This is what I wrote last year about today's lesson:
Lesson 12-5 of the U of Chicago text is about similar figures. There is not much for us to change about this lesson from last year, except for the definition of similar itself. Recall the two definitions:
-- Two polygons are similar if corresponding angles are congruent and sides are proportional.
-- Two figures are similar if there exists a similarity transformation mapping one to the other.
The first definition is pre-Core, while the second is Common Core. The U of Chicago text, of course, uses the second definition. But that PARCC question I mentioned last week must be using the first definition, since it requires that we know what similar means before we can define dilations and ultimately similarity transformations.
In the U of Chicago text, the Similar Figures Theorem is essentially the statement that the second definition implies the first definition. We would actually need to prove the converse -- that the first definition (at least for polygons) implies the second. But the proof isn't that much different -- suppose we have two figures F and G satisfying the first definition of similar -- that is, corresponding angles are congruent and sides are proportional, say with scale factor k. Then use any dilation with scale factor k to map F to its image F'. Now F' and G have all corresponding parts congruent, so there must exist some isometry mapping F' to G. Therefore the composite of a dilation and an isometry -- that is, a similarity transformation -- maps F to G. QED
So I don't change the worksheet from last year.