C&I

Curriculum and Instruction

Summary of Meeting Proceedings


February 8-9, 2005

A subgroup, consisting of members from the elementary, intermediate, and high school level groups of the Mathematics Standard Committee, met on February 8-9, to work on the Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, and the Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry content and process performance indicators.

  • Committee members reviewed and edited the content performance indicators and the process performance indicators for Integrated Algebra.
  • Committee members spent the majority of their time reviewing and editing the content performance indicators for Integrated Geometry and Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.
  • A subgroup finalized the process performance indicators for Integrated Geometry and Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.
  • Committee members will submit their report to the Board of Regents at the March meeting.

Members of the Mathematics Standard Committee will meet on March 3-4 to review and finalize the process and content performance indicators for Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, and Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.

Back to top


February 3-4, 2005

A subgroup, consisting of members from the elementary, intermediate, and high school level groups of the Mathematics Standards Committee, met on February 3-4, to work on the Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, and the Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry content and process performance indicators.

  • Committee members finalized the content performance indicators and reviewed the process performance indicators for Integrated Algebra.
  • Committee members spent the majority of their time reviewing and editing the content performance indicators for Integrated Geometry based on public comment and research from The America Diploma Project, Standards for Success, and Challenging Standards In Mathematics What Are High Schools Missing?
  • A subgroup developed process performance indicators for Integrated Geometry.
  • Committee members will submit their report to the Board of Regents at the March meeting.

Members of the Mathematics Standards Committee will meet on February 8-9 to review the process and content performance indicators for Integrated Geometry, review content performance indicators and develop process performance indicators for Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.

Back to top


January 12-13, 2005

A subgroup, consisting of members from the elementary, intermediate, and high school level groups of the Mathematics Standards Committee, met January 12-13, 2005 to work on the Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, and the Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry content and process performance indicators.

  • Committee members spent the majority of their time reviewing and editing the content performance indicators for Integrated Algebra and Integrated Geometry based on public comment.
  • A subgroup developed process performance indicators for Integrated Algebra.
  • The committee discussed recommendations regarding Regents exams to be given, and which exams will be required for a Regents Diploma and a Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation.
  • Committee members decided that they need additional time to work on the high school courses; therefore they requested to submit their report to the Board of Regents at the March meeting.

Members of the Mathematics Standards Committee will meet on February 3-4 to finalize the process and content performance indicators for Integrated Algebra, finalize content performance indicators and develop process performance indicators for Integrated Geometry, and review content performance indicators for Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.

Back to top


January 4-5, 2005

A subgroup, consisting of members from the elementary, intermediate, and high school level groups of the Mathematics Standards Committee, met January 4-5, 2005 to finalize the prekindergarten through grade eight mathematics standard, five content strands, five process strands and performance indicators.

  • Committee members spent the majority of their time reviewing and editing the five process strands (Problem Solving, Reasoning and Proof, Communication, Connections, and Representation) and revising the performance indicators in the process strands for grades prekindergarten through grade eight.
  • Committee members finalized the prekindergarten through grade eight content performance indicators
  • Committee members finalized the Mathematics Standards Committee Addendum Report to the New York State Commissioner of Education that will go the Board of Regents on January 11, 2005.

A subgroup, consisting of members from the high school level group of the Mathematics Standards Committee will meet on January 12 – 13, 2005 to finalize Integrated Algebra, Integrated Geometry, and Integrated Algebra II and Trigonometry.

Back to top


December 9-10, 2004

The Mathematics Standards Committee met December 9 – 10, 2004 to review the field response to its work. The committee was impressed – and grateful - that there were over 2,000 responses. Because of the extensive response, committee members were asked to review the comments beforehand and to summarize the feedback. At the beginning of the meeting on December 9, members agreed that the major themes of the responses to the performance indicators were:

  • Overall, people are pleased.
  • Concerns exist about the strong focus on content strand and the need for more focus on process.
  • Concerns exist about the shift to some grades of topics usually taught at higher grades, especially grades 5 and 8.
  • Concerns exist about Integrated Geometry and Integrated Algebra 2 and Trigonometry.
  • Some respondents questioned whether PreK-4 might need more performance indicators.
  • Some respondents suggested more emphasis on language indicating conceptual understanding.

In reviewing the feedback, several respondents expressed concerns outside the purview of the standards committee, including the timing of the implementation, March NCLB testing, curriculum development, staff development and resources needed to adjust to the recommended changes. Regarding curriculum development, SED’s plan is to create a committee to include members of the Math Standards Committee, the purpose being to publish a revised and enhanced Core Curriculum Resource Guide by May 2005.

The committee spent the remainder of its time during both days of the meeting reviewing every performance indicator, grades preK-9, and making appropriate adjustments, given the feedback. The committee also agreed to continue subgroup work on process standards and on Integrated Geometry and Integrated Algebra 2 and Trigonometry.

Back to top


September 27-28, 2004

The Mathematics Standards Committee (MSC) met on September 27 and 28 in Albany with 19 of the 24 members present.

  • Committee members provided extensive feedback from various meetings they attended with districts and organizations. The committee reviewed the suggestions that were raised at those meetings and addressed them in their grade level and strand groups.
  • Department staff outlined the timeline and the rollout plan with the members of the Mathematics Standards Committee. The public comment period will run from November 4 to December 6, 2004.
  • The Committee adopted NCTM’s process standards as the five process strands: Problem Solving, Reasoning and Proof, Communication, Connections, and Representation.
  • The Department staff provided a list of outstanding issues at the elementary and intermediate levels.
  • The Committee revised the Mathematics Standards Committee Report that will be going to the Board of Regents for the November meeting.
  • The Committee plans to return in December to review the public comment, both online submissions and written testimony.

Back to top


August 9-10, 2004

The Committee met on August 9-10 in Albany with 21 members present.

  • Committee members provided extensive feedback from various meetings with teachers and supervisors of mathematics including the initial meeting of the Test Specifications Framework Committee. Themes of the feedback included such matters as the need for examples, the need for conceptual understanding in addition to skills, the implications of March testing, whether the draft standards reach too high or not high enough, the need for professional development (of administrators as well as teachers), the burdens in certain grades versus others, and the extent to which the draft achieves the goal of avoiding the "mile wide, inch deep" problem by greater focus and depth on key topics and by reducing redundancy. The conversation about feedback prompted discussion about how to communicate to the field the thinking and intent of the Committee as regards the standards.
  • Department staff provided a description of a proposed rollout process to communicate with the field about the standards including solicitation of feedback through regional hearings in the fall and early winter.
  • The Committee agreed to a September 27-28 meeting to focus on examples and process standards.
  • The Committee met with representatives of the Department's Office of Higher Education to discuss issues related to teacher preparation and certification in mathematics.
  • The Committee discussed the fact that some students will demonstrate proficiency on the commencement standards more quickly than others, and explored ways of ensuring that all students will be held to high standards in the courses taken after attainment of the commencement standards.
  • The Committee returned to its grade level groups to refine the draft standards, including responding, where appropriate, to the feedback.

Back to top


July 19-21, 2004

The Committee met on July 19-21 in Albany with 21 of 24 members present.

The Committee:

  • Finalized the language of Standard 3.
  • Again devoted the greatest share of meeting time to developing and refining performance indicators by grade level (pre-K-4; 5-8; high school).
  • Also met in small groups corresponding to the five content strands (number sense and operations; measurement; algebra; geometry; statistics and probability) that would replace the existing key idea areas. The five groups provided feedback to the grade level groups in order to ensure proper sequencing across grades. Suggestions to move performance indicators up and down were prompted by considerations of fit, balance and load.
  • Agreed to develop relative weightings for the content strands at the different grade levels; this to inform test development.
  • Outlined, in consultation with Department officials, a plan for its remaining work and linked it to the rollout of the standards and assessments by SED:
    • This meeting - More complete and precise list of performance indicators by grade.
    • August 9-10 meeting - Refine draft (resolving any outstanding issues) and approve report language including advice on curriculum, teacher preparation and professional development.
    • October-December 2004 - SED regional meetings on proposed standards and rollout.
    • November 2004 - Math Standards Committee meets to consider feedback from SED's meetings and recommend any fine-tuning of the standards.
    • March 2005 - Field test of grades 3-8 exams based on new standards.
    • March 2006 - First operational tests for grades 3-8 under new standards.
  • Discussed the subject of technology in relation to calculator use on exams and the need to review periodically the impact (actual and potential) of emerging and changing technology on curriculum and assessment.

Back to top


June 29-30, 2004

The Committee met on June 29-30 in Albany with 16 of 24 members present. The Committee discussed feedback from colleagues in the field and made changes in the proposed meeting agenda.

The Committee devoted most of its time to meeting in three grade-level groups (pre-K-4; 5-8; high school) to continue developing and refining performance indicators in the five content strands previously approved. Prior to that, the Committee received a presentation from staff about the construction of performance indicators.

The Math Standards Committee agreed to meet for three days in July (19th-21st) and to work between the June and July meetings on reconciling content across the grade levels within the five strands and beginning to consider the sequencing of indicators within the grades. The latter is relevant because of the State's plan to move the elementary and middle testing in math to March. Committee members will continue to seek cross-bearings from colleagues in the field.

Back to top


May 24-25, 2004

The Committee met on May 24-25 in Albany with 20 of 24 members present and did the following:

  • Discussed feedback from colleagues in the field on the early draft ideas for the standard, content strands and performance indicators.
  • Agreed upon a preferred format for presenting recommended strands, "content bands," performance indicators and other information.
  • Returned to three small groups (elementary, middle and secondary) to develop further the content bands within content strands and the performance indicators within the content bands. A majority of meeting time was devoted to this activity.
  • Met in small groups organized by the five content strands to ensure proper fit and continuity across grade levels.
  • Conducted a conference call with representatives of CTB (McGraw Hill) which is the vendor for preparing the grades 3-8 exams for 2006 (required under NCLB).
  • Developed language for the broad bands within the five content strands (Algebra, Number Sense and Arithmetic, Geometry, Statistics and Probability and Measurement).
  • Discussed briefly the issue of outreach for feedback.

Back to top


April 29-30, 2004

The Committee met on April 29-30 in Albany with 18 of 24 members present and did the following:

  • Discussed with the SED staff the coordination of its work with the Department's test-development efforts for grades 3-8 under NCLB, notably the need to balance thoughtful identification of standards with the need for the test vendor to have the benefits of the Committee's thinking about standards as soon as possible.
  • Shared feedback from colleagues back home about early draft performance indicators.
  • Developed a draft new Standard 3.
  • Recommended five content strands as a framework for performance indicators (key ideas) and six process strands. The Committee also drafted definitions for the content strands.
  • Continued developing and refining performance indicators by grade level and strand using other jurisdictions' standards as a cross-check.

Back to top


March 16-17, 2004

The Committee met on March 16-17 in Albany with 21 of 24 members present and did the following:

  • Discussed briefly the reflections of certain higher education faculty, contacted by one Committee member, about what incoming students should know and be able to do. This discussion progressed into one about problem solving: what it is, how it is or isn't taught and the implications for testing.
  • Continued discussions of content by strand to capture key ideas and begin by grade or grade cluster delineations. One key element of discussion was the packaging of math in grades 8-12.
  • Received a presentation by Doug Clements, Professor - Department of Learning and Instruction at SUNY Buffalo. Dr. Clements is an expert in cognitive development and learning trajectories in mathematics, especially pre-kindergarten through primary grades. The Committee then had an extensive question-and-answer exchange with Dr. Clements.
  • Identified and discussed certain big ideas/tough issues that have emerged from discussion.
  • Agreed to continue developing grade-by-grade key ideas/content between now and the April meeting -- including translating the ideas into actual problems.

Back to top


February 26-27, 2004

The Committee met on February 26-27 in Albany with all 24 members present and did the following:

  • Continued a by-grade-level discussion of what all students should know and be able to do in mathematics. Focused on both content and process standards.
  • Discussed the public (and media) perceptions and incomplete understandings about psychometrics and reported test data. The critical reaction to the January Math A exam (number of questions needing to be answered correctly to pass) foreshadows the scrutiny of the Committee's standards.
  • Reviewed and discussed standards information from 13 other states including content strands, grade-level groupings, desirable and undesirable features and implications for New York's standards.
  • Critiqued New York's current standards -- by level -- in an effort to determine what to retain, eliminate or modify.
  • Agreed to elicit feedback from some postsecondary institutions on the math preparation of incoming students.
  • Worked toward a common language and a structure for a statewide framework of expectations for student knowledge and skills (content and process) in mathematics.
  • Agreed on tentative content strands or key ideas to organize content and process standards; identified process standards.
  • Began to construct a framework of performance areas organized by content strand and grade using information from national, New York and other states' standards.

Back to top


January 29-30, 2004

The Committee met on January 29-30 in Albany with 22 of 24 members present and did the following:

  • After extensive discussion, decided to conduct closed meetings but to publish proceedings and other key information on the State Education Department (SED) web site (Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education) and to seek input from others before recommendations are made.
  • Reviewed the January 2004 Math A Regents Exam experience.
  • Received a presentation from SED staff on the current standards and how they evolved.
  • Conducted small group discussions of Committee members' perceptions of the existing standards and their usefulness in the field and reported to the full Committee.
  • Discussed and agreed upon an approach for studying the math standards in other jurisdictions.
  • Discussed the higher education members' expectations for and experiences with high school graduates in mathematics.
  • Conducted small group discussions of what all high school graduates should know and be able to do as a basis for developing standards K-12; consolidated results and began to develop a classification system for skill areas.
  • Conducted small group discussions by level (elementary, middle and secondary) about (1) implications for standards development of the findings about what all students should know and be able to do in mathematics and (2) the implications for teacher skills.
  • Discussed possible resources to aid the Committee's deliberations.

Back to top

Last Updated: September 17, 2009