|
New York Portrait of a Graduate
|
Academically Prepared
|
- I can write a polynomial function that models a relationship between two drainage quantities (like rainfall input and modeled water level) and use it to make a clear claim about how changing one quantity affects the other.
|
- I can rewrite a rational expression or polynomial into an equivalent form by using the structure of the expression (including rewriting to reveal intercepts/design limits) and I can connect those algebraic forms to what the model means for flood risk.
|
- I can apply the Remainder Theorem and factor suitable polynomial expressions to identify zeros that represent key flood-threshold conditions, and I can use these results to explain whether a drainage design reaches or avoids those thresholds.
|
- I can independently choose and produce the most informative equivalent polynomial and rational forms (including expressing a(x)/b(x) as q(x)+r(x)/b(x) when appropriate), then justify my model’s behavior (zeros, limits, and end behavior) with evidence from data to support a neighborhood flood-risk decision.
|
|
New York Portrait of a Graduate
|
Critical Thinker
|
- I can use math evidence from my notes (maps, photos, simulation results) to propose a simple function that models the relationship between two drainage variables (e.g., rainfall input and water level)
- I can state what each quantity represents and how the model will be used to reason about flood risk.
|
- I can analyze patterns in local rainfall, drainage, and puddling data to refine my function model and explain why it fits the situation
- I can recognize the structure of related expressions and choose an equivalent form that helps me interpret a design’s effect on water level.
|
- I can compare two drainage designs by building and evaluating polynomial/rational models, then justify which model best matches neighborhood conditions
- I can use the Remainder Theorem and zeros (when factoring is available) to interpret flood thresholds or failure points, and I can explain the meaning of those results in context.
|
- I can independently synthesize mathematical reasoning with NYC evidence to make a defensible, data-based claim about which drainage design reduces flood risk
- I can rewrite rational expressions into meaningful forms to reveal properties (like limits/intercepts), and I can critique and improve my model by connecting structure, zeros/thresholds, and real-world outcomes in my recommendation.
|
|
New York Portrait of a Graduate
|
Global Citizen
|
- I can connect my flood-risk model to a real neighborhood context by choosing variables that represent stormwater and drainage conditions in a way that helps a community audience understand the relationship
- I can write a function that describes how changes in one drainage quantity relate to another over time.
|
- I can justify how my polynomial model represents a drainage decision in Southeast Queens by using structure to rewrite expressions and explain what the new form shows for flood thresholds or limits
- I can identify zeros (threshold points) from factorizations and use the Remainder Theorem to confirm when a design meets or fails a key condition.
|
- I can compare two drainage designs using mathematically equivalent forms to make community-relevant claims about performance, such as intercepts, end behavior, and safe/unsafe ranges
- I can rewrite rational expressions into quotient-plus-remainder form and use the revealed features to explain which option better matches local conditions from class data and NYC sources.
|
- I can confidently communicate a globally responsible, evidence-based recommendation by selecting and explaining the best mathematical model among alternatives and addressing tradeoffs in flooding impacts
- I can produce clear function and expression reasoning (including rational rewrites and threshold checks) that a community board/DEP audience can follow to support informed stormwater decisions.
|
|
New York Portrait of a Graduate
|
Reflective and Future Focused
|
- I can identify what I learned from analyzing flooding data and models by pointing to specific evidence from my 1-pager (e.g., key zeros, intercepts, or rewritten forms) and explaining how it helped explain a flooding threshold or design limit
- I can set one next-step goal for improving my reasoning or model based on teacher or peer feedback.
|
- I can reflect on how my understanding of the flood-risk problem improved as I revised my polynomial/rational models, and I can describe how my choices (factoring, using the Remainder Theorem, or rewriting expressions) changed what my function showed about drainage over time
- I can use feedback to make a clear, measurable plan for what I will do differently in the next phase, such as refining assumptions or recalculating zeros.
|
- I can evaluate the strengths and limitations of my drainage decision-tool by comparing evidence (graphs, zeros, and equivalent forms) to the flood-risk patterns in our data, and I can justify why my selected model best fits the scenario
- I can independently set meaningful goals for future improvement and consistently connect my math revisions to responsible stormwater decision-making.
|
- I can synthesize my learning across phases by explaining how my math reasoning evolved into a reliable, student-tested recommendation for Community Board 12/DEP, including how I confirmed or corrected conclusions using polynomial/rational structure (e.g., recognizing equivalent forms and identifying zeros with justification)
- I can use reflective evidence to make sophisticated future-focused decisions—prioritizing accuracy, transparency, and well-being in how I interpret and communicate flood-risk tradeoffs.
|