SDUHSD’s Gradual & Multi-Year Math CCSS Implementation Journey ●Our district’s approach o Big Picture o Philosophy and Structures ●Roles of District & Site Admin & Teachers ●Community Outreach & Education ●Math Transition, Course Sequencing & Instructional Materials ●Challenges we’ve faced 1

SDUHSD’s Evolving Approach ●Transmission vs. Inquiry Math Approach ●Gradual, multi-year transition accomplished through collaboration, inquiry, and experimentation ●Maintain “expanded access” to Honors & AP ●Leading the transition to the CCSS is the ultimate CCSS Performance Task 2

Planning Awareness & Experimentation Alignment Implementation ●Provide PD to key District, site, & departmental instructional leaders on CCSS content ●Provide PD to key District, site, & departmental instructional leaders regarding the instructional & assessment shifts inherent to CCSS ●Develop CCSS transition plan / input & approval from Trustees ●Provide PD to all teachers regarding CCSS content & instructional & assessment shifts ●Make key math decisions ●Teachers experiment with CCSS-aligned math lessons, strategies & materials ●Identify key PD & curricular needs for math ●Educate families ●Collaborate with feeder districts ●Pilot SBAC ●Align Math Essential Learning Outcomes (ELO) & Common Assessments to CCSS ●Ongoing PD & coaching to support CCSS-aligned math instructional shifts ●Develop curricular materials to support CCSS ●Implement new math course #’s 1-3 ●Implement revised ELO’s & common assessments ●Focus on use of collaboration & PLC’s to support implementation & ongoing improvement ●Implement new math course #’s 4 & 5 SDUHSD Math CCSS Transition - Gradual & Multi-Year 3

Key Features ●Focus on in-house collaboration & Math Teacher Leadership ●Significant Investment in Professional Development ●Role of Math ToSA’s o 6 Full Time Math FTE’s / 12,500 ADA ●Clear Communication with all stakeholders 4

PLC is the process by which we: 1.Increase teacher knowledge of CCSS Math content & instructional / assessment shifts 2.Align ELO’s/Assessments to CCSS 3.Implement assessments 4.Collaboratively improve instruction and student learning 5

SDUHSD PLC Model ●Course-alike Math PLC groups at each site ●Site-developed ELO’s and Assessments ●District-wide expectations, timelines & support coupled with site-based leadership ●Grassroots approach o ensures buy-in o ensures teacher involvement & use of “local” expertise o culturally appropriate 6

Shared and Balanced Leadership ●SDUHSD Strategic Themes ●Balance of shared vision/goals, & autonomy ●Collaboration & shared goals among district, site admin, & ToSA’s ●Admin supports & encourages experimentation, celebrates & showcases successes 7

Role of the Teacher on Special Assignment ●Math ToSA’s provide site & classroom- based instructional support, coaching, & leadership ●Developing shared framework for assessing & supporting CCSS-aligned math practice in each content area 8

Community Outreach & Education ●Keep Board informed each & every step ●Community Outreach Meetings o Our Schools and Feeder Districts (20+) o Principals, Ed Services, ToSA’s ●Family Math Info Nights at our Middle Schools o Principal, Counselor, Math Teachers, Students & Younger Siblings ●Math instructional materials meetings for parents ●Ongoing Communication: o Common Core website Common Core website o Math support website Math support website o Regular newspaper columns/e-blasts by Superintendent o Social media communication 9

Math Transition Plan ●Integrated v. Traditional Decision-making Approach o Math Department Chairs and Ed Services Staff o Regular meetings throughout Fall 2013  Continuous conversation with staff  Embedded into Professional Development o Each site provided their recommendation  Unanimous to move to Integrated ●Math Pathways o Integrated decision made, developed new pathways o Similar Approach - “Begin with end in mind” o Transition Plan Developed and Shared with Stakeholders 10

Link to Math Course Sequences Math Course Sequences 11

Instructional Materials ●Integrated Decision and Pathways completed ●Extensive Review of Instructional Materials- Jan-April 2014 ●Decision-Making Process o What type of materials did we want? o Challenges with Instructional Materials o Extensive teacher involvement o Time to Experiment o Short time frame 12

Instructional Materials ●Instructional materials development and customization o Utah Middle School Math Project o Mathematics Vision Project ●ToSA Curriculum Writers o Late Spring 2014 Release o Paid Summer work, Integrated Math A, B, 1 modules o Developers and Reviewers o School Year, Full Implementation 6 courses o , implement final 4 courses 13

Collaboration with Feeder Districts ● Regular Communication o Feeder Districts - Integrated v. Traditional o Readiness Test – Grade 6 to 7, info only o Vertical Articulation  Focus on Performance Task Items  Clarity on Expectations ●Ongoing discussions o Expanded Access Alignment o Super Accelerated Students (double & triple grade skippers) 14

Challenges We’ve Faced ●Time & ongoing cost for PD/Collaboration ●Complacency & resistance to change ●Resources (fiscal, curricular, & human) ●Letting go of “transmission model” ●Parent/Student support resources for Math ●Math instructional mats development/parent trust ●Fear among families about kids as “guinea pigs” ●Immensity of Math instructional shifts 15