Northwest Mathematics ConferencePortland, OROctober 2014

http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim

Determining alignment to the CCSS from instructional materials

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 8th 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

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 26th 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

Better curriculum, 2nd grade math

75th percentile teacher vs. average, math

75th percentile teacher vs. average, reading

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

0.17

0.11

0.08

Source: Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core, Brookings Institution (2012)

5

6

7

2025: What would quality materials look

like and be able to do?

Vision for the future

8

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

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

10Christensen, 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.

Meeting this challenge Shifts in practice are needed

Common practices Needed practices

Student Motivation

External (e.g. grades, passing test)

Internal (e.g. enjoyment, curiosity)

Mindset Fixed(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

Flexibility Materials 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

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

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

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

http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim

Development of indicators of quality CCSS math materials

15

Commonly used materials rubricsEQuIP rubric for lessons & units

Commonly used materials rubricsInstructional Materials Evaluation Tool (IMET2)

The Three Shifts in Mathematics

•Focus: Strongly where the Standards focusCoherence: 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

Grouping of Math Practices

Reasoning and Explaining2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others

Modeling and Using Tools4. Model with mathematics5. Use appropriate tools strategically Seeing Structure and Generalizing7. Look for and make use of structure8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning

Overarching Habits of Mind of a Productive Mathematical Thinker1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them6. Attend to precision

Adapted from (McCallum, 2011)

19

Oregon Quality Review RubricAdopted by State Board of Education, Jan. 2014

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

OR-IMET Lite for lessons & units

23

http://tinyurl.com/orimet-lite

http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim

Initial findingsPilot review SOESD & Hillsboro

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

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

Preliminary Results:Elementary (SUM 14)

27

Program Name Publisher Review Site “3 or 4” Count

Percentage “4”

Bridges MLC SOESD 10 50%

Engage NY OER/Eureka SOESD 9 0%

Math Expressions HMH SOESD 7 0%

My Math McGraw-Hill SOESD 2 0%

Preliminary Results:Elementary (SOESD: SUM 14)

28

Program Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bridges 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4

Engage NY 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

Math Expressions

3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3

My Math 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Preliminary Results:Middle School (SUM 14)

29

Program Name Publisher Review Site “3 or 4” Count

Percentage “4”

Core Focus SMC SOESD 10 90%

Connected Math 3 Pearson SOESD 10 80%

Agile Mind Agile Mind SOESD 9 20%

Go Math HMH SOESD 6 0%

Engage NY OER/Eureka SOESD 2 0%

Preliminary Results:Middle School (SOESD: SUM 14)

30

Program Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Core Focus 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

Connected Math 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

Agile Mind 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 3

Go Math 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3

Engage NY 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2

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

31

Program Name Publisher Review Site “3 or 4” Count

Percentage “4”

Core Plus Math HMH SOESD 10 80%College Prep Math CPM SOESD 10 80%Big Ideas HMH SOESD 10 80%HMH AGA HMH SOESD 10 70%HMH AGA HMH HSD 10 70%Pearson Math Pearson SOESD 7 10%College Prep Math CPM HSD 6 0%Pearson Math Pearson HSD 5 0%McGraw Hill McGraw-Hill HSD 3 0%CK-12 OER HSD 2 0%Engage NY SOESD/HSD IncompleteAgile Mind SOESD Incomplete

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

32

Program Name Review Site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Core Plus Math SOESD 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4College Prep Math SOESD 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4Big Ideas SOESD 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4HMH AGA SOESD 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3HMH AGA HSD 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3Pearson Math SOESD 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3College Prep Math HSD 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2Pearson Math HSD 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2McGraw Hill HSD 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2CK-12 HSD 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2Engage NY SOESD

(partial) 2 2 2 2 3

Lessons Learned & Moving Forward

33

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

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

Questions?

• Mark FreedMathematics Education SpecialistOregon Department of Educationmark.freed@state.or.us503-947-5610

http://tinyurl.com/NWMC14-odeim

36