Math & the Common Core State Standards

Mathematics & the Common Core State StandardsTodays Agenda:Propose three possible solutions to address the non-alignment of our K 5 math instructional materials.Share results of an instructional materials review.Engage in a process to possibly reach consensus around a viable solution.Gather feedback on potential next steps.

1PurposeShare and discuss concerns arising due to the lack of alignment of Everyday Mathematics to CCSS-M.Teachers are supplementing with a variety of supplemental materials.It is easier to supplement procedural fluency than conceptual understanding.Curriculum coherence is impossible due to teacher variations in supplementing, so students arent getting a guaranteed and viable curriculum in all schools.Various stakeholders have shared their concerns about the alignment and suggested a supplemental curriculum that they feel is working to better teach the intent of the common core--focus, coherence, and rigor.

purposeShare and discuss a way to restore curriculum coherence during this interim time period until a math adoption can take place.Based on the concerns shared by our stakeholders, T & L conducted research and curricular reviews on current and suggested materials.Today you will have the opportunity to come to consensus around one of three proposed solutions.CommunicationInterim Materials that replace the core materials for a specific amount of time. In our case, two years.Supplemental Materials that are inserted into the existing core materials to meet the needs of students.Upcoming adoption plansSubject2014-20152015-20162016-2017ELACurrent HMImplementation PD/SupportImplementation PD/SupportAdoption ProcessMathCurrent EDM or Interim MaterialsCurrent EDM orInterim MaterialsImplementation PD/SupportAdoption ProcessOptioNs for Your Consideration:Option #1

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5CURRENT Everyday Math with intentional supplementing with Engage NY

Option #2

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5Engage New YorkModules

Option #3

K 2Engage New YorkModules

3 5Engage New YorkModules

All options require time to arrange for curricular materials and plan meaningful professional developmentCommunicationThese options are for the next two school years (2014-2015, 2015- 2016) beginning in September.The adoption process will begin 2015-2016New material implementation 2016-2017-if we find good materials5EDM 2015 Lesson LayoutPart 1: Warm UpMental Math and FluencyRoutinesPart 2: FocusMath Message and math Message Follow-UpFocus ActivitiesAssessment Check InPart 3: PracticePractice ActivityMath BoxesHome LinkPart 1: Warm Up15-20 min.Part 2: Focus20-30 min.Part 3: Practice15-20 min.

Engage NY Lesson LayoutFluency PracticeHappy CountingSprintsConcept DevelopmentLesson tied to ObjectiveApplication ProblemsClass problemsIndividual Problem SetsStudent DebriefReflection and active processing of lessonFluency Practice7-20 min.Concept Development15-30 min.Application Problems0-20 min.Student Debrief10 min.

CollaborationTABLE TALKReview the Engage New York and 2015 EDM materials.

Discuss your questions, comments and concerns about the materials.

Feel free to call one of us over to your table to answer questions!

Option #1

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5CURRENT Everyday Math + Intentional Supplementing with Engage NY

Option #2

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5Engage New YorkModules

Option #3

K 2Engage New YorkModules

3 5Engage New YorkModules

CommunicationInterim Curriculum Review ProcessKatherine Hansen, Lori Honig, Larissa Wright, Summer Green, Wendy Noyes, Kristin Powell These options are for the next two school years (2014-2015, 2015- 2016) beginning in September.The adoption process will begin 2015-2016New material implementation 2016-2017-if we find good materials9Interim Curriculum Review ProcessStep 1: Overview of Focus on Major WorkInstructional Materials Evaluation Tool for CCSS Alignment in Mathematics (IMET) Grades K-8 from Student Achievement PartnersSection I: Non-Negotiable Alignment Criteria

Step 2: Overview of One UnitEQuIP Rubric for Lessons and Units: Mathematics (derived from the Tri-State Rubric)Section I: Alignment to Depth of CCSS Non-NegotiableSections II IV: Other aspects of alignment Step 1: Focus on Major workInstructional Time Spent on Major ClustersGradeEDM 2015Engage NYK68%75%182%87%285%70%Recommendation: The materials should devote at least 65% and up to approximately 85% of class time to the major work of the grade with Grades K-2 nearer the upper end of that range, i.e., 85%.Recommendation: The materials should devote at least 65% and up to approximately 85% of class time to the major work of the grade with Grades K-2 nearer the upper end of that range, i.e., 85%.Both EDM 2015 and Engage NY met the criteria for Step 1, so both continued to Step 2.Step 1: Focus on Major workInstructional Time Spent on Major ClustersGradeEDM 2012Engage NY343%66%448%73%545%70%Recommendation: The materials should devote at least 65% and up to approximately 85% of class time to the major work of the grade with Grades K-2 nearer the upper end of that range, i.e., 85%.EDM 2012 Grades 3-5 was not reviewed in Step 2 because it did not meet the criteria for Step 1.Step 2: Focus on One UnitEDM 2015 Grade 2Engage NY Grade 2Unit 2: Fact StrategiesFocus on Major Clusters:2.OA.A2.OA.B2.OA.C2.NBT.A2.NBT.BModule 1: Sums and Differences to 20Focus on Major Clusters:2.OA.A2.OA.B2.NBT.B

EQuIP RubricEDM 2015Gr 2 Unit 2EngageNYGr 2 Module 1I. Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS23II. Key Shifts in the CCSS23III. Instructional Supports32IV. Assessment333: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension.2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension.1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension.0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension.Step 2: Focus on One Unit3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension.2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension.1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension.0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension.Whats the difference?Everyday Math 2015Engage NYI. Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS (2)Did not target grade level CCSS to the full depthII. Key Shifts (2)Did not provide an in-depth treatment of standards Did not set especially high expectationsI. Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS (3)Targeted grade level CCSS to the full depthII. Key Shifts (3)Provided an in-depth treatment of standardsSet high expectationsWhats the difference?Everyday Math 2015Engage NYIII. Instructional Supports (3)Differentiation for students below and above grade levelVariety of technology optionsEase of use: Familiar format for lesson planning (less time)Manipulative kits availableIII. Instructional Supports (2)No differentiation for students below and above grade levelNo technology optionsEase of use: Unfamiliar format for lesson planning (more time)Manipulatives must be made/adaptedWhats the difference?Everyday Math 2015Engage NYLess RigorMore Instructional SupportMore RigorLess Instructional SupportTable talkDiscuss the data from the Interim Curriculum Review Process.

Discuss your questions, comments and concerns regarding rigor vs. instructional supports.

Feel free to call one of us over to your table to answer questions!

OptioNs for Your Consideration:Option #1

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5CURRENT Everyday Math with intentional supplementing with Engage NY

Option #2

K 2NEW 2015Everyday Math

3 5Engage New YorkModules

Option #3

K 2Engage New YorkModules

3 5Engage New YorkModules

All options require time to arrange for curricular materials and plan meaningful professional developmentCommunicationThese options are for the next two school years (2014-2015, 2015- 2016) beginning in September.The adoption process will begin 2015-2016New material implementation 2016-2017-if we find good materials19Professional DevelopmentEDMEngageNY20PD / Curriculum needsOption #2

New EDM K-2Rigor

EngageNY 3-5Improve Instructional supports

Option #3

EngageNY K-5

Improve Instructional supportsAdditional PD this summer

Turn & Talk: What do you notice? What are you wondering about?CommunicationOption #1

New EDM K-2Rigor

Old EDM 3-5Alignment to CCSSRigor

These options are for the next two school years (2014-2015, 2015- 2016) beginning in September.The adoption process will begin 2015-2016New material implementation 2016-2017-if we find good materials21

Questions?Chart responses22Coming to consensusConsensus decision making is a way of reaching agreement between all members of a group. Instead of simply voting for an item with majority rule, a group using consensus is committed to finding solutions that everyone actively supports, or at least can live with.

Time to work towards consensus!At your table, discuss and chart the pros and cons of each of the options we have shared with you today.After you have come to consensus, mark your choice and enter reasons and evidence in the box. Be ready to share!

Record choices and evidence on chart paper24ConsensusGoalFinding a solution that everyone actively supports, or at least can live with, for the next two years.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4Chart Responses and reasons. Move towards consensus by asking tables to defend their position, and clarify misconceptions.What are some patterns that are emerging from the evidence?Can you find any common ground?What surprises you?What conclusions can you draw?How does this information help inform potential next steps?MAY NEED MORE TIME!25Potential next StepsPrincipal Support:Support the decision with staff.Share communication about the decision with staff.Devote LIT to intentional learning and planning upcoming units.Use Late Arrival for PD if staff needs additional time.Dedicate District Sponsored Collaboration to math.Open up ICs schedule to provide time for side by side coaching, planning, and teaching.

More support for teachers will be coming soon!Coming To Consensus

Option #1K-2: NEW 2015 EDM3-5: CURRENT EDM with Supplemental MaterialsOption #2K-2: NEW 2015 EDM3-5: EngageNY ModulesOption #3K-5: EngageNY Modules

PROS

PROSPROS

CONS

CONSCONS

Evidence Supporting your Decision:

_________Option # 1_________Option # 2_________Option # 3