*STANDARD FORMAT FOR UPPER SCHOOL SYLLABI



Kenyon- Room A104

kenyonk@

816-412-9268

University Academy Upper School 2015-2016

Algebra II

I. Brief Overview:

This course serves as the third course in the Upper School mathematics sequence. In Algebra II we will focus on manipulating polynomials, functions and sequences. Students will gain a deep understanding of the behavior of polynomials and functions, and they will be able to analyze and dissect key features of those behaviors including graphing. Additionally, this will be the first time students are introduced to unit circle trigonometry, as well as a utilization of the normal distribution to make statistical analyses. Students will begin to explore mathematical texts to engage their critical reading and literacy skills. The goal of this course is attaining a score of Advanced or Proficient on the Algebra 2 end of high school test. A score of less than Proficient on the Algebra 2 high school test may be grounds for retaking the course.

II. Required Materials:

Textbook: Larson, Boswell, Kanold, Stiff. Algebra 2. McDougal Littell, 2007.

Supplies: Notebook or loose leaf paper, pencils, eraser, calculator (recommend TI-30X or similar)

III. Mastery:

In accordance with our mission to educate students at a level that will prepare them for success in Higher Education, University Academy utilizes mastery learning as the norm for all courses. Mastering a subject indicates a demonstrated proficiency of 80% or higher in vitally important topic areas of a course. In order to pass this course, you must obtain mastery in these five areas. Not achieving this level will result in either an incomplete or a failing grade. In order to achieve at the desired level, students should plan on using their time wisely, including utilizing tutor times and sessions. See appendix for more information regarding mastery assessment.

IV. Topics Covered:

• Polynomial arithmetic and the complex number system

• Functions: polynomial, rational, radical, exponential, logarithmic, absolute value

• Data and statistics

• Unit circle and basic trigonometry

• Parent functions and graphs: linear, quadratic, cubic, polynomial, square root, cube root, exponential growth and decay, logarithmic, absolute value, piecewise

VI. Grading Scale: Assignments and Weighting:

A: 90 – 100% Unit Tests and Finals 40%

B: 80 – 89% Tests and Quizzes 30%

C: 70 – 79% Homework 20%

D: 60 – 69% (failing) Participation 10%

F: 0 – 59% (failing)

VII. Tentative Schedule

The following is a tentative outline of our pacing for first semester. These dates should serve as a guide to the general length, and they are by no means final. Extra days between each unit will occur due to mastery prep, review and exams.

Semester 1

Unit 1: Parent functions and linear analysis 4 weeks

Unit 2: Quadratics and complex number system 4 weeks

Unit 3: Polynomial Theory 5 weeks

Unit 4: Radical and Rational Functions 4 weeks

Semester 2

Unit 5: Trigonometry 8 weeks

Unit 6: Function behavior 6 weeks

Unit 7: Statistics 3 weeks

Dear Parent or Guardian,

I am so excited to be back at University Academy for a third year! I have had many of your kids in class already, and I am excited to watch as they continue to grow as math students. One of my goals as a teacher is to ensure that your student is equipped with the content and critical thinking skills to be able to make their goals and dreams a reality. I hope that we can work together to help your student achieve at high levels.

I will be available for tutoring two days a week after school if your student needs help. Please reach out to me with any questions about how your student is doing in class, grades, behavior, etc. My email is kenyonk@ and I check it COMPULSIVELY throughout the day and evening. You can reach me on my direct phone number at school 816-412-9268, or if you prefer to call or text my cell, that number is 816-388- 9877.

Please return the bottom portion of this form with your student for EXTRA CREDIT so that I can have the most updated contact information, and your preferred method of contact. Or, you may scan the following QR code on your smart phone to enter the information in a secure, online form.

[pic] Welcome back to school!!!

- Ms. Katy Kenyon

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Student’s Name: ______________________________________________________

Parent or Guardian Name: _______________________________________________

Preferred method of contact: (circle) Phone Call Email Phone Text

Contact information: ____________________________________________________

Signed: ______________________________________________________________

Appendix to the Algebra II Syllabus

Mastery Learning:

Since at least the 1990s, the K-12 education in the United States has increasingly emphasized a “no excuses” standards-based approach to learning. Federal education law, state testing regimes, and the Common Core State Standards initiative all exist to 1) define crucial and often rigorous standards—knowledge and skills alike—necessary for college and career readiness; and 2) to require rigorous state or national assessments that seek to ensure all students’ mastery of those standards.

To meet this challenge, University Academy upper school has adopted a mastery learning model of assessment of each student’s learning of the curricular standards in each course. Except when waived by the upper school principal, all high school teachers are required to implement this model, adapting it appropriately to their specific courses. Upper school teachers, especially new or beginning, will be trained annually in the mastery approach. What follows is only a brief overview of the theory and practice of mastery learning.

Mastery learning is based on certain fundamental assumptions:

• educational psychology has established that if a subject can manipulate a fact or idea or use a skill correctly 80% of the time, the subject has “mastered”—attained a fair degree of expertise or fluency—in that learning task

• mastery learning (at 80% or greater accuracy) strengthens retention of knowledge and skills, combats the curve of forgetting, accelerates relearning, and establishes a stronger foundation for more advanced learning in subsequent courses

• all students can and must learn to high levels, but not at the same rate of learning

• mastery learning raises achievement for all students

The mastery learning process at UA:

1. Each teacher identifies from the standards-aligned course curriculum specific units, skills, or core competencies to be mastered by all students. This is a selective process; practically speaking, not all essential standards can be assessed through the mastery approach. A minimum of three mastery assessments per semester must be administered in each course.

2. The selected learning should focus more on higher levels of learning (Bloom’s applying, analyzing, evaluating, or synthesizing/creating; DOK levels 2-4) than on lower level recall/recognition of facts (Bloom’s remembering or understanding; DOK 1). If a unit test is the means of assessment, ideally it should be a balanced assessment, containing both objective and constructed response items requiring significant higher-level thinking.

3. The teacher must make the standards for mastery clear to the students (analyzing models of mastery/approaching mastery/non-mastery work are recommended); students should also clearly understand why the particular mastery learning task is central to the course and their overall education.

4. After thorough instruction and formative assessments of the learning task, students complete a summative “mastery” assessment. They must demonstrate at least 80% accuracy or proficiency on that assessment.

5. Students not attaining 80% on the first attempt will be given up to two additional attempts to demonstrate mastery, typically after school. A reasonable deadline (recommended: a week or less) should be imposed, to avoid a flurry of by-then-meaningless mastery retakes in the final week of the course.

6. Students not mastering should be able to clearly identify their areas of weakness and receive assistance in attaining mastery, either through review of the first mastery assessment, in-class individual help, peer tutoring, and/or after-school tutoring. In the end, however, it is primarily (but not exclusively) the student’s responsibility to master the learning.

7. Mastery “retakes” should be altered to avoid memorization of the first mastery test but must assess the same standards as the original form of the test.

8. If the student masters on the second or third attempt, the recorded grade for that assessment is the average of the student’s first attempt and the successful mastery attempt. Example: Monique scores 60% correct on the first attempt. No grade is entered in the official grade record. On the second attempt, she scores 90%. The average of the two scores, 75% (or its raw score equivalent), is then entered in the official grade record. If the student requires a third attempt, it is left to the teacher’s discretion whether to average all three scores or only the initial score and final mastery score. Some form of averaging, however, is essential to avoid students’ “blowing off” the first attempt and using it only to make their belated study for the second attempt easier.

9. If the student fails to demonstrate 80% proficiency after three attempts, the official grade recorded for that assessment is a zero. This establishes that mastery learning is a “high stakes” enterprise and that “close,” isn’t good enough in mastering standards crucial for college and careers.

10. In calculating the final grade for the course, mastery assessments must be weighted between 40-60% of the grade. More than one failure to master may well cause the student to fail the course. This is appropriate and not meant to be punitive. It merely identifies students whose learning is too weak to permit them to progress through the curriculum without retaking the course.

11. The teacher’s mastery policy must be explicitly explained in the course syllabus and through classroom instruction over the course of the year. Because subtle differences in procedure will exist from course to course and teacher to teacher, many students will experience understandable confusion. It is the teacher’s job repeatedly to clarify the procedures used in a specific course. Throughout the process, there should be no mystery to mastery.

Sources:

Bloom, Benjamin. “Learning for Mastery.” Evaluation Comment. UCLA-Center for the Study

of Evaluation of Instructional Programs. 1968. Reprinted at



Gentile, J. Ronald, and James P. Lalley. Standards and Mastery Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin. 2003.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download