Medium 9781936763634

Beyond the Common Core [Leader's Guide]

Views: 561
Ratings: (0)

Focus your curriculum to heighten student achievement. Learn 10 high-leverage team actions for mathematics instruction and assessment. Discover the actions your team should take before a unit of instruction begins, as well as the actions and formative assessments that should occur during instruction. Examine how to most effectively reflect on assessment results, and prepare for the next unit of instruction.

List price: $28.99

Your Price: $23.19

You Save: 20%

Remix
Remove
 

17 Slices

Format Buy Remix

Chapter 1

PDF

CHAPTER 1

Before the Unit

Teacher: Know thy impact.

—John Hattie

As a school leader, you are and always will be a teacher—of adults. Thus, the Hattie quote that opens this chapter is for you too. What will be your impact on the adults in your school or district, every month, every day, and on every unit of instruction? The ultimate outcome of before-the-unit planning is for your teachers to develop a clear understanding of the shared expectations for student learning during the unit.

Do you expect a teacher learning culture that understands mathematics as an effort-based and not an ability-based discipline? Do you have high expectations that every teacher can ensure all students learn?

Your collaborative teams, in conjunction with district mathematics curriculum team leaders, prepare a roadmap that describes the knowledge students will know and be able to demonstrate at the conclusion of the unit. To create this roadmap, each collaborative team prepares and organizes work around five before-the-unit high-leverage team actions that you will need to monitor.

 

Chapter 1 Before the Unit

ePub

CHAPTER 1

Before the Unit

Teacher: Know thy impact.

—John Hattie

As a school leader, you are and always will be a teacher—of adults. Thus, the Hattie quote that opens this chapter is for you too. What will be your impact on the adults in your school or district, every month, every day, and on every unit of instruction? The ultimate outcome of before-the-unit planning is for your teachers to develop a clear understanding of the shared expectations for student learning during the unit. Do you expect a teacher learning culture that understands mathematics as an effort-based and not an ability-based discipline? Do you have high expectations that every teacher can ensure all students learn?

Your collaborative teams, in conjunction with district mathematics curriculum team leaders, prepare a roadmap that describes the knowledge students will know and be able to demonstrate at the conclusion of the unit. To create this roadmap, each collaborative team prepares and organizes work around five before-the-unit high-leverage team actions that you will need to monitor.

 

Chapter 2

PDF

CHAPTER 2

During the Unit

The choice of classroom instruction and learning activities to maximize the outcome of surface knowledge and deeper processes is a hallmark of quality teaching.

—Mary Kennedy

Learning is experience. Everything else is just information.

—Albert Einstein

Much of the daily work of your teacher teams occurs during the unit of instruction. This makes sense, as it is during the unit that teachers place into action much of the team effort put forth in their beforethe-unit work.

Your role is to support teachers’ efforts in data gathering, sharing, feedback, and action regarding student learning that forms the basis of an in-class formative assessment process throughout the unit. The teacher sharing of in-class formative assessment processes provides the platform that allows your collaborative teams to make needed adjustments to instruction, tasks, and activities that will better support student learning during the unit.

A teacher team–led effective formative assessment process also empowers and motivates students to make needed adjustments during class in their ways of thinking about and doing mathematics that lead to further learning.

 

Chapter 2 During the Unit

ePub

CHAPTER 2

During the Unit

The choice of classroom instruction and learning activities to maximize the outcome of surface knowledge and deeper processes is a hallmark of quality teaching.

—Mary Kennedy

Learning is experience. Everything else is just information.

—Albert Einstein

Much of the daily work of your teacher teams occurs during the unit of instruction. This makes sense, as it is during the unit that teachers place into action much of the team effort put forth in their before-the-unit work.

Your role is to support teachers’ efforts in data gathering, sharing, feedback, and action regarding student learning that forms the basis of an in-class formative assessment process throughout the unit. The teacher sharing of in-class formative assessment processes provides the platform that allows your collaborative teams to make needed adjustments to instruction, tasks, and activities that will better support student learning during the unit.

 

Chapter 3

PDF

CHAPTER 3

After the Unit

You can’t learn without feedback. . . . It’s not teaching that causes learning. It’s the attempts by the learner to perform that cause learning, dependent upon the quality of the feedback and opportunities to use it. A single test of anything is, therefore, an incomplete assessment. We need to know whether the student can use the feedback from the results.

—Grant Wiggins

Teachers have just taught the unit and given the common end-of-unit assessment (developed through high-leverage team actions 3 and 4). What should happen next? Did the students reach the proficiency targets for the essential learning standards of the unit? As a school leader, how do you know? More important, what are the responsibilities for each of your collaborative teams after the unit ends?

The after-the-unit high-leverage team actions support steps four and five of the PLC teaching-assessinglearning cycle (see figure 3.1, page 102).

Think about when your teachers pass back an end-of-unit assessment to their students. Did assigning the students a score or grade motivate them to continue to learn and to use the results as part of a formative learning process? Did the process of learning the essential standards from the previous unit stop for the students as the next unit began? In a PLC culture, the process of student growth and demonstrations of learning never stop.

 

Chapter 3 After the Unit

ePub

CHAPTER 3

After the Unit

You can’t learn without feedback…. It’s not teaching that causes learning. It’s the attempts by the learner to perform that cause learning, dependent upon the quality of the feedback and opportunities to use it. A single test of anything is, therefore, an incomplete assessment. We need to know whether the student can use the feedback from the results.

—Grant Wiggins

Teachers have just taught the unit and given the common end-of-unit assessment (developed through high-leverage team actions 3 and 4). What should happen next? Did the students reach the proficiency targets for the essential learning standards of the unit? As a school leader, how do you know? More important, what are the responsibilities for each of your collaborative teams after the unit ends?

The after-the-unit high-leverage team actions support steps four and five of the PLC teaching-assessing-learning cycle (see figure 3.1, page 102).

 

Appendix A

PDF

APPENDIX A

Standards for Mathematical Practice

Source: NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 6–8. © 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief

State School Officers. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe varieties of expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students. These practices rest on important “processes and proficiencies” with longstanding importance in mathematics education. The first of these are the NCTM process standards of problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, representation, and connections. The second are the strands of mathematical proficiency specified in the National Research Council’s report Adding It Up: adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, conceptual understanding (comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations and relations), procedural fluency (skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently and appropriately), and productive disposition (habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy).

 

Epilogue: Taking Your Next Steps

ePub

EPILOGUE

Taking Your Next Steps

So now what? Your collaborative teams have moved through the five stages of the PLC teaching-assessing-learning cycle and should now be ready to start the process again with the next unit. Some of the considerations from this handbook relative to your teams’ work with the instructional unit include:

•   Was the size of the unit manageable within the teaching-assessing-learning cycle?

•   How did the team discussion of essential learning standards help support student understanding?

•   How did the design of the mathematical tasks and assessment instruments work? Were they aligned? Did they require demonstrations of student understanding?

•   How did the unit formative assessment plan fit with the end-of-unit assessment?

•   What was the student and teacher response at the end of the unit?

•   Did the team have the proper amount of time needed to complete its work?

The daily expectations of preparing class, scoring and grading student assessments, dealing with students who need extra help, meeting with parents, and having other school meetings often overwhelm teachers. Part of your responsibility as a leader within a PLC culture is to provide the team time necessary to support their work around the ten high-leverage team actions.

 

Appendix A: Standards for Mathematical Practice

ePub

APPENDIX A

Standards for Mathematical Practice

Source: NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 6–8. © 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe varieties of expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students. These practices rest on important “processes and proficiencies” with longstanding importance in mathematics education. The first of these are the NCTM process standards of problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, representation, and connections. The second are the strands of mathematical proficiency specified in the National Research Council’s report Adding It Up: adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, conceptual understanding (comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations and relations), procedural fluency (skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently and appropriately), and productive disposition (habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy).

 

Appendix B

PDF

APPENDIX B

Standards for Mathematical Practice Evidence Tool

Source: © 2013 by Mona Toncheff & Timothy D. Kanold. All rights reserved.

Source for Mathematical Practices: NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 6–8.

Mathematical Practice 1: “Make Sense of Problems and

Persevere in Solving Them”

Students:

●●

Check intermediate answers, and change strategy if necessary

●●

Think about approaches to solving the problem before beginning

●●

Draw pictures or diagrams to represent given information

●●

Have the patience to complete multiple examples in trying to identity a solution

●●

Start by working a simpler problem

●●

Make a plan for solving the problem

In the classroom:

●●

Student teams or groups look at a variety of solution approaches and discuss their merits.

●●

Student teams or groups compare two different approaches to look for connections.

●●

●●

Students discuss with their peers whether a particular answer is possible in a given situation and explain their thinking.

Time is allotted for individual thinking and for sharing thoughts and ideas with a student peer.

 

Appendix C

PDF

APPENDIX C

Cognitive-Demand-Level Task-Analysis Guide

Source: Smith & Stein, 1998. © 1998, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Used with permission.

Table C.1: Cognitive-Demand Levels of Mathematical Tasks

Lower-Level Cognitive Demand

Higher-Level Cognitive Demand

Memorization Tasks

Procedures With Connections Tasks

• These tasks involve reproducing previously learned facts, rules, formulae, or definitions to memory.

• These procedures focus students’ attention on the use of procedures for the purpose of developing deeper levels of understanding of mathematical concepts and ideas.

• They cannot be solved using procedures because a procedure does not exist or because the time frame in which the task is being completed is too short to use the procedure.

• They are not ambiguous; such tasks involve exact reproduction of previously seen material and what is to be reproduced is clearly and directly stated.

• They have no connection to the concepts or meaning that underlie the facts, rules, formulae, or definitions being learned or reproduced.

 

Appendix B: Standards for Mathematical Practice Evidence Tool

ePub

APPENDIX B

Standards for Mathematical Practice Evidence Tool

Source: © 2013 by Mona Toncheff & Timothy D. Kanold. All rights reserved.
Source for Mathematical Practices: NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 6–8.

Mathematical Practice 1: “Make Sense of Problems and Persevere in Solving Them”

Students:

•   Check intermediate answers, and change strategy if necessary

•   Think about approaches to solving the problem before beginning

•   Draw pictures or diagrams to represent given information

•   Have the patience to complete multiple examples in trying to identity a solution

•   Start by working a simpler problem

•   Make a plan for solving the problem

In the classroom:

•   Student teams or groups look at a variety of solution approaches and discuss their merits.

•   Student teams or groups compare two different approaches to look for connections.

•   Students discuss with their peers whether a particular answer is possible in a given situation and explain their thinking.

 

Appendix D

PDF

APPENDIX D

Sources for Higher-Level-Cognitive-Demand Tasks

Common Core Conversation www.commoncoreconversation.com/math-resources.html

Common Core Conversation is a collection of more than fifty free website resources for the Common

Core State Standards in mathematics and ELA.

EngageNY Mathematics www.engageny.org/mathematics

The site features curriculum modules from the state of New York that include sample assessment tasks, deep resources, and exemplars for grades preK–12.

Howard County Public School System Secondary Mathematics Common Core https://secondarymathcommoncore.wikispaces.hcpss.org

This site is a sample wiki for a district K–12 mathematics curriculum.

Illustrative Mathematics www.illustrativemathematics.org

The main goal of this project is to provide guidance to states, assessment consortia, testing companies, and curriculum developers by illustrating the range and types of mathematical work that students will experience upon implementation of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics.

 

Appendix C: Cognitive-Demand-Level Task-Analysis Guide

ePub

APPENDIX C

Cognitive-Demand-Level Task-Analysis Guide

Source: Smith & Stein, 1998. © 1998, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Used with permission.

Table C.1: Cognitive-Demand Levels of Mathematical Tasks

Lower-Level Cognitive Demand

Higher-Level Cognitive Demand

Memorization Tasks

•   These tasks involve reproducing previously learned facts, rules, formulae, or definitions to memory.

•   They cannot be solved using procedures because a procedure does not exist or because the time frame in which the task is being completed is too short to use the procedure.

•   They are not ambiguous; such tasks involve exact reproduction of previously seen material and what is to be reproduced is clearly and directly stated.

•   They have no connection to the concepts or meaning that underlie the facts, rules, formulae, or definitions being learned or reproduced.

 

Appendix E

PDF

APPENDIX E

How the Mathematics at Work High-Leverage

Team Actions Support the NCTM �Principles to

Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All

The Beyond the Common Core: A Handbook for Mathematics in a PLC at Work series and the Mathematics at Work process include ten high-leverage team actions teachers should pursue collaboratively every day, in every unit, and every year. The goals of these actions are to eliminate inequities, inconsistencies, and lack of coherence so the focus is on teachers’ expectations, instructional practices, assessment practices, and responses to student-demonstrated learning. Therefore, the Mathematics at Work process provides support for NCTM’s Guiding Practices for School Mathematics as outlined in the 2014 publication

Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All (p. 5). Those principles are:

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Curriculum principle—An excellent mathematics program includes a curriculum that develops important mathematics along coherent learning progressions and develops connections among areas of mathematical study and between mathematics and the real world.

 

Appendix D: Sources for Higher-Level-Cognitive-Demand Tasks

ePub

APPENDIX D

Sources for Higher-Level-Cognitive-Demand Tasks

Common Core Conversation

www.commoncoreconversation.com/math-resources.html

Common Core Conversation is a collection of more than fifty free website resources for the Common Core State Standards in mathematics and ELA.

EngageNY Mathematics

www.engageny.org/mathematics

The site features curriculum modules from the state of New York that include sample assessment tasks, deep resources, and exemplars for grades preK–12.

Howard County Public School System Secondary Mathematics Common Core

https://secondarymathcommoncore.wikispaces.hcpss.org

This site is a sample wiki for a district K–12 mathematics curriculum.

Illustrative Mathematics

www.illustrativemathematics.org

The main goal of this project is to provide guidance to states, assessment consortia, testing companies, and curriculum developers by illustrating the range and types of mathematical work that students will experience upon implementation of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics.

 

Appendix E: How the Mathematics at Work High-Leverage Team Actions Support the NCTM Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All

ePub

APPENDIX E

How the Mathematics at Work High-Leverage Team Actions Support the NCTM Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All

The Beyond the Common Core: A Handbook for Mathematics in a PLC at Work series and the Mathematics at Work process include ten high-leverage team actions teachers should pursue collaboratively every day, in every unit, and every year. The goals of these actions are to eliminate inequities, inconsistencies, and lack of coherence so the focus is on teachers’ expectations, instructional practices, assessment practices, and responses to student-demonstrated learning. Therefore, the Mathematics at Work process provides support for NCTM’s Guiding Practices for School Mathematics as outlined in the 2014 publication Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All (p. 5). Those principles are:

•   Curriculum principle—An excellent mathematics program includes a curriculum that develops important mathematics along coherent learning progressions and develops connections among areas of mathematical study and between mathematics and the real world.

 

Details

Print Book
E-Books
Slices

Format name
PDF
Encrypted
No
Sku
B000000035769
Isbn
9781936763634
File size
4.48 MB
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Format name
ePub
Encrypted
No
Printing
Allowed
Copying
Allowed
Read aloud
Allowed
Sku
In metadata
Isbn
In metadata
File size
In metadata