Download - Standards for mathematical practice
Brian Wood, Director of Assessment & Accountability
Lora Roman, Instructional Coach
Beaumont Unified School District
PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION FOR CALIFORNIA CCSS:
Who are we?
Who are we… The Beaumont Unified School District, located
in Riverside County at the convergence of the Interstate 10 and Highway 60 freeways, serves approximately 8,800 TK-12 students
Six TK-5 Elementary Schools Two 6-8 Middle Schools One Traditional High School & One Alternative High
School Large Adult Ed Program
Our district has experienced tremendous growth over the last 11 years due to new home construction.
Student Group Percent of Enrollment
Hispanic 49%
African American 6%
Asian, Pacific Islander, Filipino 6%
White 35%
English Learners 13%
Redesignated Fully English Proficient
9%
Students receiving FRPM 61%
Students with Disabilities 10%
Major Subgroups
2012 Base API (Spring 2013)
2012 Statewide Rank
2012 Similar Schools Rank PI Status
Beaumont Unified 813 N/A N/A Not in PI
Anna Hause Elementary 874 8 10 Year 1
Brookside Elementary 880 8 9 Not in PI
Palm Elementary 787 4 3 Year 3
Sundance Elementary 867 8 9 Not in PI
Three Rings Ranch Elementary 848 7 9 Not in PI
Tournament Hills Elementary 861 8 5 Year 1
Mountain View Middle 856 8 8 Year 3
San Gorgonio Middle 823 6 7 Year 4
Beaumont Senior High 763 6 4 Not T1
Glen View High (ASAM School) 527 N/A N/A Not T1
Beaumont Unified is one of two Riverside County unified districts NOT in Program Improvement
District Goals District Goal One:
ALL students in our district five years or longer will achieve Proficient or Advanced in core subjects as measured by CST.
District Goal Two: ALL English learners will be reclassified within five years as measured by the district reclassification criteria.
Funding Focused on District goals 1 & 2 despite
fiscal challenges Use of Federal Categorical Funds including
Title I, II, and III to fund instructional coaches and release time for teachers
Alignment of LEA plan and School Site Plans to dedicate funding
Collaboration with stakeholders, especially the teachers’ association, to maintain initiative
Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) What is it?
Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) Who is involved?
Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) How is it structured?
Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) When does it take place?
Activities Supporting Standards Ownership Leadership
Effective Instructional Practices
The Standards
Time to Design
School Leadership that Works, Marzano Learning by Doing, Dufour Managing Transitions, Bridges
Professional Learning
PLCs are the vehicle, or umbrella, for leaders to disseminate the information by presenting,
coaching, facilitating, and consulting.
Effective Instruction Direct Instruction/Inquiry/Habits of Mind Differentiation / Scaffolding Classroom Interventions/RTI2
Student Engagement Integration of Technology Academic Behavioral Strategies
Common Core State Standards Curriculum/Instructional Materials Pacing Guides Standards for Mathematical Practice Unpacking Standards Data Analysis • Formative • Benchmark • Summative
Communicatio
n
All Stakeholders Accountability
technology
communication
creativity
critical thinking
collaboration
life and career skills
RIGORRELEVANCE
RELATIONSHIP
media
information
Standards and Assessments
Curriculum and Instruction
Professional Learning
Learning Environments
21st Century Classroom
Student Centered vs. Teacher Centered
ActiveLearning
Passive Learning
adapted from Ntl Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (n.d.)
Rigor and Relevance Framework™
High High RigorRigor and and Relevance Relevance Framework ™Framework ™
(Application Model) (Application Model)
1 2 3 4 5
4
5
6
3
2
1
Evaluation
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehensi
on
Knowledge &
AwarenessKnowledge
in onediscipline
Apply in one
discipline
Apply Across
disciplines
Apply toreal-world predictabl
e situations
Apply toreal-world
unpredictable
situations
A: Acquisition
Count, define, describe, draw, find, identify, label, list, match, name, quote, recall, recite, sequence, tell, write, conclude, discuss, explain, generalize, illustrate, tell, review
C: Assimilation
Analyze, appraise, characterize, classify, compare, contrast, choose, construct, deduce, diagram, distinguish, examine, organize, outline, relate, research, rewrite, separate
D: Adaptation
Assess, argue, debate, design, develop, differentiate, discriminate, integrate, invent, judge, justify, make, perform, plan, predict, prioritize, produce, propose, prove, rank, rate, select
B: Application
Conclude, demonstrate, discuss, explain, generalize, interpret, paraphrase, predict, report, restate, summarize, tell, apply, change, compute, dramatize, interview, prepare, produce, role-play, select, show, transfer, use
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Fixed vs. Growth Mindset
Promote learners’ beliefs about their own intelligence (growth mindset vs. fixed mindset).
adapted from Briars (2011) Intensified Algebra
“Crosswalk” Analysis Learning Progression Application of Writing Standards Alignment with Current Adopted
Curriculum Performance Tasks Instructional Enhancements
Concept by Subject Activity
Activity to Highlight CCSS Literacy and SMP
Promotes Discussion
Enlightens Participants
Students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.
Part 1 – (10 Minutes) Facilitator: Please read each bulleted item (on the yellow sheet provided) one
at a time, and pause to allow group members to identify the subject where the concept most often is instructed.
Recorder: Write the subject your group identified next to the bullet. Time Keeper: Make sure the bullet reading and discussion for each bullet
takes no more than one minute.
Part 2 – (3 Minutes) Facilitator: After all nine of the bullets have been read and discussed as
described in Part 1, your school will identify two bullets and answer the two guiding questions with the entire group.
Recorder: You will write answers / jot ideas in response to the two guiding questions on the reverse of the yellow sheet.
Part 3 – (2 Minutes) Spokesperson: You will share out with the group.
Students understand and use stated assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.
Standard for Mathematical Practice 3: Construct Viable Arguments and Critique the Reasoning of Others
Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated
assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.
Standard for Mathematical Practice 3: Construct Viable Arguments and Critique the Reasoning of Others
Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated
assumptions, definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies. Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.
Planning for Dissemination
•What we set out to do for
CCSS
•Completed
•Successes
•Barriers
•Addressing the barriers
TK-5 CCSS Implementation Middle School Math CCSS Implementation Instructional Rounds in Education
Monitor Implementation Addressing the 21st Century Classroom
Wireless Infrastructure Promethean Board Chrome Books Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Google Environment Learning Management System Illuminate (Data Management System)
Expanding the Capacity for Leadership District to Facilitate Professional Learning
Opportunities Full Implementation 2014-2015 College and Career Readiness
We are all unique and at different places in implementation, but at our core… we all have the common goal of educating
the future.
Briars, J. L. & Briars, D. (2011). Algebra Intensification: Research-Based Interventions. (pdf 3.7 mb)
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Calvin & Hobbes retrieved from http://ramanju.blogspot.com/2009/10/mindsets-nature-vs-nurture.htmll. June 6, 2013
City, E. A., Elmore, R.F., et al. (2010). Instructional Rounds in Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press
Commoncore.org. Link for CCSS Resources
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., et al. (2006). Learning By Doing. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dwek, C. (2006) Mindset. New York City, New York: Random House.
Hess, K. (2009). Cognitive Rigor Matrix: Permission to reproduce is given when authorship is fully cited. ([email protected]) From Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Levels
Learning Pyramid Graphic. Adapted from NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/joshiv/handouts/PDF/Learning+pyramid.pdf June 6, 2013
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Rigor and Relevance Framework (International Center for Leadership in Education), retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/R&Rframework.pdf on June 6, 2013
Riverside County Office of Education http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/
21st Century Classroom. Retrieved from http://theconnectedclassroom.wikispaces.com/Classroom. June 6, 2013