Report of Action
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Mathematics Subject Matter Committee Members Present
Norma Baker, Chair
Charles Munger Jr., Vice Chair
Jackie Goldberg
Wendy Levine
Stan Metzenberg
Richard Wagoner
California Department of Education Staff Present
Tom Adams, Division Director, CFIR
Don Kairott, Administrator, CFIR
Mary Sprague, Consultant, CFIR
Christine Bridges, Analyst, CFIR
Discussion of Algebra Readiness and Mathematics Intervention Materials
Subject Matter Committee (SMC) Chair Baker called the Mathematics SMC meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She thanked the committee members for the productive conference call meeting on Friday, June 25, which focused on guidance to be included in the Mathematics Framework regarding an algebra readiness program for grade eight. She explained they would continue their discussion of algebra readiness, starting with the grade seven and algebra standards. She reminded Commissioners that after reviewing 4 proposals for algebra readiness, their working draft of algebra readiness supports the general approach presented in a proposal submitted by Drs. Milgram and Wu; however, they need to continue their discussion to ensure the important issues are fully understood and considered by Commissioners before moving on.
She reminded the committee of their responsibility to finalize the evaluation criteria for algebra readiness and mathematics intervention programs prior to releasing the Mathematics Framework draft for field review on August 10, 2004. The criteria for evaluating instructional materials need to address three types of adoption submissions:
- Basic grade-level programs for grades Kindergarten through grade eight;
- Mathematics intervention programs; and
- Algebra readiness programs for grade eight.
Sue Stickel, Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum and Instructional Branch, CDE, addressed the committee. She thanked the committee for their and work and offered additional guidance including the following. The Mathematics Framework must:
- Reflect the needs of the field for intervention materials, which include strong diagnostic and acceleration components.
- Support age appropriate materials.
- Require materials with “benchmark” components.
- Require diagnostic materials that are easy for teachers to use
- Allow for flexible approaches (e.g., materials for a “pull-out” setting or in the classroom with “scaffolding” techniques).
Sue Stickel also mentioned the importance of the timeliness of the Mathematics Framework. The Mathematics Framework is scheduled to go out for field review in August 2004 and then for approval by the State Board in March 2005 to keep within the timeline for the 2007 Mathematics Adoption of Kindergarten through grade eight materials. She asked for questions from the committee. Commissioner Goldberg asked for a clarification of the task of the Mathematics SMC, specifically an explanation of “minor revision” of the Mathematics Framework. Ms. Stickel dialogued with the committee about this issue. Her response included the following:
- The State Board directed the Commission to revise of the Mathematics Framework, to update the document to provide additional clarity and accuracy and to update evaluation criteria.
- The framework should address intervention materials at an early level that focuses on the most essential standards to help students that are below grade level.
- The framework should support flexibility (e.g., some students do well in a focused program with diagnostics and others do well in a scripted program). Districts should make these choices.
- Materials should allow for presenting the content in a different way for struggling students as needed. Diagnostic data should be used to determine the need.
Chair Baker thanked Sue Stickel for her comments. The committee next continued their discussion of the standards to be included in a description of an algebra readiness program for Appendix E of the Mathematics Framework draft.
The committee agreed to the following regarding algebra readiness:
- In some cases, only part of the standard should be taught for this focused course. Guidance should be clearly noted in the framework so that publishers understand what is required.
- Instructional time allocated to each standard will vary depending on student need.
- Appendix E will include the table on page 107 of the 1999 Mathematics Framework regarding mathematical reasoning (do not include the “key standards” bubbles in the table)
- The algebra readiness description will include additional explanation about mathematical reasoning standards (e.g., mathematical reasoning standards should not be taught without the other content standards and visa versa).
- Publishers will need to address all the mathematical reasoning standards in a separate standards map.
- Publisher will need to address the selected content standards in the proposal submitted from Drs. Milgram and Wu and also they agreed to add standard Grade six AF 1.1 (write and evaluate one-step linear equations in one variable) and to add PARTIAL standard Grade 7 NS 1.5 (be able to convert terminating decimals into reduced fractions).
- Appendix for An Algebra Readiness Program - selected algebra standards (Algebra Standard 2.0; PARTIAL Algebra Standard 4.0 “Students simplify expressions before solving linear equations”; and PARTIAL Algebra Standard 5.0 “Students solve multi-step problems, including word problems, involving linear equation”) are to be included in a separate appendix for an algebra readiness course (about 2-4 weeks of material). The appendix will allow teachers to use the material, as appropriate, to introduce a few algebra topics to students who are ready, to begin to prepare them for an algebra course the next year. Diagnostics would be part of the appendix, but it would not be a requirement that students pass these tests before moving on to algebra. Districts can decide how best to use this information. There will be a separate standards map for the appendix. Materials could be introduced at the end of the algebra readiness course, at the end of the year.
Commission Goldberg noted her general concerns, including the following:
- The time required for mathematics intervention may mean that students do not have access to the full curriculum (e.g., social science, history, the arts, etc.).
- Intervention programs may be viewed as tracking students.
- She would like the Commission to ask the SBE to evaluate the algebra graduation requirement.
- Intervention materials does not support recommendations in a research study titled, “Adding It Up”.
- The framework development process.
Commissioner Goldberg left the meeting at about 12:00 noon. The committee broke for lunch and moved to a larger room to continue the meeting (Conference Room 1801).
Chair Baker reconvened the Mathematics SMC and welcomed Dr. Milgram, from Stanford University and Dr. Wu from UC Berkeley to the meeting. Before discussing the mathematics intervention programs, Chair Baker asked the university professors to respond to a comment from a publisher during the public comment opportunity at the June 25, 2004, Mathematics SMC conference call. The publisher alleged that Dr. Milgram may be currently working with a publisher to develop mathematics materials. Dr. Milgram stated for the record that he is not working for a publisher on mathematics materials for the next adoption and that he has not been under contract to develop mathematics materials with a publisher for over two years (following the meeting Dr. Milgram further explained he is receiving royalties for a previously designed book that is still in print, and thus he is restricted, by that publisher, from developing any new middle school programs for purchase). Dr. Wu also stated for the record that he is not working for a publisher on mathematics materials for the next adoption.
Next, the committee discussed topics related to mathematics intervention in Appendix E in the Mathematic Framework draft with a goal to reach agreement on the:
- Overall approach of an mathematics intervention program, and also,
- Specific standards to be addressed
The committee considered three Mathematics Intervention proposals submitted by:
- Vik Hovsepian
- Commissioner Jackie Goldberg
- Drs. Milgram and Wu
Commissioners discussed issues about the proposal from Drs. Milgram and Wu, including:
- Clarifying that students will have all 6 volumes of the program, to be used as needed.
- Concern about the time (2 hours of math each day), funding, and teachers needed to support this type of program.
- Concern about adding mandates (i.e., time requirement) for districts. It was suggested that this be changed to include an explanation of the benefits of algebra and then add language to encourage districts, but not require, them to make time for intervention. Tom Adams also reminded the committee that the role of the Framework is to support the system of standards and accountability that the State Board has approved to ensure that all students have an opportunity to learn world class standards. The State Board has set the priorities of mathematics and language arts.
- There was agreement that language on page 2 (item 2) would need to be edited to remove the reference to student and add that the standards information will only appear in the teacher’s edition.
- There was agreement that language on page 2 (item 6), regarding restricting the use of “multi-color pictures”, would need to be deleted.
The committee next discussed the proposal submitted by Commissioner Goldberg. Comments included:
- Does not focus on foundations skills
- Does not clearly explain the rationale behind the approach, why the approach is being used.
The committee agreed to use the general approach presented in the intervention program proposal submitted by Drs. Milgram and Wu, as the basis for a description in a working draft of intervention programs to be included in a revised Appendix E along with the algebra readiness description. An introduction would be added to include language from the April 2004 Mathematics Framework Appendix E (similar language was also in the draft proposals submitted by Goldberg and Hovsepian) and CDE editors will edit the document to reflect the writing style used for state frameworks.
Chair Baker welcomed Rae Belisle, Executive Director, State Board of Education. Ms. Belisle thanked the committee for their work and reminded them of the importance of the timeliness of the Mathematics Framework. She noted the State Board had recently approved several algebra graduation requirement waivers. The Board will not approve these types of waivers in the future and the Board recognizes the need for an algebra readiness course to help struggling students pass the algebra graduation requirement. She added the Board looks forward to reviewing the field review draft of the Mathematics Framework in August 2004 as well as the final draft to be presented to the State Board for action in March 2005.
The committee moved to a discussion of specific standards to be included in an intervention program program. After a careful review and discussion of the standards the committee agreed to the following:
- Include the standards recommended in proposal by Drs. Milgram and Wu with the addition of Grade 4 Number Sense standard 4.1. (to be included in the narrative of the Place Value section of their intervention program document).
- Add the table on page 107 of the 1999 Mathematics Framework to the revised Appendix E document to clarify how to address the mathematical reasoning standards in an intervention program and also an algebra readiness program.
- Drs. Milgram and Wu to write a 2 page explanation about the mathematical reasoning standards for the committee to consider including in Appendix E (the document will apply to both Intervention and algebra readiness programs).
The next Mathematic SMC meetings will be conference calls scheduled for July 8 and July 9 from 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. These meetings will focus on approval of a revised Appendix E that includes guidance on both the algebra readiness and intervention programs and also changes to Chapter 10 (Evaluation Criteria) to reflect agreements by the committee regarding requirements of algebra readiness and intervention programs. Committee members were asked to review the current Chapter 10 document from the Framework and email changes to Mary Sprague, CFIR staff, by July 6, 2004 (referring to specific page and line numbers on the April 2004 draft version). CFIR staff plans to compile the recommended changes and then email that document to committee members on July 7, 2004 for discussion during the July 8, 2004 conference call.
Chair Baker asked for public comment and then adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
