1. Northwest Mathematics Conference Portland, OR October 2014 http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim Determining alignment to the CCSS from instructional materials

2. Recognize our successes Looking back over two decades of math standards The percentage of fourth graders scoring proficient or above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has increased from 13% in 1990 to 42% in 2013 The percentage of 8 th graders scoring “proficient” or above on NAEP rose from 15% in 1990 to 36% in 2013. Between 1990 and 2013, the mean SAT-Math score increased from 501 to 514; and mean ACT-Math score increased from 19.9 to 20.9 The number of students taking AP calculus examinations rose from 77,634 in 1982 to 387,297 in 2013, of whom 50% scored a 4 or 5 The number of students taking AP statistics examinations rose from 7,667 in 1982 to 169,508 in 2013, of whom 33% scored a 4 or 5 NCTM (2014) Principles to Action, p. 1

3. However…. Looking back over two decades of math standards Average math NAEP scores for 17-year olds has been essentially flat since 1973 The difference in average NAEP math scores between white & black and white & Hispanic 9- & 13-year olds has narrowed somewhat between 1973 and 2013, but remains between 17 & 28 points. Only about 44% of U.S. high school graduates in 2013 were considered ready for college work in math, as measured by ACT and SAT scores On the PISA, among cohorts of 15-year olds from 34 participating countries, the U.S. cohort ranked 26 th in 2012. Although many countries’ mean scores on the PISA assessments increased from 2003 to 2012, the U.S. mean scores decreased. NCTM (2014) Principles to Action, p. 2

4. Instruction & materials matter National reports, such as “Choosing Blindly” by the Brookings Institution, and “Out of Print” by State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), strongly recommend states update their curricular review policies to keep up with changes in instructional materials Effectiveness research of curricular materials underscore their importance A thorough review of materials that results in identifying high quality curricula could potentially lead to significant gains in student achievement Effect size, in standard deviations, of selected interventions on student test scores 4 Source: Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core, Brookings Institution (2012)

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 2025: What would quality materials look like and be able to do? Vision for the future 8

9. 2025: Vision for the future What are characteristics of a quality mathematics curricular program that you would want for your own students to experience? How does your current materials meet these expectations? Where do your current materials fall short? 9

10. What is the “job” of a student? What “jobs” do our students want to do at school? Two core “jobs” most students try to do everyday: – They want to feel successful and make progress – They want to have fun with friends “If the kids want to learn, we couldn’t stop ‘em. If they don’t, we can’t make ‘em.” - Jack Frymier 10 Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., Johnson, C.W. (2011), Disrupting Class: How Disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw Hill. New York.

11. Meeting this challenge Shifts in practice are needed Common practicesNeeded practices Student Motivation External (e.g. grades, passing test) Internal (e.g. enjoyment, curiosity) MindsetFixed (e.g. some students are just good at math) Growth (e.g. all students can achieve through work and effort) Time Allocation Fixed instructional time & variable achievement Variable instructional time & fixed achievement Instructional Design Uniform instruction and activities for all students Individualized learning and activities Instructional Materials Lessons and units designed to meet needs of “most” children Lessons and units designed to meet the needs of specific children FlexibilityMaterials are static, teachers role is to implement tasks as is Materials are dynamic, teachers adapt and sequence materials to meet the needs of their learners

12. Standardization & Innovation Building a better light bulb 12 What is the same? Common standards are like having common sockets Curricula (tasks, lessons, units) are like the bulbs

13. Revision of Oregon Materials review process Oregon has specific laws that outlines how state reviews are carried out and when (ORS 337 & OAR 581-11). – 30+ year old laws (Basal focused, seven year review cycle) – Review is sustained by publisher fees – State math review has been moved from 2014 to 2016 – Will work in the 2015 session to update the state review process Districts are able to independently review and adopt at any time, provided they use the board approved criteria (OAR 581-022-1622) – Pilot process to support the local review of materials – Summer 2014: SOESD and Hillsboro “Pilot” review process for math – Fall 2014: share results and supporting documents – Summer 2015: aim to support more regional reviews of math

14. Open Educational Resources (OER) General Definition of OER – Freely accessible, openly licensed content – Available to the public for free and legal sharing, use, repurposing, and remixing Supporting OERs in Oregon – Look to include review of OERs using the same criteria for CCSS aligned content – 2014 Title IIB RFP – support OER content in math and/or science – Support within a multi-state collaborative of OER content development lead by CCSSO and Creative Commons 14

15. http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim Development of indicators of quality CCSS math materials 15

16. Commonly used materials rubrics EQuIP rubric for lessons & units

17. Commonly used materials rubrics Instructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET2)

18. The Three Shifts in Mathematics Focus: Strongly where the Standards focus Coherence: Think across grades and link to major topics within grades Rigor: Require conceptual understanding, fluency, and application See publishers criteria for additional information on these shifts for instructional materials CCSS Math K-8 Publishers Criteria CCSS Math HS Publishers Criteria

19. Grouping of Math Practices Reasoning and Explaining 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 Overarching Habits of Mind of a Productive Mathematical Thinker 1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them 6. Attend to precision Adapted from (McCallum, 2011) 19

20. Oregon Quality Review Rubric Adopted by State Board of Education, Jan. 2014

21. OR-IMET http://tinyurl.com/orimet-hs http://tinyurl.com/orimet-k8 21

22. Using the Quality Review Rubric For each dimension: Make observations and suggestions related to criteria and evidence. Determine a rating for each dimension based on checked criteria and observations. Additional comments to improve the rating of the material in this section 22

23. OR-IMET Lite for lessons & units 23 http://tinyurl.com/orimet-lite

24. http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim Initial findings Pilot review SOESD & Hillsboro

25. Programs Reviewed – Summer 2014 Southern Oregon ESD Elementary School – Bridges (K-5) – Engage NY (K-5) – Math Expressions – My Math – Investigations (incomplete materials submitted) Middle School – Core Focus – Connected Math 3 – Agile Mind – Go Math – Engage NY (6-8) 25

26. Programs Reviewed – Summer 2014 Southern Oregon ESD High School – HMH HS math (unpublished) – Big Ideas – College Prep Math – Core Plus – Pearson Math – Engage NY (attempted - incomplete) Hillsboro Regional Review High School – HMH HS math (unpublished) – College Prep Math – Pearson Math – McGraw Hill Math – CK-12 – Engage NY (attempted - incomplete) 26

27. Preliminary Results: Elementary (SUM 14) 27

28. Preliminary Results: Elementary (SOESD: SUM 14) 28 Program Name12345678910 Bridges3343344344 Engage NY3333333323 Math Expressions 3323332323 My Math3232222222

29. Preliminary Results: Middle School (SUM 14) 29

30. Preliminary Results: Middle School (SOESD: SUM 14) 30 Program Name12345678910 Core Focus4444444344 Connected Math 33444344444 Agile Mind3343333243 Go Math3322322233 Engage NY2222223232

31. Preliminary Results: High School (SOESD & HSD: SUM 14) 31

32. Preliminary Results: High School (SOESD & HSD: SUM 14) 32 Program NameReview Site 12345678910 Core Plus MathSOESD 44444 43344 College Prep MathSOESD 44443 34444 Big IdeasSOESD 44344 43444 HMH AGASOESD 44444 33443 HMH AGAHSD 44444 34433 Pearson MathSOESD 33223 32343 College Prep MathHSD 33332 32322 Pearson MathHSD 33333 22222 McGraw HillHSD 33223 22222 CK-12HSD 32113 22112 Engage NYSOESD (partial) 22223

33. Lessons Learned & Moving Forward 33

34. Lessons Learned Summer 2014 review Training & Calibration is difficult and non-trivial – Significant Refinement from SOSED to HSD – Importance of providing practice with real programs Understanding quality criteria valuable regardless if doing a formal review – Spill over effect of understanding concepts like focus and rigor in a new context – Need to understand quality as materials are organized or created Strong interest in this work – Need for both purchase and creation of materials – Need to continue in 2015 34

35. Looking ahead to 2014-15 Establishment of review cohort – Provide training to 3-4 leaders from 6-7 regions in the state (~24 statewide) – Can review materials/facilitate reviews Sum 2015 Title IIB – Proposals due in Oct 2014 to fund development of CCSS and NGSS aligned lessons & units Multi-State OER collaborative – ~10 states have agreed to support the development of CCSS OER courses in ELA and Math (including Oregon) – Coordinated by CCSSO and Creative Commons – RFP Fall 2014, courses as early as Sum/Fall 2015 35

36. Questions? Mark Freed Mathematics Education Specialist Oregon Department of Education mark.freed@state.or.us 503-947-5610 http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim 36