the is complete and easy to glossary is complete and easy ... overall... · the 2016 arizona draft...

Overall Comments on 2016 Draft Standards

The 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Introduction is complete and easy to understand. Disagree

Please explain your choice.I think they need to be more detailed, more specific. When we changed to the new standards a few years ago, they became so broad that new teachers don't have a clear picture of exactly what they need to teach.

The 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Glossary is complete and easy to understand.

Please explain your choice.2 I like that the glossary is detailed.I have read the 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Standards. Yes

This 2016 Arizona DRAFT of the English Language Arts Standards is an improvement compared to Arizona’s current standards (2010). Agree

Please explain your choice.3 More rigorous

The 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Introduction is complete and easy to understand. Disagree

Please explain your choice.4

I don't like that the examples of how to do the math strategies have been taken out. The students and teachers need a consistent way of solving problems that is efficient and accurate. I think it's fine to have them explore different strategies, to further their understanding, but then there should be one or two examples for teachers to go by. Are we just leaving that up to the textbook people to figure out?

The 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Glossary is complete and easy to understand. Agree


Cont. of above. With so many new teachers (since experienced teachers are leaving in droves), I think we need specific strategies shown as they are currently. Or at least a separate guide to possible strats. should be provided.

I have read the 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Standards. YesThis DRAFT of the Mathematics Standards is an improvement compared to Arizona’s current standards (2010). Disagree

Please explain your choice.8 Needs strategies and explanation of how to teach them or video links to good instruction of them

Page 1 of 1127


The 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Introduction is complete and easy to understand.

Please explain your choice.The 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Glossary is complete and easy to understand.

Please explain your choice.2I have read the 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Language Arts Standards.

This 2016 Arizona DRAFT of the English Language Arts Standards is an improvement compared to Arizona’s current standards (2010).


The 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Introduction is complete and easy to understand.

Please explain your choice.4The 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Glossary is complete and easy to understand.

Please explain your choice.5I have read the 2016 Arizona DRAFT Mathematics Standards.This DRAFT of the Mathematics Standards is an improvement compared to Arizona’s current standards (2010).


N/A

Not Applicable

Strongly Agree

It's amazing to be able to fully understand what is expected of the 6th grade students. This is amazing.

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

Page 2 of 1127











Agree

The wording provides clarification and rationale.

Agree

Very helpful for new teachers or those moving grade levels and needing to teach different elements within the standards. .Additionally, it will be helpful for parents reading the standards.

Yes

Agree

It is more explicit in its wording. I especially appreciate having clear and easy to interpret spelling and writing standards as well as having a baseline number of 50 high frequency words listed for kindergarten. 50 gives teachers the opportunity to focus on a reasonable number of words and have ample time to facilitate rigorous and meaningful reading instruction which is incredibly important in transitioning to 1st grade.

Agree

This introduction document is very thorough, easy to read and contains so much valuable information. I feel like a parent could read through the introduction document and have a fairly strong understanding of what is contained in the standards.

Agree

This is not only helpful to new teachers, teachers moving grade levels but helpful for parents reading the standards.

Yes

Agree

The "critical areas" expresses the overall picture of what the standards include to guide teachers in their instruction to help students achieve the necessary skills for success. It is a well written synopsis of what a student will need to learn.

Page 3 of 1127











Strongly Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

The handwriting requirement for cursive is ridiculous. There is no research to support that cursive helps create college and career ready citizens. Furthermore, the spelling requirement for looking words up in dictionaries is outdated. 21st Century students don't use, and don't need dictionaries, they need Google. The entire spelling standards should be scrapped.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Disagree

I understand adding money to the standards. However, requiring third graders to add and subtract decimals is developmentally innapropriate.

Page 4 of 1127











Disagree

The introduction should address that the standards are still based on the Common Core standards, whether you wish to call them that or not. No change I have seen is more than a minor recrafting of the 2010 standards that almost mirror the CCSS. The standards prior to 2010 were significantly different‐‐with heavy emphasis, at least in ELA, on the six traits of writing. The draft represents nothing more than a tweaking...and the research on which the tweaking is based seems to stem from 2010.

Strongly Disagree

I like the idea of a glossary, but it is incomplete. Helpful to both teachers and parents would be defining terms that appear in the standards. terms like "topic sentence," "thesis statement," "theme," "main idea," "tone," "primary vs secondary sources," etc. Also, the section following the glossary seemed to go too much into the teaching of reading.

Yes

Disagree

A close examination of 5th grade revealed the following: incorrect us of a colon in 5.L.1 f. Also, F is included in each of the writing standards, so it is redundant and goes BEYOND conventions. Additionally, the use of "conclusion" versus "concluding statement" implies a separate paragraph. In 5.L.2 "Standard" English appears though "standard" does NOT need to be capitalized. In 5.W.3 c the inclusion of "clauses" has been eliminated but "After he left" is a transitional clause vs phrase.

Agree

The math team has done a much better job of introducing the draft than the ELA team. It reflects more of its development leading to what it was prior to the revision.

Agree

Much better than ELA...useful to both educators and noneducators. I think the lack of examples, however, weakens the document. Examples help to clarify things, which is why in ELA, we require support to claims. In math examples serve the same purpose.

Yes

Disagree

Again, I believe the examples are useful in clarifying what is expected. NOTE: whoever is editing your document does NOT understand that colons should NOT follow prepositions or verbs. I have seen countless colon errors in both ELA and math.

Page 5 of 1127











Disagree


Strongly Disagree


Yes

Disagree


Agree


Agree


Yes

Disagree


Page 6 of 1127











Disagree


Strongly Disagree


Yes

Disagree


Agree


Agree


Yes

Disagree


Page 7 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Agree

My comments are specific to 1st grade. I appreciate the inclusion of writing foundational standards. However, Sound‐Letter Basics and Handwriting 1.WF.2 do not accurately describe grapheme‐phoneme mapping‐‐confusing wording. In addition, I'm not sure how necessary the Writing Standards under Research to Build Knowledge are, as I would think these are covered under narrative and informational writing. Why the inclusion of "how‐to" books?

Agree

Agree

Yes

Agree

1st Grade Only.

Page 8 of 1127











Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

The standards are much clearer to read and much better organized. They are broken into sub‐lists and bullet points, which makes it easier for teachers to read, review, and plan. I am also pleased and impressed to see the addition of writing foundations standards in Grades K‐3.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

The standards are much clearer to read and much better organized. They are broken into sub‐lists and bullet points, which makes it easier for teachers to read, review, and plan.

Page 9 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

I actually liked the organization of the 2010 Standards as they were used in an Essential Standards concept. While it could have been improved by adding some higher standards, it was easier to teach. I feel strongly that the RL Standards 2, 4 & 9 are too broad and should be split up (especially for the theme & plot standard). Due to the high # of standards for this subject, I would like to see the Speaking and Listening moved to a history or other related class.

No

Disagree

Not certified in this subject, so opinion is not valid.

Page 10 of 1127











Agree

Not sure why you wasted taxpayer dollars to review these standards. They were fine to begin with. It doesn't look like you lowered the expectations. I hope not! Our students need some challenges in school.

Strongly Agree

Thanks for the glossary. It helps people like me to know what things mean. I hope the teachers don't need to use it. Seems like they should already know what the terms mean and how to use them.

Yes

Agree

look basically the same to me.

Agree

Same thing as above

Agree

same as above

No

Agree

Look the same. I didn't read them all.

Page 11 of 1127











Agree

Not sure why you wasted taxpayer dollars to review these standards. They were fine to begin with. It doesn't look like you lowered the expectations. I hope not! Our students need some challenges in school.

Strongly Agree

Thanks for the glossary. It helps people like me to know what things mean. I hope the teachers don't need to use it. Seems like they should already know what the terms mean and how to use them.

Yes

Agree

look basically the same to me.

Agree

Same thing as above

Agree

same as above

No

Agree

Look the same. I didn't read them all.

Page 12 of 1127











No

Not Applicable

Disagree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

It seems like the same Common Core Standards to me, just a few word changes! The standards are still talking about using arrays and doing the same tedious math problems they are currently doing with this Common Core Math! We need to get back to the numbers and the most efficient way to find the correct answer, the old way of teaching math, instead of having to make dots, tape diagrams, charts for place value etc. Kids in elementary school need to learn how to do math, not explain why!

Page 13 of 1127











Strongly Agree

I like the clarification made to wording.

Strongly Agree

This was a much needed resource.

Yes

Strongly Agree

The revisions were necessary and help with clarification and vertical alignment.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

The revisions were necessary and help with clarification and vertical alignment.

Page 14 of 1127











No

Not Applicable

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Disagree

I would like a crosswalk document that details the changes from the current standards to the proposed standards.

Page 15 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

Please remove any requirements about teaching of cursive writing. Arizona's scarce educational resources should be spent more wisely and efficiently. If students cannot read a teacher's handwriting, improve the teacher's penmanship rather than wasting classroom hours teaching students to decipher teacher handwriting. I am a lawyer and count myself among those who see no practical or professional value to cursive.

Agree

Agree

Yes

Not Applicable

Page 16 of 1127











Agree

I did not read through this entire draft but am commenting on one issue. Bring back cursive writing to elementary schools. When a legal "signature" is required, often you are asked to PRINT your name and also to give your SIGNATURE. There is a huge difference between the two. I absolutely think cursive writing is a necessity. How can students read historical documents if they cannot read cursive writing? This is an art that should never be lost. I STRONGLY SUPPORT cursive writing.

Agree

Again, I only read a small portion of the draft / glossary so cannot answer with a Yes or No answer below. Therefore will choose N/A ‐ not your shortcoming at all, only because I didn't read the entire draft.

N/A

Strongly Agree

Getting away from Common Core and bringing back cursive writing is just a start to improving standards in the State of AZ.

Agree

Did not read that section but I DO have a very strong opinion of Common Core math: it stinks to high heaven. It confuses students completely and that is why so many students fail. I am an adult who is 67 years old, excelled in math throughout my years of school and I found Common Core math to be horrible! Whoever instituted this math WANTED our kids to fail. Stick to old standards and dump Common Core math as quickly as you can as it is ILLOGICAL!!

Strongly Agree

Did not read that section but am begging you to dump Common Core math, history and every other subject involving Common Core. That program is dumbing down America.

N/A

Agree

NO MORE COMMON CORE!!

Page 17 of 1127











Agree

Will additional funding be provided to purchase needed resources to teach cursive writing?

Agree

No

Disagree

If teaching cursive is required in third grade this standard needs to be continued into the next grade levels so the skills are not lost. This happened when I taught 5th grade 20 years ago, because students did not continue cursive in 4th grade I would need to retch in 5th.

Agree

Agree

Yes

Disagree

As an 8th grade math teacher I already teach the converse and rational for the Pythagorean Theorem, you cannot the a math concept without the why, otherwise retention of the concept decreases.

Page 18 of 1127











Agree

Will additional funding be provided to purchase needed resources to teach cursive writing?

Agree

No

Disagree

If teaching cursive is required in third grade this standard needs to be continued into the next grade levels so the skills are not lost. This happened when I taught 5th grade 20 years ago, because students did not continue cursive in 4th grade I would need to retch in 5th.

Agree

Agree

Yes

Disagree

As an 8th grade math teacher I already teach the converse and rational for the Pythagorean Theorem, you cannot the a math concept without the why, otherwise retention of the concept decreases.

Page 19 of 1127











Agree

The intoduction is complete but I feel like it is missing a driving statement and purpose.

Agree

The glossary is straightforward.

Yes

Strongly Disagree

While there are a few modifications, I don't see the rigor raised.

Agree

The introduction is complete.

Agree

The glossary is straightforward.

Yes

Strongly Disagree

My comment is the same as above except I don't understand why the samples were removed. Many teachers who do not know how to teach mathematics properly rely on the examples as a guide‐ without properly trained teachers and a lack of guidance we will not be any more successful.

Page 20 of 1127











Agree

It was refreshing to read an educational document that has a high probability of understanding by the general citizenry, parents in particular. The intro was clear and concise and reflects a genuine effort to link each grade level to the one preceding it and the one following. Much good work here. I am so pleased to see the elimination of embedded instructional strategies and philosophy.

Strongly Agree

Very clearly explained in language that is understandable.

Yes

Agree

This is a great improvement that should benefit, educators and parents as well. It is hoped that each administrative body and school board will also take the time to read it and make decisions in accordance with the intent of this body of work. I believe there is still refinement that would be of benefit to students and instructors, but this is a definite improvement.

Agree

I found this work to be an improvement over the previous document at the elementary level. I did not review more than this. I am concerned that there are still areas where the degree of difficulty or abstractness of the concept is not in line with the general range of maturation levels of the students at some grade levels in my opinion. Still it is much improved over previous guidelines and much more closely linked to grade levels above and below.

Agree

This is easily understood and should be of great value if applied within each districts educational plan.

Yes

Agree

Except for the problem stated above, this is an improved document. Thanks to all who put this together. Again, I only reviewed the standards through 6th grade. The degree of abstractness is an issue with some concepts at some grade levels.

Page 21 of 1127











Agree

It was refreshing to read an educational document that has a high probability of understanding by the general citizenry, parents in particular. The intro was clear and concise and reflects a genuine effort to link each grade level to the one preceding it and the one following. Much good work here. I am so pleased to see the elimination of embedded instructional strategies and philosophy.

Strongly Agree

Very clearly explained in language that is understandable.

Yes

Agree

This is a great improvement that should benefit, educators and parents as well. It is hoped that each administrative body and school board will also take the time to read it and make decisions in accordance with the intent of this body of work. I believe there is still refinement that would be of benefit to students and instructors, but this is a definite improvement.

Agree

I found this work to be an improvement over the previous document at the elementary level. I did not review more than this. I am concerned that there are still areas where the degree of difficulty or abstractness of the concept is not in line with the general range of maturation levels of the students at some grade levels in my opinion. Still it is much improved over previous guidelines and much more closely linked to grade levels above and below.

Agree

This is easily understood and should be of great value if applied within each districts educational plan.

Yes

Agree

Except for the problem stated above, this is an improved document. Thanks to all who put this together. Again, I only reviewed the standards through 6th grade. The degree of abstractness is an issue with some concepts at some grade levels.

Page 22 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

Agree

Agree

Yes

Agree

Page 23 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

I LOVE that there are writing foundation standards. I like that spelling guidelines are in place in those standards. I also really like the cursive addition to the third grade standards.

Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

I like that you changed the wording from the Common Core standards so it is easier to read and understand. I like the addition of money to Kinder and 3rd grade. I like the wording changes you made to the standards and the added standards "Demonstrate understanding..." and then the "Fluently..." that makes sense that you need to demonstrate understanding before you can do it fluently.Nice job‐ I think it's easier to read and the changes made sense.

Page 24 of 1127











Strongly Agree

Vast improvement over the Engage NY Common Core *%$#.

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

The Engage NY Common Core Math was the worst decision the State of Arizona ever made in terms of a standard. Extremely confusing for students and parents alike. Hoping this new standard will go into effect by next year.

Strongly Agree

Yes

Strongly Agree

Absolutely no comparison. Much clearer objectives. Engage NY was extremely difficult to understand.

Page 25 of 1127











N/A

Not Applicable

Agree

Explained how to read the codes along the standards. It's still too complicated.

Agree

Yes

Agree

Getting better. But there are problems.

Page 26 of 1127











No

Not Applicable

Agree

Yes

Agree

Page 27 of 1127











No

Not Applicable

Yes it is simple for educators

Agree

Yes for educators but no parent would ever look at it.

Yes

Strongly Disagree

You took out examples and simplified a little of the wording but everything else is the same with the exception of SP 8 being taken out and memorizing formulas being removed. These standards starting in kindergarten are way too developmental advance for these students. Students are not memorizing anything and falling further and further behind having to model. Running out of characters but could analysis for ever at each grade level.

Page 28 of 1127











Agree

Agree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

Standards haven't really changed, simply the title keeps changing. Requiring cursive is near‐sighted at best, ignorant at worst. Pens/pencils will be obsolete in 20 years, people! It's like teaching kids how to use card catalogs to find books, use of cassette tapes to listen to music. We are quickly evolving to textbooks from tablets and classroom online programs with laptops for turning in work! Signatures will be thumbprints. Let us please teach children skills they will actually need in life.

N/A

Disagree

Page 29 of 1127











Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE STANDARDS AGAIN! Students, teachers, and districts have spent a lot of time learning the previous new standards. There is not a reason to change them except for political gain. Leave politics out of education!

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Yes

Strongly Disagree

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE STANDARDS AGAIN! Students, teachers, and districts have spent a lot of time learning the previous new standards. There is not a reason to change them except for political gain. Leave politics out of education!

Page 30 of 1127











Disagree

After spending years instituting CCSS in classrooms across the state, finally getting teachers, students and parents to understand their use in the classroom, the state now wishes to change standards again, asking that teachers again realign lessons, assessments, and teaching strategies on a whim. The wording for the draft is vague and not user friendly for teachers, students or parents, particularly the large ELL population in this state.

Agree

This glossary is adequate, but honestly does not get used by teachers in the day to day operation of the classroom.

Yes

Strongly Disagree

Understanding that students are no longer taught grammar at the elementary level, yet expected to know basic writing skills by the middle school level; and now the biggest concern this committee has is to add cursive writing to the standards? We are moving into the 21st century where students are encouraged to use technology to write, not a pencil. Cursive is a luxury our teachers do not have time to teach when kids cannot read and write.

Disagree

The introduction is vague and it is difficult to determine the scope and sequence of what is to be taught at each grade level. This would be particularly difficult for our large ELL population who require a specific range of tasks.

Agree

Suitable for intended purpose.

Yes

Disagree

The 2010 CCSS standards required critical thinking from students and demonstration of mastery of skills. There is not much variation between the 2016 and 2010 standards. I do not understand why the state is choosing to spend time and money to essentially plagiarize these standards and then ask teachers to revise lessons, strategies and materials simply so they do not have the Common Core name on them.

Page 31 of 1127











Strongly Agree

I appreciate the further narrowed standards and the format. I only reviewed the 5th grade ELA standards, but they were easy to access and review.

Strongly Agree

It was extremely easy to navigate.

Yes

Strongly Agree

Thank you for removing the 5 paragraph essay. This is an archaic form of writing that inhibits deep thinking and creativity.

Agree

Agree

Yes

Not Applicable

I believe they are very similar.

Page 32 of 1127











No

Not Applicable

No

Not Applicable

Page 33 of 1127











Strongly Agree

I'm glad we got away from that pesky Common Core!

Strongly Agree


Yes

Strongly Agree


Agree


Strongly Agree


No

Not Applicable


Page 34 of 1127











Agree

The prose is coherent.

Agree


Yes

Strongly Disagree

It ignores what we now know about handwriting. Handwriting matters: does cursive? Research shows: legible cursive averages no faster than print‐writing of equal/greater legibility. (Sources available on request.)

The fastest, clearest handwriters shun cursive: joining ONLY the most easily joined letters, and "printing" those letters whose printed & cursive shapes disagree.

Reading cursive (which still matters) can be taught in just 30 to 60 minutes once kids read print.

Agree

The prose is coherent

Agree


Yes

Disagree

It's adequate. That's about it.

Page 35 of 1127











Agree


Agree


Yes

Strongly Disagree

It ignores what we now know about handwriting. Handwriting matters: does cursive? Research shows: legible cursive averages no faster than print‐writing of equal/greater legibility. (Sources available on request.)

The fastest, clearest handwriters shun cursive: joining ONLY the most easily joined letters, and "printing" those letters whose printed & cursive shapes disagree.

Reading cursive (which still matters) can be taught in just 30 to 60 minutes once kids read print.

Agree

The prose is coherent

Agree


Yes

Disagree

It's adequate. That's about it.

Page 36 of 1127











Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

Agree

I agree, however, this standard pertaining to measures of variation and statistical analysis is both unnecessary and developmentally inappropriate: " measures of variability (interquartile range and/or mean absolute deviation)" I have been a 6th grade teacher for 11 years, and this age group does not need to be analyzing data sets to this degree of depth and complexity. Measures of center, shape, trends, and a basic understanding of outliers and their impact are more than sufficient.

Page 37 of 1127











Agree

I think that the standards are easy to understand. The progression is nice!

Yes

Agree

I really think that the emphasis and progression of phonics was needed as was the handwriting/spelling/ and writing progression for all students. I think that the standards are much easier to understand (just the way the document has been formatted too)!

Agree

I think I would strongly agree if there were example models/ visuals/ or sample problems so that visual learners can fully understand what the standard encompasses by looking at those examples :).

Agree

Yes

Agree

I think that the progression of fluency was clarified, time progressions were needed, and money standards and progressions were needed. Students in third grade are coming to us deficient in money concepts‐counting money, etc. I also really like how you made the mathematical practices understandable and they give teacher friendly explanations of each. Great! The only thing that I did not see was the chart at the end with all the types of word problems that can be developed at the grade levels

Page 38 of 1127











Agree

I think that the standards are easy to understand. The progression is nice!

Yes

Agree

I really think that the emphasis and progression of phonics was needed as was the handwriting/spelling/ and writing progression for all students. I think that the standards are much easier to understand (just the way the document has been formatted too)!

Agree

I think I would strongly agree if there were example models/ visuals/ or sample problems so that visual learners can fully understand what the standard encompasses by looking at those examples :).

Agree

Yes

Agree

I think that the progression of fluency was clarified, time progressions were needed, and money standards and progressions were needed. Students in third grade are coming to us deficient in money concepts‐counting money, etc. I also really like how you made the mathematical practices understandable and they give teacher friendly explanations of each. Great! The only thing that I did not see was the chart at the end with all the types of word problems that can be developed at the grade levels

Page 39 of 1127











Agree

Strongly Disagree

Although the glossary is easy to understand, I would argue it is not complete. There are many more ELA academic terms that should be added in order to effectively inform teachers of Arizona's expectations regarding instruction. For instance, figurative language is missing from the glossary and is often only partially taught in the classroom setting. Also, a more succinct glossary would better connect ELA instruction across the grade levels.

Yes

Disagree

The 2016 and 2010 standards documents are almost exactly the same. I was hoping for an improvement regarding the specifics and vertical alignment of skills and concepts. For instance "summarize" appears for the first time in fourth grade, but no where in the documents are teachers given the student expectations for summaries written by fourth graders versus those written by tenth graders.

N/A

Not Applicable

Page 40 of 1127











Did not review ELA standards.

Did not review ELA standards.

No

Not Applicable

I did not review the ELA standards.

Agree

The document claims that clarity is one of its main goals. However, in regards to fluency, it states that “It is critical to note that fluency is not always defined in a standard by the word ‘fluently’ being present. Sometimes fluency is implied.” This is very unclear.

The explanations and examples section was critical to helping new teachers and coaches understand the standards.

Tables 1 and 2 should be in grade level documents.

Agree

We will need a crosswalk document between the 2010 and 2016 standards to notate what exactly has changed.

Is Arizona is now changing the standards and language of the Common Core? Our understanding was that in 2010 the standards were the same with Arizona adding one standard as well as an Explanations and Examples section. However, we now notice changes to language such as in 7.EE.A.2 where the italicized example embedded in the original standard has been eliminated.

Yes

Disagree

The explanations for SMP 7 and 8 continue to be unclear. In the separation of the High School standards into the specific subject areas, standards are now appearing in courses of which they were not previously a part. We are not sure why 4.MD.A.1 is cited in the money progression chart as it doesn’t have any reference to money within it. We feel that the explanations and examples section is critical to teacher understanding of the standards. If clarity is the goal ‐ keep these in!

Page 41 of 1127











Agree

I think the issue is text complexity. The state should provide more guidance on the grade appropriate materials and should also include the complexity of questions based on Webbs to help teacher meet the higher demands.

Agree

Yes

Not Applicable

Read no, look through, yes.

Strongly Agree

I think the progression of fluency is fabulous but still feel adding Webb questions to each of the mathematical practices will help teachers understand that these practices are aided by instruction only and cannot be based on a purchase curriculum.

Agree

Yes

Agree

I guess this is more of question rather than a comment: Is pattern included at any grade levels? I looked through the Kindergarten and did not see this standard and yet, I feel that students who are able to identify, site and describe patterns are able to transfer this thinking to numbers and that aids students in being able to used logical and reasoning.

I very much agree with the addition of time and money in the progression. Need financial standards added to older grades!

Thanks,

Page 42 of 1127



Please explain your choice.The 2016 Arizona DRAFT English Langu

the is complete and easy to glossary is complete and easy ... overall... · the 2016 arizona draft...

Documents