1. Understanding the Common Core State Standards Kay Sammons, Coordinator of Elementary Math Bill Barnes, Coordinator of Secondary Math HCPSS Summer Institute June 24, 2010

2. Session Outcomes 2 Participants will…. Examine the rationale for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Examine the Standards for Mathematical Practice Examine the Format and Structure of the CCSS Examine MD’s plan for transition to the CCSS as the State Curriculum Examine strategies for preparing the school and teachers for a transition to a new curriculum

3. The Common Core State Standards Initiative 3 Beginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). www.corestandards.org

4. Why Common Core State Standards? 4 Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code. Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

5. Process and Timeline 5 K-12 Common Standards: Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics (See www.corestandards.org for list of team members) External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process Draft K-12 standards were released for public comment on March 10, 2010; 9,600 comments received Validation Committee of leading experts reviews standards Final standards were released June 2, 2010

6. Feedback and Review 6 External and State Feedback teams included: K-12 teachers Postsecondary faculty State curriculum and assessments experts Researchers National organizations (including, but not limited, to):  American Council on Education (ACE)  American Federation of Teachers (AFT)  Campaign for High School Equity (CHSE)  Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS)  Modern Language Association (MLA)  National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)  National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)  National Education Association (NEA)

7. Common Core State Standards Design 7 *Ready for first-year credit-bearing, postsecondary coursework in mathematics and English without the need for remediation. Building on the strength of current state standards, the CCSS are designed to be: Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous Internationally benchmarked Anchored in college and career readiness* Evidence and research based

8. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base 8 Evidence was used to guide critical decisions in the following areas: Inclusion of particular content Timing of when content should be introduced and the progression of that content Ensuring focus and coherence Organizing and formatting the standards Determining emphasis on particular topics in standards Evidence includes: Standards from high-performing countries, leading states, and nationally- regarded frameworks Research on adolescent literacy, text complexity, mathematics instruction, quantitative literacy Lists of works consulted and research base included in standards’ appendices

9. Common Core State Standards Evidence Base 9 For example: Standards from individual high-performing countries and provinces were used to inform content, structure, and language. Writing teams looked for examples of rigor, coherence, and progression. Mathematics 1. Belgium (Flemish) 2. Canada (Alberta) 3. China 4. Chinese Taipei 5. England 6. Finland 7. Hong Kong 8. India 9. Ireland 10. Japan 11. Korea 12. Singapore English language arts 1. Australia New South Wales Victoria 2. Canada Alberta British Columbia Ontario 3. England 4. Finland 5. Hong Kong 6. Ireland 7. Singapore

10. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

11. 11 Grade-Level Standards  K-8 grade-by-grade standards organized by domain  9-12 high school standards organized by conceptual categories Standards for Mathematical Practice  Describe mathematical “habits of mind”  Standards for mathematical proficiency: reasoning, problem solving, modeling, decision making, and engagement  Connect with content standards in each grade Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

12. 12 Standards for Mathematical Practice  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

13. “These practices rest on important processes and proficiencies with longstanding importance in mathematics education.” NCTM Process Standards Adding it Up – Strands of Mathematical Proficiency 13 Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2010)

14. NCTM Processes Problem Solving Reasoning and Proof Communication Connections Representation 14 NCTM (1989, 2000)

15. 15 NRC, 2001 Strands of Mathematical Proficiency

16. Quinn was telling his brother Chase about what he did in math class. “I used blocks today. When I put them in groups of 2, I had one left over. Then, when I put them in groups of 3, I had 1 block left over. And, then when I put them in groups of 4, I still had only one block left over.” Chase asked – “How many blocks did you have?” What do you think Quinn’s answer could have been? adapted from Parke, Lane, Silver, Magone, (NCTM, 2003). Let’s do some math…

17. 17 Standards for Mathematical Practice  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

18. 18 The K- 8 standards: The K-5 standards provide students with a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals The 6-8 standards describe robust learning in geometry, algebra, and probability and statistics Modeled after the focus of standards from high-performing nations, the standards for grades 7 and 8 include significant algebra and geometry content Students who have completed 7 th grade and mastered the content and skills will be prepared for algebra, in 8 th grade or after Algebra II is the same for everyone! Overview of K-8 Mathematics Standards 8 th Grade Algebra IAlgebra I 9 th Grade GeometryGeometry

19. 19 A glimpse…probably not fair Cluster Expectations K24 123 227 332 434 534 641 737 833

20. 20 Principles of Mathematics  Number-Counting and Cardinality  Number- Operations and the Problems They Solve  Number-Base Ten  Number- Fractions  Measurement and Data  Geometry  Ratios and Proportional Reasoning  The Number System  Expressions and Equations  Functions  Geometry  Statistics and Probability High School K-56-8  Number and Quantity  Algebra  Functions  Geometry  Statistics and Probability

21. 21 Overview of K-8 Mathematics Standards Each grade includes an overview of cross- cutting themes and critical areas of study

22. 22 Format of K-8 Mathematics Standards Domains: overarching ideas that connect topics across the grades Clusters: illustrate progression of increasing complexity from grade to grade Standards: define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level

23. 23 Overview of High School Mathematics Standards The high school mathematics standards: Call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real world issues and challenges Require students to develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly are called to do Emphasize mathematical modeling, the use of mathematics and statistics to analyze empirical situations, understand them better, and improve decisions Identify the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college and career ready.

24. 24 Format of High School Mathematics Standards Content categories: overarching ideas that describe strands of content in high school Domains/Clusters: groups of standards that describe coherent aspects of the content category Standards: define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level High school standards are organized around five conceptual categories: Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability Modeling standards are distributed under the five major headings and are indicated with a (  ) symbol. Standards indicated as (+) are beyond the college and career readiness level but are necessary for advanced mathematics courses, such as calculus, discrete mathematics, and advanced statistics. Standards with a (+) may still be found in courses expected for all students.

25. 25 Format of High School Mathematics Standards Each content category includes an overview of the content found within it

26. 26 Model Course Pathways for Mathematics Model Mathematics Pathways: Developed by a panel of experts convened by Achieve, including many of the standards writers and reviewers Organize the content of the standards into coherent and rigorous courses Illustrate possible approaches—models, not mandates or prescriptions for organization, curriculum or pedagogy Require completion of the Core in three years, allowing for specialization in the fourth year Prepare students for a menu of courses in higher-level mathematics In the process of finalizing – to be released by the end of June

27. 27 Model Course Pathways for Mathematics Pathway A Traditional in U.S. Geometry Algebra I Courses in higher level mathematics: Precalculus, Calculus (upon completion of Precalculus), Advanced Statistics, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Quantitative Reasoning, or other courses to be designed at a later date, such as additional career technical courses. Pathway B International Integrated approach (typical outside of U.S.). Mathematics II Mathematics I Algebra II Mathematics III

28. Maryland’s Transition Plan 28 Identify content experts from across the State to work with MSDE staff Local Education Agency representatives Higher Education representatives Conduct a gap analysis using the Achieve Gap Analysis tool Identify and schedule workgroups Curriculum Toolkit Share revised draft Common Core State Curriculum document State Board Adoption - June 2011

29. Maryland’s Assessment Plan 29 Joined PAARC Consortium as a Governing State 27 State Members Leaning toward the design of “Through Course” Assessments 25%, 50%, 75%, 90% 2-3 shorter, performance-based assessments 1 multi-day end of course assessment Machine scored with some human scoring for quick turn-around time Timetable Pilot in districts 2011-2012 Field Testing 2012-2014 Full Scale Implementation 2014-2015

30. One Caveat… 30 “New standards will not improve instruction. Effective implementation of new standards will improve instruction.” Dixie Stack, MSDE

31. One More Caveat… 31 No set of standards has much meaning without equitable resources to ensure that teachers are trained well enough to reach kids who live in widely different circumstances. …it is important to remember that neither these standards nor any other single effort will be the silver bullet some mistakenly believe is out there… Valerie Straus, June 7, 2010

32. HCPSS Math Offices: Plan for Transition 32 Communicate Information to All Stakeholders Support schools through the transition Strategic Planning Professional Development Curriculum Alignment Assessment Development Support teachers through the transition Professional Development Strategic Involvement

33. What can you do to help your school through the transition? 33 Communicate Information to All Stakeholders Cultivate a Math Team Focused of Continuous Improvement Job-Embedded, Site-Based, and Sustained Professional Development Begin planning for change immediately What actions will you take to activate your staff? What professional development experiences would serve as a catalyst for growth as changes emerge?

34. High Leverage Professional Development Experience for Math Teachers - CONTENT 34 Common Core vs. State Curriculum Gap Analysis Collaborative Lesson Planning (Formal Protocol) Japanese Lesson Study Developing Common Assessments and Scoring Vertical Teaming NCTM Reflection Guides (specific concepts)

35. High Leverage Professional Development Experience for Math Teachers - PEDAGOGY 35 Investigation: Worthwhile Mathematical Tasks Investigation: Promoting Discourse in the Mathematics Classroom Investigation: Concrete Models and Representation Examining Student Work Formative Assessment Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Co-Teaching in the Mathematics Classroom

36. High Leverage Professional Development Experience for Math Teachers - BELIEFS 36 Examining Equity in the Mathematics Classroom Grading for Student Learning in Mathematics

37. High Leverage Professional Development Experience for Math Teachers - LEADERSHIP 37 Learning to Lead Mathematics Professional Development © Content-Focused Coaching - Mathematics Using Observation to Improve Mathematics Instruction

38. Next Steps… 38 Meet as a leadership team to conduct a needs assessments and create a plan for professional development. Solicit our offices to support the design of the plan* Stay informed and ask questions… www.corestandards.org

39. Questions 39