the Daily and Yearly Instructional Practice Guides with the Shifts. Which shift does each expectation demonstrate? More than one? Circle connections to the shifts. TIME: 8:50-8:55 Why the emphasis on the daily guides? Talk about highlighter use throughout the sessions Give clear instructions around the following: Focus on connection to the shifts, Similarities between K-5 and 6-12, Connection between yearly and daily evidence guides Some questions are PRIORITIZED BE EXPLICIT ABOUT WHICH GUIDE TO USE – read the directions ALOUD with the group!!!! (instructions on activity sheet) BONUS: questions that address all of them Write one question you have about these… Colored tabs – tag by shift Participants work, Rachel and Kaycee support and circulate – debrief for last 10 minutes ACTIONS: Wall sign: color for each shifts: building knowledge = green, evidence = yellow, practice = pink   Scavenger hunt questions Highlighters in 3 colors Tabs in 3 colors Fine point permanent markers for writing on the tabs if desired

Core Action #1: High Quality Texts TIME: 9:25 Participants to look at their own grade band K-2 will look at the third set of expectations – quickly explain why this is so. We are focusing on areas ???????? – explain why Overview of this expectation ACTIONS: Quantitative resources

High Quality Texts – How Will I Know? What text will be used in the lesson? Is this text part of a sequence of texts designed to build knowledge?  Explain. What are the quantitative measure(s) and qualitative features of the text? What considerations were made for reader and task? 9:30 Participants to look at their own grade band K-2 will look at the third set of expectations – quickly explain why this is so. Explain bolding – these are in the protocols! Explain connection between these and the yearly guide, specifically around sequence of texts We are focusing on areas ???????? – explain why Overview of this expectation ***POST IT ON THIS PAGE FOR REFERENCE ALL DAY ACTIONS: Quantitative resources

Developmental Tools

Core Action #2: Text Dependent, Text Specific 10:45 Participants to look at their own grade band K-2 will continue to look at the third set of expectations – remember we will address the other sets this afternoon Overview of this expectation ACTIONS:

Text Dependent, Text Specific Text Dependent: Questions require thorough reading of the text, and evidence from it, in order to answer Text Specific: Questions address the text specifically, rather than being generic What is the author’s purpose? What is the main idea? What do the details about Chicago in paragraph 2 tell us about the author’s intent in writing this text?

Text-Dependency = Questions Worth Answering Many typical reading questions in the classroom were not text-dependent The text is used simply as a “springboard” for discussion, without focusing students’ attention on close reading of the text. 10:57

Supporting the Action

Core Action #3: Productive Engagement 11:35-11:37 Participants to look at their own grade band K-2 will continue to look at the third set of expectations – remember we will address the other sets this afternoon We are focusing on all areas Overview of this expectation – where classroom management lives, etc. ACTIONS:

Productive Engagement – How Will I Know? Were students able to successfully respond to the text dependent questions and tasks with precision? What strategies did the teacher utilize to encourage collaboration among students? Are there clear protocols for discussion? Are the students doing the work of reading, writing, speaking or listening? Is the teacher allowing adequate wait time for students to persists through challenges? 11:37-11:42

Precise Answers, Precise Praise and Feedback Are textually based Cite evidence Build on the ideas of others Precise Praise and Feedback Does the teacher know what answer s/he’s looking for? Does s/he accept anything less? Do praise and corrective feedback teach others how to answer? Does s/he praise the work, or the child? 11:42-11:45 ACTIONS:

Core Action #4 – Reading Foundational Skills (K – 5) TIME: 1:20-1:21

Video Lesson

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE GUIDE: MATHEMATICS

Mathematics: 3 shifts Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus. Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics Rigor: In major topics, pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application The third shift is Rigor. This word can mean many different things. For purposes of describing the shifts of the standards, it does not mean “more difficult.” For example, stating that “the standards are more rigorous” does not mean that “the standards are just harder.” Here rigor is about the depth of what is expected in the standards, and also about what one should expect to see happening in the classroom, in curricular materials, and so on. The Standards do not offer a choice between focus on conceptual understanding or fluency or application. They instead require equal intensity of all three. In practical terms, it is not enough to merely know your multiplication facts in third grade, but students must also understand the concept of multiplication and what it represents and be able to apply that understanding and fluency to solving real-world or unexpected application problems.

CCSS Instructional Practice Guide Core Actions Ensure the work of the lesson reflects the shifts required by the CCSS for Mathematics. Employ instructional practices that allow all students to master the content of the lesson. Provide all students with opportunities to exhibit mathematical practices in connection with the content of the lesson, and therefore, all students are productively engaged in the work of the lesson.

Core Action 1: Ensure the work of the lesson reflects the Shifts required by the CCSS for Mathematics.

ACTIVITY: Core Action 1: Deeper Dive Highlight 3-5 key word(s) in each indicator for Core Action 1. What shift is this related to? What information is needed in order to meet or rate this indicator? What are some artifacts that would provide evidence of this indicator? What are examples of this indicator being met and not being met? Locate the activity sheet in your binder.

Core Action 2: Employ instructional practices that allow all students to master the content of the lesson. Highlight 3-5 key word(s) in each indicator for Core Action 2.

Core Action 2: Deeper Dive Discuss scale – showing how to get the answer vs. going beyond

Don’t Leave Out the Math: Phil Daro on Teaching Insert Phil Daro video Too big to insert and re-send, so this will be done once the rest of the PPT is finalized. Using a series of examples, Phil Daro stresses the value of teaching mathematics in greater depth and avoiding “clutter” in the curriculum

Core Action 2: Deeper Dive Discuss what high quality questions and problems look/sound like

Core Action 2: Deeper Dive Discuss what grade – level problems are and how this fits in the scope of students needing remediation.

Core Action 2: Employ instructional practices that allow all students to master the content of the lesson. For D through F, can you describe an observable behavior or action that would meet each indicator? Can you describe an observable behavior or action for each that would not meet the indicator? Share out.

Core Action 3: Provide all students with opportunities to exhibit mathematical practices in connection with the content of the lesson.

Core Action 3: Provide all students with opportunities to exhibit mathematical practices in connection with the content of the lesson. Highlight 3-5 key word(s) in each indicator for Core Action 3. Discuss with your table.

Core Action 3: Provide all students with opportunities to exhibit mathematical practices in connection with the content of the lesson. 4 Some or most of the indicators and student behaviors should be observable in every lesson, though not all will be evident in all lessons.

Standards for Mathematical Practice There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the indicators for Core Action 3 and the Standards for Mathematical Practice. These indicators and the associated illustrative student behavior collectively represent the Standards for Mathematical Practice that are most easily observable during instruction. An important clarification. These indicators are derived from the mathematical practices……but there is not….(read slide)

Culminating Activity: Try It 2nd Grade: https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/counting-collections-lesson 8th Grade: https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/sorting-classifying-equations-overview Insert Video

“Silent 5” - Mathematics Take 5 minutes and silently write on a post-it… An insight from today... I’m still wondering about… Give 5 minutes to write silently. We will return to this in a moment.

Future Developments Instructional Practice Guides as Tools Including Planning Tool http://achievethecore.org/page/969/instructional-practice-guide-list-pg Lesson Planning Tool - BETA Additional Tool Development “Survey” = Self-assessment

Group Reflection – Implications for Your Work In teams, discuss implications of our discussion today for your work: How can these tools be used to support teacher and school leader understanding and implementation of the CCSS? Who will you share this information with? What are potential challenges/roadblocks? What is your next step? #CCSSwork

Thank You! Sandra Alberti salberti@studentsachieve.net www.achievethecore.org Twitter: @salberti #CCSSwork