Mark FreedMathematics Education SpecialistOregon Department of Education

State Instruction Material Review& other ODE work in 2014-15

TOTOM Conference 2014Western Oregon University

Strategic Initiatives Update

• Connecting the World to Work– Regional STEM Hub Grantees

• Six regional hubs awarded grants

– STEM, STEAM and/or CTE Program and Activity Grant• 87 proposals, 16 awardees

• Network of Quality of Teaching and Learning– Series of 3 regional PLT conferences in fall, winter, and

spring during 2013-14 school year– District grants to support Educator Effectiveness and

Common Core implementation

Looking forward to 2014-15 PLT CONFERENCES

• Professional Learning Team Conferences– First day general sessions, keynote speakers– Second day, series of six break out sessions (Math, ELA,

Science, ELP/ELL, Ed. Effectiveness [SLG, IRR])

• Goal to establish a learning community of 200-300 math leaders representing every school district– Support conversations and activities throughout the year

(Oregon Portal if possible)– Train an expert group of 20-30 educators to provide

expertise in finding, evaluating, and sharing instructional materials

Looking forward to 2014-15 INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

• Facilitated Independent Reviews– Piloted regional reviews in SOESD and Hillsboro SD– One day PD training on how to use Oregon Instructional

Material Review Toolkit (OR-IMET) followed by three days of review (~2 programs per day)

– Fall 2014 – intend to share OR-IMET, PD modules, and results from regional reviews

• Revise IM statues (ORS 337) and rules (OAR 581-11)• Participate in a possible multi-state collaborative to

develop open education (OER) courses in CCSS Math and ELA

Looking forward to 2014-15 TITLE IIB (Math & Science Partnerships)

• Continued support of four STEM Partnerships– Enter third year of three year grant– Transition to be supported by regional STEM hubs

• Release RFP for 2014-17– RFP released in August 2014– Submit proposals Oct. 1 for funding in November 2014– WebEx Mid-August to go over expectations

Areas of Focus for 2014-15

• TARGET 1: Supporting quality instructional materials– Help find, share, evaluate, modify and create quality

materials

• TARGET 2: Supporting quality instruction and learning– Implementation of Instructional best practices found in

NCTM: Principles to Action

• TARGET 3: Support quality assessments & feedback– Help transition to Smarter Balanced, and best practices

using both summative and formative data

Aligning to Focus Areas TITLE IIB (Math & Science Partnerships)

• OPTION 1– Development of professional development opportunities

to find, evaluate, share and modify quality instructional materials in math and/or science (Target 1 & 3)

– All materials will be shared state-wide under open license (e.g. creative commons)

• OPTION 2– Development of professional development opportunities

to help develop instructional leaders in K-8 mathematics and/or science (Target 2)

Aligning to Focus Areas INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS• Share resources and tools to support independent review of

materials (Target 1)– Start with materials to evaluate basal programs– Optional ODE support of independent reviews in 2014-15

• PD Supporting understanding of alignment to CCSS Math (Target 1, 2, & 3)– (1) Focus, (2) Coherence, (3) Rigor [application, conceptual understanding,

procedural fluency], (4) Math Practices– Develop PD to support the evaluation of supplemental resources (e.g. tasks,

lessons, units)

• Share and disseminate results of independent reviews (Target 1)• Participate in development of multi-state OER resources (Target 1)

Using the Quality Review Rubric

OR-IMET

10

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)

11

Look for evidence

12

13

14

Using the Quality Review Rubrichttp://tinyurl.com/odemath-omet

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

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)

15

*note: materials were chosen by local districts since this was a local independent review.

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)

16

*note: materials were chosen by local districts since this was a local independent review.

Preliminary Results:Elementary (SUM 14)

17

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)

18

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

Alignment to CCSS Content1. Focus2. Coherence3. Application4. Conceptual Understanding5. Procedural Fluency

Alignment to CCSS Math Practices6. Overall alignment to MP7. Overarching habits of math thinkers (MP.1 & MP.6)8. Reasoning and explaining (MP.2 & MP.3)9. Modeling and using tools (MP.4 & MP.5)10. Seeing structure and generalizing (MP.7 & MP.8)

Preliminary Results:Middle School (SUM 14)

19

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)

20

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

Alignment to CCSS Content1. Focus2. Coherence3. Application4. Conceptual Understanding5. Procedural Fluency

Alignment to CCSS Math Practices6. Overall alignment to MP7. Overarching habits of math thinkers (MP.1 & MP.6)8. Reasoning and explaining (MP.2 & MP.3)9. Modeling and using tools (MP.4 & MP.5)10. Seeing structure and generalizing (MP.7 & MP.8)

Preliminary Results:High School (SUM 14)

21

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 Math Unpublished SOESD 10 70%HMH Math Unpublished 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)

22

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 Math SOESD 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3HMH Math 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

Aligning to Focus Areas PLT CONFERENCES

• Establish learning arc through three sessions– FALL: [Portland: 9/25-26; Eugene 10/7-8; LaGrande 10/14-15]

• What makes a quality instructional material? • Where can I find it? (Primary Target 1: Quality Materials)

– Winter: [Portland: 2/10-11; Eugene 2/19-20; LaGrande 3/3-4]• How do I implement with fidelity? (Target 2: Quality instruction;

NCTM: Principles to Action)

– Spring: [TBD: June 2015]• How do I know students learned it? • How could I make it better? (Target 3: Quality assessment & Feedback)

Aligning to Focus Areas

• How can I help?– Title IIB

• Write a proposal! (Due on Oct 1, 2014)• Help review proposals! (Oct 2-16, 2014)

– Instructional Materials• Participate in local, regional, and/or state reviews in 2015• Help develop quality lessons and units aligned to the CCSSM

– Professional Learning Team Conferences• Consider help presenting a session in 2015• Possible keynote opportunity in February/March sessions

Questions?

• Mark FreedMathematics Education SpecialistOregon Department of Educationmark.freed@state.or.us

Link to presentation files:http://tinyurl.com/odemath-oml14