March 21-22 IQC Minutes - Instructional Quality …€¦ · Web viewThe current scheduled 2013 meeting dates need to be revised. After a discussion, the following revised 2013 and

Instructional Quality CommissionAn advisory body to the California State Board of Education

FINAL MINUTES OF MEETING: March 21–22, 2013(Approved on May 10, 2013)

Report of ActionsThursday, March 21, 2013

Instructional Quality Commissioners Present:Louis “Bill” Honig, ChairMichelle Herczog, Vice ChairAngel BarrettKristyn BennettEdward D’SouzaJose DoradoAngiennette “Angie” EstoninaLori FreiermuthMarlene GalvanCarla HerreraJo Ann IskenNancy McTygueJulie SpykermanCarlos UlloaLauryn Wild

Commissioners Absent:Socorro ShielsSenator Carol LiuAssembymember Sharon Quirk-Silva

Executive Director:Thomas Adams

State Board of Education Liaisons:Patricia RuckerIIlene Straus

1. Full Instructional Quality Commission (Commission or IQC)A. Meeting called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Commission Chair Honig.

B. Salute to the flag led by Commissioner Galvan

C. Overview of the AgendaThere were a couple changes to the agenda.

Item 5.A. Update on the Common Core State Standards will be move to Thursday morning.

Item 6 Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment and Accountability meeting will be postponed until the next Commission meeting; however, there will be an assessment update on Friday morning.

Next, Chair Honig welcomed the new members to the Commission, State Board of Education (SBE) appointee Lauryn Wild and the legislative appointees, Senator Carol Liu and Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva.

D. Approval of Minutes for the December 10, 2012, Commission Meeting (Action)ACTION: Commissioner Herczog moved to approve the December 10, 2012, Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner McTygue seconded the motion. There was



no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

E. Approval of Minutes for the February 27, 2013, Science Subject Matter Committee Teleconference Meeting (Action)ACTION: Commissioner D’Souza moved to approve the February 10, 2013, Science Subject Matter Committee teleconference meeting minutes. Commissioner Dorado seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

F. Report of the ChairCommission Chair Hoing directed the Commissioners to go to the SBE March meeting webcast archive http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/sbewebcastarchive.asp and listen to the SBE’s March 13, 2013, discussion with the California Department of Education (CDE) staff on issues the IQC will be involved with: common core implementation, accountability, and assessment.

Commission Vice Chair Herczog reported on the Civic Learning California Summit: Making Democracy Work, led by the Chief Justice of California, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, which promotes civic learning for all students. In addition, Vice Chair Herczog reported that the CDE has joined the national Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) network of 18 states designed to teach every student real-world skills to meet the needs of a competitive global economy.

G. Executive Director’s ReportThomas Adams, Executive Director, Instructional Quality Commission, reported that the SBE adopted the anchor standards for the Common Core English Language Arts Standards. California has now completed its adoption of Common Core State Standards.

H. Report from the State Board of EducationIIlene Straus, SBE liaison, gave a report on the activities of SBE’s March meeting. She noted that fellow SBE liaison Patricia Rucker will be joining the meeting later today.

I. Presentation on the Basal Alignment Project Common Core StandardsDavid and Meredith Liben, Student Achievement Partners, gave a presentation on the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Content Literacy: The Shifts.

J. California Code of Regulations, Title 5Thomas Adams, Executive Director, Instructional Quality Commission, suggested the Commissioners review the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, in particular the areas that describe the role of the Commission in the adoption process which will affect their actions for the upcoming 2014 Mathematics Adoption.

K. 2013 and 2014 Meeting Dates (Action)The 2013 Commission meeting dates are built around the timelines of the Mathematics and English Language Arts/English Language Development Frameworks and Mathematics Adoption. The current scheduled 2013 meeting dates need to be revised. After a discussion, the following revised 2013 and new 2014 dates were set:

Revised 2013 Meeting Dates:April 19, 2013 – Mathematics Subject Matter Committee Conference Call

California Department of Education Page 2March 2013

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/sbewebcastarchive.asp



May 10, 2013June 17, 2013 June 26, 2013 – Mathematics Subject Matter CommitteeJuly 12, 2013 – Mathematics Subject Matter CommitteeJuly 30, 2013November 21–22, 2013

2014 Meeting Dates:February 7, 2014February 27–28, 2014May 15–16, 2014September 18–19, 2014November 21–22, 2014

ACTION: Commissioner Barrett moved to approve the revised 2013 and the new 2014 meeting dates. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

L. Other Matters/Public Comment: None

2. Executive CommitteeCommission Chair Honig called the Executive Committee meeting to order. Commissioner Shiels was not present for the meeting. All other members were present.

A. Assignment of Members to Committees (Action)ACTION: Commissioner Bennett moved to assigned Commissioner Wild to the Science, History–Social Science, and World Language Subject Matter Committees. Commissioner Herczog seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (4–0).

B. Other Matters/Public Comment: None

3. Mathematics Subject Matter Committee Mathematics Subject Matter Committee (MSMC) Chair D’Souza called the meeting to order. Commissioner Shiels was not present for the meeting. Commission Chair Honig and all other members of the MSMC were present.

A. Presentation on College Bound in Middle School and High SchoolNeal Finkelstein, Senior Research Scientist, WestEdMSMC Chair D’Souza introduced Dr. Neal Finkelstein, Senior Research Scientist at WestEd. Dr. Finkelstein presented findings from “College Bound in Middle School or High School? How Math Course Sequence Matters.” After Dr. Finkelstein’s presentation, Executive Director Thomas Adams commented that this work could be integrated into the draft chapter on acceleration in the framework as part of a broader discussion on course placement.




B. The Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (Mathematics Framework), 2013 Revision (Information/Action)1. Review of Draft Mathematics Framework

MSMC Chair D’Souza acknowledged the work of the Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (MCFCC); the leadership of MCFCC Chair Sue Stickel; the work of primary authors of the draft framework, Dr. Christopher Yakes and Mary Sprague; and the excellent support from the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division (CFIRD) staff. He also expressed appreciation for the involvement of IQC members and the SBE liaisons, Patricia Rucker and Ilene Strauss.

At the request of MSMC Chair D’Souza, Thomas Adams provided an overview of the next steps in the framework development process and Sue Stickel explained how the MCFCC created the initial draft framework and its importance to the field. MSMC Chair D’Souza then pointed out documents the MSMC members would need for the discussion of the draft chapters, including the table of issues and suggested edits compiled by staff and written comments on grades two from Commission Chair Honig, grades six and seven from Commissioner D’Souza and Commission Chair Honig, and grade seven from Commission Chair Honig.

MSMC Chair D’Souza asked members of the MSMC to facilitate discussion of draft chapters. Each issue and suggested edit, the comments on grades six and seven, and every draft chapter were discussed by MSMC members and other members of the IQC. The process used to discuss each chapter was to come to a general consensus that the chapter was ready to be sent out for the first 60-day public review and comment period and then specific issues and edits on the chapter were discussed.

There was considerable discussion on the suggested edits to grades six and seven and on the lack of mathematics-specific examples in the chapter for universal access. In addition to the changes suggested by staff in the table of issues and suggested edits, there was consensus on a number of other changes. The table below contains the full list of MSMC-recommended edits.




Mathematics Subject Matter CommitteeMathematics Framework Edits

March 21, 2013

Chapter Page Line Number

Edit

Global Edit Several examples are from commercial enterprises or contain name brands. For example:Students record their solutions on a tablet using screencast.com or the Show Me appl for iPad … Edit: Eliminate the reference to commercial enterprises or name brands where possible. Delete example if there is not alternative. For example:Students record their solutions on a tablet …

Global Edit Due to software issues, some fractions appear in different form than the majority of the fractions in the document. For example, the fraction appears as 3/9 instead of as a

stacked fraction, .

Edit: Change the format so that whenever possible the fractions in the document are stacked fractions

Global Edit In some cases, sources are indicated but not cited in the required CDE format.

Edit: Correct all citations to meet the CDE requirementsIntro 14 295 Add the following:

In addition, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills developed a framework for 21st century learning that consists of student outcomes and support systems. The student outcomes are organized into 1) core subjects and 21st century interdisciplinary themes, which include global awareness; financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; health literacy; and environmental literacy, 2) life and career skills, which include flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility, 3) learning and innovation skills, often referred to as the “4 Cs”: creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, communication, and collaboration, and 4) information, media and technology skills, which include information literacy, media literacy, and information, communications and technology literacy. Support systems include standards and assessments, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and learning environments.

As a member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills





Edit

network of states, it is important for California educators to intentionally include the 4 Cs in mathematics instruction. A fundamental goal is to promote higher order mathematical thinking skills and interdisciplinary approaches that integrate the use of supportive technologies, inquiry, and problem-based learning to provide contexts for pupils to apply learning in relevant, real-world scenarios and that prepare pupils for college, career, and citizenship in the 21st century. Mathematics instruction is instrumental to mastering P21 interdisciplinary themes, particularly financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy. Resources connecting the Partnership for 21st Century Skills with the Common Core State Standards can be found at www.p21.org.

Global Gray scale is hard to read when printing. Kindergarten 22 554-555 Remove question to the CFCCGrade 2 22 408-417 Replace lines 408-417 with the following language:

ADDITION Counting on by ones or twos Doubles ( 2 + 2, 3 + 3, 7 + 7 etc.) Doubles plus one or doubles minus one (7 + 8 = 7

+ 7 + 1; 7 + 6 + 7+7-1) Commutative property: In addition 3 +4 give the

same answer as 4+3. Doesn’t apply to subtraction.

Facts making ten (4+6, 7+3 Etc.) Nines: Add one to the nine to make ten and

subtract one from the other addend (9 + 6 = 10 + 5

Making one of the addends a ten by adding a number and subtracting the same number from the other addend (8 + 7 = (8 + 2) + 7- 2 = 10 + 5)

Fact families (8 + 5 = 13, 5 + 8 = 13)SUBTRACTION

Count down (take away) by ones or twos (9 – 2 = 7); count the difference when the two numbers are close either by counting up from number being compared (9 – 7 = 2 or what is the difference between 7 and 9) or conversely count down (how much more is 9 than 7)

Relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4)

Extend known addition fact families to subtraction. 8 + 5 = 13; 5 + 8 =13; 13 – 5 = 8; 13 – 8 = 5.

Nines: subtract ten and add one Decomposing a number leading to a ten once the

addends making a ten fact families are known ( 14 – 6 = 14 – 4 – 2 = 10 – 2 = 8)


http://www.p21.org/




Edit

Grade 3 25 618-619 Insert: Students continue to add and subtract using strategies they developed in grade two. (See examples of strategies on page 25 in grade 2 chapter.) [Also create a link to examples on page 25 in grade 2 chapter.]

Grade 4 9 201 Change to a group size unknown problem.Grade 4 19 468 Example 3 reads 100 (15 x 20).

Change to 100 (5X20).

Grade 6 38 818-842 Replace current paragraphs with language that Chris Yakes’ drafted “On the standard algorithm for division”.

When moving students from place value strategies for division to the traditional standard algorithm, teachers should be careful to include place value concepts where they can. Students should see ample examples of standard algorithm division that can be easily connected to place value strategies. For instance, using scaffold division to find the quotient 3440 ÷ 16, students can begin by asking, "How many groups of 16 are in 3440?" This is a measurement interpretation of division, and forms the basis of the standard algorithm. Students then estimate that there are at least 200 groups of 16, since 2 ×16 = 32 and therefore 200 × 16 = 3200. Continuing, they see that they would then ask, "How many groups of 16 are in what remains 240 (3440−3200)?" Clearly, there are at least 10. The next remainder is then 80 = 240−16, and we see that there are 5 more groups of 16 in this remaining 80. The quotient in this strategy is then 200+10+5 = 215. It is not a coincidence that the digits 2, 1, and 5 are the digits that would arise in the standard algorithm for division. (See Grade 5 for more explanation of division strategies.)

Divisor Dividend Quotient16 3440

3200 200240160 10

8080 5

0

When moving to the traditional standard algorithm, rather than asking, "does 16 go into 3?" And answering, "No, so





Edit

we need to ask does 16 go into 34?" teachers can take a more sense-making approach. To begin, teachers can explain that with the standard algorithm for division, a very efficient way to divide numbers, we consider the number we are dividing (the dividend) digit-by-digit, starting from the left. Teachers remind students that we are trying to find the number of groups of 16 in 3440. We start by looking at the number of digits we need to obtain a number larger than the divisor, e.g. 34 in this case rather than 3. Then, being attentive to place value language, teachers can ask how many groups of 16 are in 34 (hundreds). Since there are two groups of 16 in 34, there are 2 (hundred) groups of 16 in 34 (hundreds), so we record this with a 2 in the hundreds place above the dividend. The product of 2 and 16 is recorded, and we subtract 32 from 34, understanding that we are subtracting 32 hundreds from 34 hundreds, yielding 2 hundreds remaining. Next, when we “bring the 4 down,” we understand this as moving to the next number of digits necessary to obtain a number larger than the divisor, which in this case is 24. Again, we focus on the fact that there are 24 (tens) remaining, and so the question becomes, “How many groups of 16 are in 24 tens?” The algorithm continues and the quotient is found.

Students should have experience with more examples such as this one, and teachers should be prepared to provide examples that can be connected back to place value strategies should misunderstanding arise.

This is only one way to include place value concepts in teaching the standard algorithm for division, and teachers are encouraged to find a method that works for them and their students. Overall, teachers should remember that the theme of the CCSS-M is coherence and conceptual understanding, and so instruction that builds on students' previous mathematical experiences is crucial.

Grade 6 41 901 Replace “need” with “can” so it reads “students understand they can clear”

Grade 6 41 906 Insert additional language that Chris Yakes drafted: “On dividing decimals”The traditional algorithm for division can be employed when dividing decimals, but again, attention must be paid to place value understanding when working with decimals. For preparation, students can explore simple examples and the patterns that arise that show that in a division problem, multiplying the dividend and divisor by the same power of 10 results in the same quotient. Students need a firm foundation in this idea. This will prepare them for problems such as 4.2 ÷ .35, wherein typically someone would "move the decimal point two





Edit

places" in .35 and also in 4.2. Rather, teachers can appeal to the idea that one can multiply both numbers by 100 and obtain the same quotient. When one "moves the decimal point two places," this is precisely what they are really doing; they are multiplying the number by 100, making it 100 times larger. Again, attention to student understanding of place value is of the utmost importance. There is no conceptual understanding gained by referring to this as "moving the decimal point." On the other hand, it doesn't take much more effort to refer to this as "multiplying by 100."

Grade 7 26-32 550-587 Delete the examples that use chips and tiles in the tables

Grade 7 Include a note to public reviewers: Please provide examples of how to conceptually teach non-integer rational numbers including fractions and negative fractions.

Grade 7 23 503 Insert Chris Yakes’ drafted language: “On integers/rational numbers”.The CCSSM do not treat the set of integers, {...−3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3...} as a separate number system. Rather, students work with whole numbers, focusing on place value and operations, and fractions (i.e. positive rational numbers) and decimals with a focus on conceptual understanding. The natural extension is to introduce additive inverses for these numbers, which results in the set of rational numbers.

Teachers are encouraged to teach operations with signed rational numbers using a conceptual model such as a number line model or area model. The focus is on both the interpretation of signed numbers as indicating direction with respect to their placement on a number line with respect to 0 and on real world interpretations of signed numbers as positive or negative changes (gains or deficits) with respect to a 0 (e.g. 0 balance with respect to money, 0 degrees Celsius being when water freezes).While several models exist for supporting conceptual teaching of signed rational numbers, all need to be developed carefully and with attention to their limitations. For instance, the integer tile or chip model tends to work well with addition and subtraction of integers, but is difficult to develop for multiplication and division and is not conducive to representing non-integer rational numbers. Interpreting operations such as subtracting a negative on a number line model takes a careful

development of how to interpret subtraction and negatives (e.g. moving backward on the number line, changing direction). An area model for multiplication applies equally well to non-integer rational numbers and





Edit

is connected to earlier models for multiplication, but interpreting negative areas can be problematic. Ultimately, teachers are encouraged to teach operations with signed rational numbers with conceptual models as much as possible, rather than by simply introducing rules to follow.

Grade 7 24 511-12 Add end lines to number line examples.Alg. I 11 276 Add language to the narrative:

F-IF 7.e. ONLY linear, exponential, and quadraticAlg. I 13 327 Add language to the narrative:

FBF.3. Even and odd functions are not addressed in Algebra I

Alg. I 26 674-75 Add language to the narrative: In Alg. I not addressing complex roots

Alg. I 29 751 Add language to the narrative: A-REI.11 only linear and quadratic

Math I 10 273 Add language to the narrative: Linear exponential functions and absolute value are addressed in Math I

Math I 13 325 Add language to the narrative: FBF.3.Even and odd functions are not addressed in Math I

Math III 9 224 Add language to the narrative: FIF.7.e. Sine, cosine and tangent are addressed in Math III

Higher Math Write an introduction to higher mathematics that makes clear there are many options for higher mathematics course-taking and that the Common Core standards are a flexible standards system that supports creation of a variety of mathematics sequences.

Universal Access

Add notation to public reviewers: Need UA examples/strategies that are specific to mathematics. Need mathematics examples for speakers of non-standard English and all other groups mentioned (ELs, struggling learners, Primary language instruction, dual language instruction etc). CDE will seek experts to write additional examples while the document is posted for public review. Commissioners will suggest edits in June. Begin with sections in the grade level sections that identify the places in each grade where students struggle.

Universal Access

1 5 All students should be held to the same “high standards”

Change to “high expectations”Instructional Strategies

15 301 Insert: Application of mathematical practices in real world settings and using mathematics to solve real world problems provides ample opportunities for students to develop the 4Cs as described in the Partnership for 21st Century Skills initiative - creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, communication, and





Edit

collaboration. Integrating these skills with instruction designed to help students understand and apply mathematical practices is critical for preparing students for college, career, and civic life in the 21st century. Resources connecting the Partnership for 21st Century Skills with the Common Core State Standards can be found at www.p21.org.

Supporting Common Core Math Instruction

1 Change title to:Supporting High Quality Common Core Mathematics Instruction

Glossary 2 Assumption. A fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) accepted as true.

Glossary 3 Cavalieri’s Principle. If, in two solids of equal altitude, the sections made by planes parallel to and at the same distance from their respective bases are always equal, the volumes of the two solids are equal. (K)

Glossary 9 Measure of variability. A determination of how much the performance of a group deviates from the mean or median, the most frequently used measure is standard deviation.

Glossary 9 Median. A measure of central tendency in a set of numerical data. The median of a list of values is the value appearing at the center of a sorted version of the list; or the mean of the two central values, if the list contains an even number of values. Example: For the data set {2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 90}, the median is 11.

Glossary 12 Quadratic function. A function that can be represented by an equation of the form y = ax2 + bx + c, where a, b, and c are arbitrary, but fixed, numbers and a ≠ 0. The graph of this function is a parabola. (DPI)

Acceleration CDE staff and Dr. Finkelstein will work to revise this appendix while the public review is occurring.

Once there was general consensus on the edits that would be made to the MCFCC’s initial draft of the framework, MSMC Chair D’Souza thanked the MSMC members for facilitating the discussions on their assigned chapters and summarized the actions required to move the framework forward, including sending the framework to the full IQC and delegating two members of the MSMC to oversee the edits to the draft framework. He called for motions from the MSMC.

ACTION: Commissioner Isken moved to recommend to the Instructional Quality Commission that the draft framework be sent out for the first 60-day public review and comment period after the following edits have been made and that only technical edits will be made between the IQC action on edits and the posting of the draft framework. [See the above list of recommended edits]. Commissioner Barrett seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The


http://www.p21.org/



motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7–0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

ACTION: Commissioner Spykerman moved to ask the full Instructional Quality Commission to delegate to the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee the review and approval of the draft framework, with any edits approved by the Instructional Quality Commission, and any minor edits identified by staff or Dr. Yakes (e.g., grammar, punctuation, word order, citations) before the draft framework is sent out for public review. Commissioner Freiermuth seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7–0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

2. Draft Online Survey Questions for the First Public Review and Comment PeriodMSMC Chair D’Souza explained that when the draft framework is posted for the 60-day public review and comment period, an online survey is also posted. The survey allows the survey users to respond to as many or as few chapters as they wish. There are four options for rating the chapters: Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Survey users may also provide written comment and suggested edits or additions. CFIRD staff will send information about the survey to local educational agencies, as well as mathematics organizations and other stakeholder groups, to encourage their participation in the review of the draft framework.

MSMC Chair D’Souza noted that the comments received during the 60-day field review will be presented to the MSMC in June and the IQC in July, at which time we will consider revisions to the draft framework based on the comments.

During the discussion of the survey questions, Commissioner Herczog suggested that questions be added to the survey on the level of mathematical expertise of the reviewers. There was a general consensus on this suggestion.

ACTION: Commissioner Freiermuth moved to recommend that the Instructional Quality Commission approve the survey questions, with the addition of questions regarding the level of mathematical expertise, for the online survey that will be posted along with the draft framework. Commissioner Barrett seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7-0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

C. Public Comment on the Mathematics Framework: None

MSMC Chair D’Souza closed the meeting for the day and called for the MSMC to reconvene at 8:30 the next morning, Friday, March 22, 2013 to take up the remaining agenda items.




Report of ActionsFriday, March 22, 2013

Instructional Quality Commissioners Present:Louis “Bill” Honig, ChairMichelle Herczog, Vice ChairAngel BarrettKristyn BennettEdward D’SouzaJose DoradoAngiennette “Angie” EstoninaLori FreiermuthMarlene GalvanCarla HerreraJo Ann IskenNancy McTygueJulie SpykermanCarlos UlloaLauryn Wild

Commissioners Absent:Socorro ShielsSenator Carol LiuAssembymember Sharon Quirk-Silva

Executive Director:Thomas Adams

State Board of Education Liaisons:Patricia RuckerIIlene Straus

3. Mathematics Subject Matter Committee ReconvenedMSMC Chair D’Souza called the MSMC meeting to order. Commissioner Shiels was not present for the meeting. Commission Chair Honig and all other members of the MSMC were present.

MSMC Chair D’Souza noted the next two items concerned the 2014 Mathematics Primary Adoption of Instructional Materials aligned to the California Common Core State Standards. The SBE will adopt programs for kindergarten through grade eight, including Algebra 1 programs and Integrated Mathematics I programs. The IQC must review and recommend to the SBE the materials that the Commissioners will use to train the reviewers of the submitted program, as well as the reviewers themselves.

D. 2014 Mathematics Instructional Materials Adoption (Information/Action)1. Review of Training Materials

CFIRD staff walked the MSMC members through the training materials that will be used during both the June 17, 2013 training of Commissioners (who will be




facilitating the training of the reviewers) and for training of the reviewers June 18 through 21. Commissioners were also informed of the September 10 through 14, 2013 deliberations schedule. All Commissioners were encouraged to participate in the training and the deliberations.

ACTION: Commissioner Spykerman moved that the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee ask the Instructional Quality Commission to recommend State Board of Education approval of training materials for the 2014 Mathematics Primary Adoption. Commissioner Freiermuth seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7–0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

2. Recommendation of Reviewers and FacilitatorsMSMC Chair D’Souza asked CFIRD staff to explain the IQC’s role in the appointment of reviewers for the instructional materials adoption. CFIRD explained that the IQC recommends both content review experts (CREs) and instructional materials reviewers (IMRs) to the SBE, which makes the appointments. The SBE will take action in May 2013 to appoint the reviewers.

CFIRD staff noted that appointments of reviewers are conditioned upon legal counsel review of any potential conflicts of interest. CFIRD staff informed the MSMC that applicant 643 had received payment from a publisher in June 2012 that would potentially disqualify the applicant from service on this adoption, because the received payment for services was less than one year prior to the potential appointment by the SBE. The other applicants did not appear to have a conflict of interest, and CFIRD staff suggested the MSMC consider recommending all of them.

CFIRD staff suggested that the following applications be considered:Submission

ID Applicant Type First Name Last Name

642 Content Review Expert Joseph Fiedler647 Content Review Expert Ron Buckmire660 Content Review Expert James Stein663 Content Review Expert Joseph Biello681 Content Review Expert Duane Kouba690 Content Review Expert Deborah Gale632 Reviewer Jenna Tremayne635 Reviewer Rachel Williams636 Reviewer Jennifer Slay637 Reviewer Rowdy Dyer638 Reviewer Marianne Oakes639 Reviewer Anne-Marie Bravo640 Reviewer Erin Lipsitz641 Reviewer Sara Burton644 Reviewer Willie Townsend646 Reviewer Tina Shinsato649 Reviewer Janice Gilmore-See




Submission ID Applicant Type First Name Last Name

652 Reviewer Geri Cook653 Reviewer Toni Torres654 Reviewer Andy Nguyen655 Reviewer Monique Pearl657 Reviewer Suzanne Fore659 Reviewer Leah Alcala661 Reviewer Steven Krolikowski665 Reviewer Kirsten Werk667 Reviewer Sosciety Louden668 Reviewer Natalie Albrizzio669 Reviewer Kevin Anderson670 Reviewer Jesse Barber671 Reviewer Juan Carlos Caraveo672 Reviewer Lewis Tucker674 Reviewer Jamie O'Hara676 Reviewer Natalie Maxwell677 Reviewer Gregg Motarjeme680 Reviewer Elisa Rose682 Reviewer Donna Rickman683 Reviewer Lynne Haman684 Reviewer Manuel Tapia685 Reviewer Joanna Jimenez686 Reviewer Iliana Grijalva687 Reviewer Cinthia Ruiz688 Reviewer Marguerette Baptiste689 Reviewer Patricia Wu

ACTION: Commission Chair Honig moved to recommend approval of Instructional Materials Reviewer and Content Review Expert applicants (as listed above) to the State Board of Education, pending legal review for conflict of interest. Commissioner Isken seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7–0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

CFIRD staff reported that the application window would remain open until the necessary number of reviewers was appointed. With the SBE meeting in early May, an additional meeting would be necessary to review and forward recommended applicants to the SBE. CFIRD staff suggested that to allow for additional applicants to be presented to the SBE, the IQC delegate to the MSMC the authority to make recommendations. An April 19 conference call meeting was proposed for this purpose.

ACTION: Commissioner Barrett moved to request delegated authority from the full Instructional Quality Commission to the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee to




recommend further reviewer and facilitator applicants to the State Board of Education. Commissioner Freiermuth seconded the motion. There was no further discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of the committee members present (7–0). [In addition to the six MSMC members present, Commission Chair Honig participated in the vote.]

E. Public Comment on the Mathematics Adoption: None

F. Other Matters/Public Comment: NoneMSMC Chair D’Souza thanked the Commissioners and adjourned the meeting.

4. English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Subject Matter CommitteeELA/ELD SMC Chair Isken called the meeting to order. All SMC members were present for the meeting.

A. The 2014 ELA/ELD Framework (Information)1. Update on the ELA/ELD Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten

Through Grade Twelve (ELA/ELD Framework), 2014 Revision (Information)ELA/ELD Subject Matter Committee (SMC) Chair Isken provided an update on the first meeting of the ELA/ELD CFCC meeting held on February 28–March 1, and the second meeting scheduled for March 27–28. She highlighted the quality of the collaborative discussions by enthusiastic, and well-prepared, members. Other CFCC members present at the meeting expressed their appreciation of the wide-range of expertise of the CFCC members and looked forward to future meetings

2. Update on the Adoption of the Career and College Readiness Anchor Standards and Resolution of Technical Issues to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSS for ELA/Literacy)At their March 13 meeting, the SBE adopted the Career and College Readiness Anchor Standards as part of California’s CCSS for ELA/Literacy and resolved some technical changes to the standards. The updated standards are posted on the CDE’s standards Web page and will be prepared for publication this summer.


5. Ad Hoc Committee on the Implementation of the California Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee Chair Barrett called the Ad Hoc Committee on the Implementation of the CCSS meeting to order. Commissioner Shiels was not present for the meeting. All other committee members were present.

A. Update on the Implementation of the CCSS (Information)Barbara Murchison, Administrator, Common Core Systems Implementation Office, CDE, gave an update on Transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The information she presented can be found on the CDE CCSS Web page at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc . She encouraged the commissioners, if they have not already done so, to subscribe to the common core listserv at:[email protected]

B. Update on the Supplemental Instructional Materials Review 2 (SIMR 2) (Information)


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc



Ken McDonald, Consultant, CFIRD, CDE, provided an update on the Department’s SIMR 2 that is currently underway.

C. Other Matters/Public Comment: None

6. Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment and AccountabilityThe meeting was postponed until the next Commission meeting in May; however, there was an assessment update.

A. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Recommendations and Subsequent Legislation for Suspension of Assessments (Information)Assessment Development and Administration Division, CDEJessica Barr, Consultant, Statewide Assessment Transition Office, CDE, gave an update on Transitioning to California’s Future Assessment System. She briefly highlighted the following: Transition Milestones SMARTER Balanced Assessment Resources and Development Activities State Superintendent’s 12 Recommendations for Statewide Assessment

Reauthorization


7. Science Subject Matter CommitteeScience SMC Vice-Chair Freiermuth called the meeting to order. All members were present.

A. Discussion of February 27, 2013 Meeting (Information)The Science SMC had a discussion on the February 27, 2013, Science teleconference meeting. At the teleconference meeting, Phil Lafontaine, Director of the Professional Learning Support Division, CDE, provided an update on the progress of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and pending adoption of new science standards for California, and Diane Hernandez, Administrator of High School and Physical Fitness Assessment Office, CDE, provided an update on the assessments for science.


8. History–Social Science Subject Matter Committee History–Social Science SMC Chair McTygue called the meeting to order. All committee members were present.

A. Implementing the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies (Information)1. Discussion of the CCSS and California‘s History–Social Science Standards

History–Social Science SMC Chair McTygue presented a brief update on how the state can provide guidance for the field on how to implement the Common Core in the context of instruction in history-social science. Commissioners discussed the importance of informational text in the CCSS for both language arts and teachers in specific content areas like history–social science, and how the two are related.

2. History-Social Science Blueprint Project




Chair McTygue presented some of the professional development materials prepared by the California History–Social Science Subject Matter Project. She shared a sample unit on the Civil War, and noted that projects on the Cold War and the Medieval World are under development. Commissioner Estonina suggested that this could be a good resource to reference in the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.

B. Vision for the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Inquiry in Social Studies State Standards (information)Commissioner Herczog presented an overview of the C3 Framework, a forthcoming document from the Council of Chief State School Officers that will provide guidance for states to use in “enhancing” their current standards in history–social science. Commissioner Herczog described the development process of the document and the upcoming schedule for its release and implementation. She noted that the C3 Framework places a strong emphasis on inquiry and civic engagement. Commissioner Herczog mentioned her role as vice president of the National Council for the Social Studies, which will play a lead role in the implementation of the document after its release. Members of the SMC discussed the C3 framework and the schedule for the update of the California History–Social Science Framework. Executive Director Adams noted that the C3 document is in many ways a validation of the content already in the California standards and framework, but that additional examples can be added to make the California framework a richer document.

C. Other Matters/Public Comment: None9. Full Commission Reconvenes

A. Reports/Action from SubcommitteesMathematics Subject Matter Committee

ACTION #1: Mathematics Framework, Approve Edits and Send Our for Public Review and Comment Mathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission send out the draft mathematics framework for the first 60-day public review and comment period after the additional edits have been made and that only technical edits will be made between the IQC action on edits and the posting of the draft framework. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. There was a discussion. There was no public comment. The motion was approve by a vote of the members present (14–1). Commissioners Freiermuth opposed the motion.

ACTION #2: Delegate Review and Approval Authority to Mathematics Subject Matter Committee Chair and Vice ChairMathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission delegate to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee the review and approval of the draft framework, with any edits approved by the Instructional Quality Commission, and any minor edits identified by staff or Dr. Yakes (e.g. grammar, punctuation, word order, citation) before the draft framework is sent out for public review. Commissioner Isken seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

ACTION #3: Approve Survey QuestionsMathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission approve the survey questions, with the additional questions on mathematics expertise, for the online survey that will be posted along with the draft framework. Commissioner




Spykerman seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

ACTION #4: Approve Adoption Training MaterialsMathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission recommend to the State Board of Education approval of the training materials for the 2014 Mathematics Primary Adoption. Commissioner Freiermuth seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

ACTION #5: Approve Reviewers for the 2014 Mathematics AdoptionMathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission recommend approval of the Instructional Materials Reviewer and Content Review Expert applicants as recommended by staff to the State Board of Education, pending legal review for conflict of interest. Commissioner Herrera seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

ACTION #6: Delegate Authority to Mathematics Subject Matter Committee to Recommend Additional Reviewers for the 2014 Mathematics AdoptionMathematics SMC Chair D’Souza moved that the Instructional Quality Commission delegate authority to the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee to recommend additional reviewer and facilitator applicants for the 2014 Mathematics Adoption to the State Board of Education. Commissioner Barrett seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the members present (15–0).

B. Individual Commissioner Reports: A few of the commissioners had a brief report to share.

C. Other Matters/Public Comment: None

Commission Chair Honig adjourned the meeting at 2:27 p.m.

© California Department of Education, May 13, 2013


Documents

March 21-22 IQC Minutes - Instructional Quality …€¦ · Web viewThe current scheduled 2013 meeting dates need to be revised. After a discussion, the following revised 2013 and