Chat

Common Standards: The Professional-Development Challenge in Math

Friday, May 18, 2012, 2 to 3 p.m. ET
Click here for more information about this chat.

Note: No special equipment other than Internet access is needed to participate in any of our text-based chats. Participants may begin submitting questions the morning of the chat.

 Common Standards: The Professional-Development Challenge in Math(05/18/2012) 
8:35
EdWeek Bryan: 
Good morning, and welcome to today's free live chat, Common Standards: The Professional-Development Challenge in Math, sponsored by Think Through Math. We'll be getting underway at 2 p.m. ET today.
Friday May 18, 2012 8:35 EdWeek Bryan
8:36
EdWeek Bryan: 
I've just opened the chat for questions, so please start submitting yours below. We hope to see you back here at 2 p.m.!
Friday May 18, 2012 8:36 EdWeek Bryan
1:54
EdWeek Bryan: 
Thanks again for joining us for today's chat, "Common Standards: The Professional Development Challenge in Math," sponsored by Think Through Math. We'll be getting underway in just a few minutes.

In the meantime, please keep submitting your questions!
Friday May 18, 2012 1:54 EdWeek Bryan
1:59
EdWeek Bryan: 
Alright, folks, I'm handing controls over to our moderator for the day, Stephen Sawchuk. Take it away, Stephen!
Friday May 18, 2012 1:59 EdWeek Bryan
2:00
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Hi everyone! I'm Stephen Sawchuk, the EW assistant editor who'll be moderating our chat today. We're so happy to have three great panelists with us today.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:00 Stephen Sawchuk
2:00
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Hung-Hsi Wu is a professor emeritus in math at the University of California, Berkeley.
Sandra Alberti, a former administrator, now works for nonprofit Student Achievement Partners, which helps districts work to implement the new standards.
And Jonathan Thomas is our teacher preparation expert, from the University of Northern Kentucky.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:00 Stephen Sawchuk
2:01
Stephen Sawchuk: 
We’ve got a lot of great questions in the queue, so let’s get started.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:01 Stephen Sawchuk
2:01
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Panelists, I’ll be directing questions at you – just type your responses and hit “send.” Try to keep your answers short, but sweet.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:01 Stephen Sawchuk
2:01
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Our first question comes from Karen. Let's have all three panelists take this one.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:01 Stephen Sawchuk
2:01
[Comment From Dr. Bula, SKY Academy Dr. Bula, SKY Academy : ] 
What is the best resource for finding Math textbooks that support Common Core Standards?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:01 Dr. Bula, SKY Academy
2:03
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Karen: At the moment I don't see any textbooks truly compatible with CCSS yet. For K-6, try Singapore Math, a close approximation.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:03 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:03
Jonathan Thomas: 
My sense is that publishers are still gearing up on this front - that is, we have yet to see a critical mass of textbooks aimed specifically at CCSSM
Friday May 18, 2012 2:03 Jonathan Thomas
2:04
Sandra Alberti: 
Karen, I would say that the implementation of the Standards is not about buying the right textbook. The market frankly has not yet had the time to produce something in response. Often we see additional modules added to existing resources, which sends a message of what to add, but not what to take out.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:04 Sandra Alberti
2:04
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Three strong answers from the panelists. Textbook publishers, are you paying attention?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:04 Stephen Sawchuk
2:04
Sandra Alberti: 
Individuals making decisions about resources need to really understand the major work expected of each grade first.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:04 Sandra Alberti
2:05
Jonathan Thomas: 
Sandra - I concur
Friday May 18, 2012 2:05 Jonathan Thomas
2:05
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Our next question is on teacher preparation. Let's have Sandra and Jonathan tackle this one.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:05 Stephen Sawchuk
2:06
[Comment From KK: ] 
How are elementary school teachers, who often have limited mathematical training, going to be able to impart the kind of in-depth knowledge their students need to master the standards?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:06 K
2:06
Jonathan Thomas: 
What a great question. . .
Friday May 18, 2012 2:06 Jonathan Thomas
2:07
Sandra Alberti: 
K - my first response is to focus on the major work of each grade in developing teacher content knowledge; as I stated above. They need to understand the concepts deeply, as well as multiple perspectives and representations for teaching it.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:07 Sandra Alberti
2:07
Jonathan Thomas: 
I think we are going to have to take a long look at the post-secondary mathematical preparation of elementary teachers. Theoretically, the CCSSM should help as they will arrive in our programs with a deeper understanding of mathematics, but obviously this won't happen all at once.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:07 Jonathan Thomas
2:07
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
A comment to K: we need math specialists (teaching only math in K-6), period. See

H. Wu, What's sophisticated about elementary mathematics? American Educator, Fall 2009, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 4-14. http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/fall2009/index.cfm
Friday May 18, 2012 2:07 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:08
Sandra Alberti: 
Focus within the standards allows teachers to take time to teach concepts, so teachers preparing to teach these need to understand the math well enough to support ALL students in the classroom build mastery.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:08 Sandra Alberti
2:09
Jonathan Thomas: 
I would argue in favor of increasing the time spent on developing mathematical content and mathematical knowledge for teaching beyond what most institutions currently have in place. . .but there is always a tension because so much ground has to be covered in elementary programs as they are typically generalists
Friday May 18, 2012 2:09 Jonathan Thomas
2:10
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Here's a question about professional development, specifically. Sandra, have at it!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:10 Stephen Sawchuk
2:10
[Comment From Nancy Nancy : ] 
Can you give some suggestions about how to support the daily work of teachers at the site level as we move toward implementing the Common Core? What sorts of local PD will be helpful?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:10 Nancy
2:11
Sandra Alberti: 
Nancy, This is all about raising expectations that all students can understand the math concepts and build foundations that support them in learning. I would make sure teachers are constantly monitoring student understanding, and sharing their results with peers.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:11 Sandra Alberti
2:12
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Our next question, from Denise, asks about remediation. Wu, can you take this one for us?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:12 Stephen Sawchuk
2:12
[Comment From Denise of TutorByDenise Denise of TutorByDenise : ] 
Many freshman high shoolers do not know the basic math operations i.e. multiplication tables, fractions and identifying key words. Are there going to be changes on the horizon to address this?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:12 Denise of TutorByDenise
2:14
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Denise: this problemm is not specific to CCSS, but is general in nature. However, if K-6 students can achieve the CC stndards, which requires knowing the Mult. Table, then they will know it in high school.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:14 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:15
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Here is a very thought provoking question about the standards themselves. All three panelists, let's here your take on it.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:15 Stephen Sawchuk
2:15
[Comment From Claire Claire : ] 
With deeper thinking it sometimes feels as though you don't cover many topics in a class period; I feel as though I spend days on something I thought would take one. How do you finish all that is needed without sacrificing good work?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:15 Claire
2:15
Sandra Alberti: 
That is exactly right. We are moving away from the notion of simply covering topics.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:15 Sandra Alberti
2:16
Sandra Alberti: 
We need to build deep understanding, fluency and application skills in fewer important topics each year.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:16 Sandra Alberti
2:16
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Claire: This qustion has no universally valid answer. I myself would concentrate on the "good work" first before worrying about coverage, but of course some balance is needed at the end.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:16 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:16
Jonathan Thomas: 
I agree with Sandra - constructing conceptual understanding is time consuming work. I believe that was the idea with the notion of fewer standards within CCSSM
Friday May 18, 2012 2:16 Jonathan Thomas
2:17
Sandra Alberti: 
You will also find less of a need to cover each year, when you can count on understanding "lasting" from one year to the next.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:17 Sandra Alberti
2:18
Jonathan Thomas: 
Also, quick plug for the standards for mathematical practice here- emphasis on these standards will likely slow things down a bit, but engender much deeper mathematical activity
Friday May 18, 2012 2:18 Jonathan Thomas
2:18
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Let's have our teacher-prep expert, Jonathan, take the next question.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:18 Stephen Sawchuk
2:18
[Comment From james james : ] 
Has there been any talk or work towards devising a curriculum for teach preparation programs in mathematics
Friday May 18, 2012 2:18 james
2:19
Jonathan Thomas: 
If you are talking about a unified curriculum, I don't think so. Instructional autonomy is very much alive at most post-secondary institutions. . .
Friday May 18, 2012 2:19 Jonathan Thomas
2:20
Jonathan Thomas: 
But, I do think that there is an awareness (particularly among elementary folks) that we need to make some changes in how we do business on a grand scale. A good case in point is the multi-instututional collaborative in KY that deals with intensive preparation in whole/number and operations for preserrvice teachers
Friday May 18, 2012 2:20 Jonathan Thomas
2:21
Jonathan Thomas: 
6 instutions developing/evaluatiing common materials for use with aspiring teachers.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:21 Jonathan Thomas
2:21
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Jonathan, what's the name of the collaborative? Our followers may want to follow up.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:21 Stephen Sawchuk
2:21
Jonathan Thomas: 
Preservice Teacher Preparation Collaborative (funded by NSF TUES program) will post a web link in just a moment.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:21 Jonathan Thomas
2:21
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
comment on Jonathan' answer to James: I think we have not paid enough attention to corecting teachers' misconception of math from school textbooks. Colleges must address this better.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:21 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:21
Sandra Alberti: 
We should remember how many people are now at this Common work and take advantage of such shareable now relevant work across the country.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:21 Sandra Alberti
2:22
Jonathan Thomas: 
tinyurl.com/noticingnumeracynow
Friday May 18, 2012 2:22 Jonathan Thomas
2:22
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Thanks for that link!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:22 Stephen Sawchuk
2:22
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Keith has a nuts-and-bolts question on the standards. Sandra, do you want to take this one?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:22 Stephen Sawchuk
2:23
[Comment From Keith Keith : ] 
What are the top 3 - 5 most important changes that schools should know about the new math standards?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:23 Keith
2:23
Sandra Alberti: 
Ok Keith. I will give my ideas one at a time. 1. FOCUS
Friday May 18, 2012 2:23 Sandra Alberti
2:24
Sandra Alberti: 
Focus, the standard calls out major work of the grade and that means we really need to use the power of the eraser to create time and space for teachers and students to build strong foundations.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:24 Sandra Alberti
2:24
Sandra Alberti: 
Second, Coherence. Think about how we can connect math concepts to each other within a grade and between grades. The standards and progression work is helpful here
Friday May 18, 2012 2:24 Sandra Alberti
2:25
Sandra Alberti: 
Third, in order to build student proficiency we need to expect of students in major topics: conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency as well as application to real world contexts
Friday May 18, 2012 2:25 Sandra Alberti
2:26
Sandra Alberti: 
(Three ideas total)
Friday May 18, 2012 2:26 Sandra Alberti
2:26
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Thank you Sandra!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:26 Stephen Sawchuk
2:26
Stephen Sawchuk: 
And now for something completely different...
Friday May 18, 2012 2:26 Stephen Sawchuk
2:26
Stephen Sawchuk: 
We're getting a lot of questions on high school math sequencing, like this one:
Friday May 18, 2012 2:26 Stephen Sawchuk
2:27
[Comment From Sonia Dupree Sonia Dupree : ] 
We are moving to an integrated math format from traditional Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II at the HS level. How many districts/states are doing something similar?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:27 Sonia Dupree
2:27
Stephen Sawchuk: 
And as it so happens, we have a polling feature. Ready, everyone? You should be able to click one of four answers on this topic.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:27 Stephen Sawchuk
2:27
Is your district considering moving from a traditional high school math sequence to an "integrated" one?
Yes
 ( 20% )
No
 ( 51% )
I don't know
 ( 27% )
What's "integrated" math?
 ( 2% )

Friday May 18, 2012 2:27 
2:29
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Hmmm, it looks as though the "no"s have it.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:29 Stephen Sawchuk
2:29
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Sonia: It depends on what is "integrated format", the American kind or the one practiced in the far east Asia. Until we see a good curriculum of the former, I advise caution. (But I don't know the answer to the qustion.)
Friday May 18, 2012 2:29 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:30
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Wu, can you tell us a little more about the type practiced in far East Asia? Meanwhile, Sandra, why don't you explain a little more about what the standards envision for high school math.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:30 Stephen Sawchuk
2:31
Sandra Alberti: 
As a set of standards, it does not prescribe curriculum. These are outcome expectations that certainly do build on strong foundational knowledge that we likely don't see across the board in current high schools.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:31 Sandra Alberti
2:32
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Stephen: the "integration" comes from teaching any topic that is mathematically appropriate, be it algebra or geometry or trigonometry, much like what is done in grades 5-7, say. There are Japanese books (translated) that show it to some advantage.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:32 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:32
Sandra Alberti: 
The standards themselves don't lead to either traditional or integrated approaches. With monitoring of student development of understanding as specified in the standards, either approach could be relevant.

Friday May 18, 2012 2:32 Sandra Alberti
2:33
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Thanks, both, for those comments.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:33 Stephen Sawchuk
2:33
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Marcie has a question I'm sure a lot of teachers are struggling with.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:33 Stephen Sawchuk
2:33
[Comment From Marcie Marcie : ] 
What should happen first in CCSSM? Conceptual understanding or the procedural skills (algorithms)?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:33 Marcie
2:33
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Jonathan, want first crack at this one?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:33 Stephen Sawchuk
2:34
Jonathan Thomas: 
I would argue stridently for conceptual understanding. Indeed, there is some literature out there that charactarizes meaningful procedural fluency as an outgrowth or symptom of deeper understanding. Brownell wrote a lot on this way back in the 30s and 40s
Friday May 18, 2012 2:34 Jonathan Thomas
2:35
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Wu, I know you have an opinion on this, too -- let's hear it!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:35 Stephen Sawchuk
2:35
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Marcie: The two are completed intertwined. Not possible to separate them as a matter of principle. Sometimes one takes the lead, other time the opposite.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:35 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:35
Sandra Alberti: 
Disconnected from conceptual understanding, procedural skills are often just strategies and sometimes gimmicks to get to the answer. That being said they are an often an efficient way to get to the answer and should be presented along with mathematical concepts.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:35 Sandra Alberti
2:36
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Three good answers -- thank you, panelists.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:36 Stephen Sawchuk
2:36
Jonathan Thomas: 
Keep in mind, also, that the standards for mathematical practice are mediators for all of the content standards of the CCSSM which definitely privelege conceptual understanding.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:36 Jonathan Thomas
2:36
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Here is a reference:

Basic skills versus conceptual understanding: A bogus dichotomy in mathematics education, American Educator, Fall 1999, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 14--19, 50-52.
Go to http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/fall1999/index.cfm
Friday May 18, 2012 2:36 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:37
Stephen Sawchuk: 
On the japanese integrated approach: A reader has helpfully sent in this link.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:37 Stephen Sawchuk
2:37
[Comment From Patsy Wang-Iverson Patsy Wang-Iverson : ] 
Available from: http://ucsmp.uchicago.edu/resources/translations/
Friday May 18, 2012 2:37 Patsy Wang-Iverson
2:38
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Wu, you mentioned K-6 math specialists earlier. Let's have you take this question.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:38 Stephen Sawchuk
2:38
[Comment From Kathy Kathy : ] 
I work as a Math Specialist, working with 6 buildings K-6. There is one of me and many of them. What would be the focus of professional development that can be offered to support the change? and what resource would you suggest?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:38 Kathy
2:39
Sandra Alberti: 
Kathy: I would look at documents that have been developed which speak to the progressions on which the standards are built. Have teachers work on their own understanding of the concepts and their development.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:39 Sandra Alberti
2:40
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Mt answer will be somewhat self-serving: there is no silver bullet, but why not work one piece at a time through my book:

H. Wu, Understanding Numbers in Elementary School Mathematics, Amer. Math. Society, 2011.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:40 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:40
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Sandra, do you have links to those documents we could publish? If not, we'll paste them at the end of the chat.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:40 Stephen Sawchuk
2:41
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Here's a reader who wants some ideas on resources.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:41 Stephen Sawchuk
2:41
[Comment From Beth Allison Beth Allison : ] 
Our district is emphasizing rich instructional tasks. Does anyone have good resources for these? I am specifically looking for elementary tasks.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:41 Beth Allison
2:42
Jonathan Thomas: 
A little something on the CCSSM progressions front:
Friday May 18, 2012 2:42 Jonathan Thomas
2:42
Jonathan Thomas: 
http://ime.math.arizona.edu/progressions/
Friday May 18, 2012 2:42 Jonathan Thomas
2:42
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Why not begin with

Illustrative Mathematics, http://illustrativemathematics.org/
Friday May 18, 2012 2:42 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:42
Sandra Alberti: 
Stephen: (Regarding progressions)The progressions are built into the standards. In other words, teachers examine how fraction understanding builds over grades, understanding of the concept of multiplication, etc.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:42 Sandra Alberti
2:43
Sandra Alberti: 
Beth: One other comment, the rich tasks require attention to conceptual understanding and fluency, not just a lot of practice with rich tasks, right?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:43 Sandra Alberti
2:43
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Great resources. Thank you panelists!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:43 Stephen Sawchuk
2:44
Jonathan Thomas: 
Back to Beth's question
Fosnot and Dolk have produced some excellent work. Drilling deeper, Robert J Wright and colleagues have published some excellent books aimed primarily at number/ops.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:44 Jonathan Thomas
2:45
Jonathan Thomas: 
Teaching Children Mathematics NCTM Journal is also an excellent source for sound ideas.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:45 Jonathan Thomas
2:45
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Here's a question from a teacher who feels a bit caught in the transition. What advice would you give her?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:45 Stephen Sawchuk
2:45
Jonathan Thomas: 
Shameless plug alert . . might also stop by the Kentucky Center for Mathematics Website . . .www.kymath.org
Friday May 18, 2012 2:45 Jonathan Thomas
2:46
[Comment From KEM KEM : ] 
If you were an elementary math teacher who had to spend the next 2 years teaching both CCSS and existing state standards (so your value-added scores would be high), how would you attack *that* problem?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:46 KEM
2:46
Sandra Alberti: 
In that case, I will also plug our website: achievethecore.org (math and literacy resources)
Friday May 18, 2012 2:46 Sandra Alberti
2:47
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Thanks, all. Now, back to KEM's question!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:47 Stephen Sawchuk
2:47
Sandra Alberti: 
KEM - No surprise, I would still go for focus. There is evidence that strong understanding of fewer concepts still yields better test results than coverage of a lot of topics.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:47 Sandra Alberti
2:48
Sandra Alberti: 
On the TIMSS assessment the US typically covers more of the assessment than higher performing participating countries - "teach less, learn more"
Friday May 18, 2012 2:48 Sandra Alberti
2:48
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
I have been teaching teachers for over 10 years in accordance with the kind of math advocated in CCSS. My advice has been always to teach correct math first. I 'd lean on CCSS while paying lips service to the state standards.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:48 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:48
Jonathan Thomas: 
Agree with both panelists. Focus on deep understanding will pay dividends on the test and more importantly beyond.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:48 Jonathan Thomas
2:49
Sandra Alberti: 
The TIMSS assessment tells us a lot. The US covers more topics than most high performing countries. "Teach less, learn more"
Friday May 18, 2012 2:49 Sandra Alberti
2:49
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Fractions are an area that trip up a lot of students, teachers -- and journalists. I can get the right answer in dividing fractions -- but can't explain why it works.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:49 Stephen Sawchuk
2:50
Stephen Sawchuk: 
In that vein, panelists -- can you answer this question?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:50 Stephen Sawchuk
2:50
[Comment From Guest Guest : ] 
What would you consider to be the essential pieces to cover in a PD for 3-5 teachers that addressed fractions?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:50 Guest
2:50
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
See for example

Teaching Fractions According to the Common Core Standards, http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/CCSS-Fractions.pdf
Friday May 18, 2012 2:50 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:51
Sandra Alberti: 
Fractions - understanding the concept of fraction as a quantity first and then build on student understanding of operations, applied to the number concept of fractions - as described in the standards - and I am sure in Wu's link!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:51 Sandra Alberti
2:51
Jonathan Thomas: 
I think PD needs to include participant experiences actually working with rational number. That is, taking a step back from the pedagogy for a bit, and just engaging in the content for a sustained period.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:51 Jonathan Thomas
2:52
Stephen Sawchuk: 
What does that look like, Jonathan? Any quickie examples you can share?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:52 Stephen Sawchuk
2:53
Jonathan Thomas: 
Some colleagues and I worked up a serios of content-oriented lessons for aspiring teachers - tough to portray in this format, but I have an manuscript (in review) that I could share out somehow.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:53 Jonathan Thomas
2:54
Jonathan Thomas: 
Basically, we spend quite a lot of time focused on working with fractions within a particular context . . .taking a break from the pedagogy for a bit, just aiming to develop deeper understanding of the math ourselves.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:54 Jonathan Thomas
2:55
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Here's a great question from Sarah.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:55 Stephen Sawchuk
2:55
[Comment From Sarah Sahr Sarah Sahr : ] 
Any advice on implementing math CCSS with English Language Learners?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:55 Sarah Sahr
2:57
Sandra Alberti: 
I think that the problem for ELLs is not solved nor created by the CCSS. There are a lot of people currently working on guidance regarding best practice for this.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:57 Sandra Alberti
2:57
Stephen Sawchuk: 
A reader sent in this link -- perhaps it has some ideas.
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=244&DID=13746
Friday May 18, 2012 2:57 Stephen Sawchuk
2:57
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Sarah: My take: the difficulty is usually not linguistic but mathematical, (relatively speaking of course without trivializing then linguistic component).
Friday May 18, 2012 2:57 Hung-Hsi Wu
2:57
Stephen Sawchuk: 
We've got time for one more question...
Friday May 18, 2012 2:57 Stephen Sawchuk
2:59
Stephen Sawchuk: 
and it's this one, on assessment.
Friday May 18, 2012 2:59 Stephen Sawchuk
2:59
[Comment From Illyrian Illyrian : ] 
Does anyone foresee any issues with implementation of CCSS with regard to instruction and assessment? If yes, can you mention the most relevant ones?
Friday May 18, 2012 2:59 Illyrian
2:59
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Panelists, use those crystal balls and tell us what you see!
Friday May 18, 2012 2:59 Stephen Sawchuk
3:00
Sandra Alberti: 
I think a lot of people are working really hard to make sure that the consortia assessments that are being built to assess the CCSS are an accurate representation of the expectations included in the standards. They will reflect the focus, coherence and rigor
Friday May 18, 2012 3:00 Sandra Alberti
3:00
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
Assessment should be mathematically correct, and not trying to be too cute about assessing varying levels of excellence. Address basic competence would be a good beginning.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:00 Hung-Hsi Wu
3:01
Sandra Alberti: 
I would go to both the SBAC and PARCC websites for specific information.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:01 Sandra Alberti
3:01
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Just to make sure everyone's aware, SBAC and PARCC are the two federally supported consortia developing tests aligned to the common standards.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:01 Stephen Sawchuk
3:01
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Jonathan, Wu -- any final thoughts before we bid adieu?
Friday May 18, 2012 3:01 Stephen Sawchuk
3:02
Hung-Hsi Wu: 
I already said what I had to say!
Friday May 18, 2012 3:02 Hung-Hsi Wu
3:02
Jonathan Thomas: 
Agree that folks are working hard on this. . my chief concern is in the area of support for educators. Given state budget situations, I think this is an area where things might be a little thin at present.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:02 Jonathan Thomas
3:02
Stephen Sawchuk: 
All right, everyone -- time to call it a day.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:02 Stephen Sawchuk
3:03
Stephen Sawchuk: 
Thanks so much for joining us today -- especially our busy panelists, who took time out of their schedules to take your questions.
Friday May 18, 2012 3:03 Stephen Sawchuk
3:03
EdWeek Bryan: 
Thanks, Stephen!

I'd like to thank all three of our guests, our moderator Stephen, and all of you for joining us on this beautiful Friday afternoon for our common-standards chat, sponsored by Think Through Math

We'll have an transcript of today's chat available at this same link within the hour. Have a great weekend, everyone!
Friday May 18, 2012 3:03 EdWeek Bryan
3:03
Jonathan Thomas: 
Big thanks to you Stephen and Bryan!
Friday May 18, 2012 3:03 Jonathan Thomas
3:04
 

 
 
 

Common Standards: The Professional-Development Challenge in Math

Friday, May 18, 2012, 2 to 3 p.m. ET

The Common Core State Standards, adopted now by 46 states and the District of Columbia, envision several key shifts in mathematics, including teaching fractions earlier in the elementary school grades, a focus on deep conceptual understanding of math concepts in addition to computation, and a different high school mathematics sequence. In this chat, a math expert, a teacher educator, and a former administrator explored these shifts and the related professional-development needs—and challenges—for teachers.

Guests:
Jonathan Thomas, assistant professor of mathematics education, Northern Kentucky University
Hung-Hsi Wu, professor emeritus of mathematics, University of California, Berkeley
Sandra Alberti, director of state and district partnership initiatives and professional development, Student Achievement Partners

Stephen Sawchuk, assistant editor, Education Week, moderated this chat.

Related Stories:
  • Big Shifts Anticipated for Math Instruction (April 25, 2012)
  • You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
    Ground Rules for Posting
    We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
    All comments are public.
    The Fine Print

    All questions are screened by an edweek.org editor prior to posting. A question is not displayed until the moderator poses it to the guest(s). Due to the volume of questions received, we cannot guarantee that all questions will be answered, or answered in the order of submission. Guests and hosts may decline to answer any questions. Concise questions are strongly encouraged.

    Please be sure to include your name when posting your question.

    Edweek.org's Live Chat is an open forum where readers can participate in a give- and-take discussion with a variety of guests. Edweek.org reserves the right to condense or edit questions for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. Transcripts may also be reproduced in some form in our print edition. We do not correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. Please read our privacy policy and user agreement if you have questions.

    —Chat Editors

    Most Popular Stories

    Viewed

    Emailed

    Recommended

    Commented