Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District

1. K-6 Math Program Evaluation February 2009 Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District

2. Suzanne Cadwalader, 5-8 Supervisor of Math and Science Frank Chiaravalli, Supervising Chairperson of Math 9-12 Cheryl Dyer, Assistant Superintendent Barbara Kane, K-4 Supervisor of Math and Science Co-Chairs of the Committee

3. In September 2008, the Superintendent directed the Assistant Superintendent to form a committee to be co-chaired by the math supervisors, to evaluate the existing math program and consider alternative programs as per the recommendation from the Everyday Math Committee of 2007-2008. The Assistant Superintendent convened the math supervisors and the four administrators assumed the role of a Steering Committee. The Steering Committee invited teachers throughout the district to apply to be part of the evaluation committee. Ultimately, 35 teachers were selected for the evaluation committee. Description of the Process

4. 35 teachers represented all grade levels (K-12) and all buildings Teachers were divided into study groups and a research sub-committee Each teacher received a binder with background information, a copy of the EDM report, and a copy of the NMAP report The Steering Committee selected nine programs for consideration The Process Continued

5. The full committee met for the first time on November 3rd. The Steering Committee provided the Evaluation Committee with background information and an overview of the contents of the binder The Evaluation Committee was divided into study teams and a research team Understanding the Task

6. To analyze the research on best practices for teaching mathematics at the elementary and intermediate level To evaluate 9 different sets of resources for teaching mathematics against a predetermined set of criteria To rank order the 9 sets of resources from best to worst To recommend the best math ‘program’ to the Superintendent of Schools The Task

7. Steering Committee September 25, October 30, November 13, December 11 Research Committee November 18 and November 25 in addition to full committee dates Full Committee November 3, December 1, December 11, January 15, January 23 Principal Input January 8: K-6 Principal Review and input Schedule of Meetings

8. Student Achievement Data Findings of the EDM Committee Perceptions of the Current Program Parents Teachers Understanding the ‘Traditional’ vs. ‘Reform’ debate Review of Relevant Research Recommendations from the National Math Advisory Panel Background Information

9. Parents K-4 (598 respondents) 61% felt that their children were adequately challenged in math 31% said that they were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with the math program 5-6 (122 respondents) 67% felt that their children were adequately challenged in math 47% said that they were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with the math program Perceptions of the Program

10. Teachers 77% felt that the current math program supported their efforts to differentiate 81% felt that the current math program provides ample opportunity for students to think critically and develop problem solving skills 77% felt that the current math program provides ample opportunities to develop conceptual understanding Perceptions of the Program

11. Teachers 52% felt that the current math program provides sufficient opportunities to develop computational fluency and skill 72% felt that the current math program prepares students for success at the next grade 85% recognized that the district has had to add to the EDM program and that the BRRSD curriculum was not ‘pure’ EDM Perceptions of the Program

12. Hands-on nature of materials Ability to differentiate Student engagement with materials User-friendly nature of teacher’s manual and student journals Emphasis on critical thinking and conceptual understanding Real-life applications Attention to different learning styles Spiraling nature of curriculum In your professional opinion, what are the advantages of the EDM curriculum materials?

13. Lack of focus/lack of expectation for mastery Inability to meet the needs of struggling learners Lack of sufficient time to ‘cover’ the curriculum Lack of sufficient practice problems Emphasis on critical thinking and conceptual understanding Insufficient focus on fundamentals or basic facts Too many strategies Insufficient problem solving lessons Spiraling nature of curriculum In your professional opinion, what are thelimitationsof the EDM curriculum materials?

14. Middle School and High School Middle and high school teachers report that their average to below average students have difficulty with whole numbers, fractions and problem-solving. The number of students who are ‘algebra ready’ by 7th grade has not changed. More students are ‘algebra ready’ by 8th grade More students advance to higher level math classes in high school Perceptions of the Program

15. Traditional Pedagogy Teacher Centered Explicit Instruction Content Oriented Reform Pedagogy Student Centered Discovery Learning Process Oriented Understanding the Debate Strategic use of both is the key to success! It's about balance!

16. The ‘traditional’ view of ‘reform’ curricula:

17. The ‘reform’ view of ‘traditional’ curricula:

18. “The reality is, if, like in high performing countries, we could cut down the contentto what mathematicians and engineers think is important, there would be lots of time to play around with concepts in a constructivist way before you nailed down the math.  I care about nailing down the math, but most constructivists disagree about what the math is, so they don't do what I want.” Professor Wilson from Johns Hopkins:

19. “The math wars, at least on the part of the professional mathematics community and the business community were not about minor issues like whether constructivist pedagogy or direct instruction should be used in delivering mathematics, but the major issue that our student outcomes are too weak to be competitive with the rest of the world. It should be clearly understood that I don’t mean just our average students, but even our very best are not competitive any longer. While the rest of the world has learned a great deal about how to teach mathematics to young children, we are essentially recycling old ideas every 10-20 years, and have been doing so for a very long time.” Professor Milgram from Stanford:

20. National Math Advisory Panel Reviewed over 16,000 research studies Some research shows that NCTM programs are effective; some research shows that these programs are not as effective as more traditional programs (Ginsburg et al., 2005; Hyde, 2007; Jayanthi et al., 2008; Leinwand & Ginsburg, 2007; Lewis, 2005; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). Review of the Research

21. Learning Theory Children learn in a variety of different ways and that some concepts should be taught through orchestrated and teacher-directed discovery and others should be explicitly taught (Chall, 2000; Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; Hyde, 2007; Jayanthi, Gersten, & Baker, 2008; Tyre, 2008). While contextual learning is necessary and appropriate, understanding of underlying math concepts does not necessarily follow automatically (Hyde, 2007; Jayanthi et al., 2008; Loewenberg Ball et al., 2005) Review of the Research

22. The curriculum for grades K-8 should be streamlined. It should follow a coherent progression with emphasis on mastery of key topics, there should be a focus on the critical foundations for algebra, and any approach that continually revisits topics without closure should be avoided. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 1

23. Proficiency with whole numbers, fractions, and certain aspects of geometry and measurement are the foundations for algebra. Of these, knowledge of fractions is the most important foundational skill not developed among American students. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 2

24. Conceptual understanding, computational and procedural fluency, and problem solving skills are equally important and mutually reinforce each other. Debates regarding the relative importance of each of these components of mathematics are misguided. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 3

25. Students should develop immediate recall of arithmetic facts to free the “working memory” for solving more complex problems. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 4

26. Explicit instruction for students who struggle with math is effective in increasing student learning. Teachers should understand how to provide clear models for solving a problem type using an array of examples, offer opportunities for extensive practice, encourage students to “think aloud,” and give specific feedback. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 5

27. Teachers’ mathematical knowledge is important for students’ achievement. The preparation of elementary and middle school teachers in mathematics should be strengthened. Teachers cannot be expected to teach what they do not know. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 6

28. The belief that children of particular ages cannot learn certain content because they are “too young” or “not ready” has consistently been shown to be false. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 7

29. Student effort is important.Much of the public’s “resignation” about mathematics education is based on the erroneous idea that success comes from inherent talent or ability in mathematics, not effort. A focus on the importance of effort in mathematics learning will improve outcomes. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 8

30. Mathematically gifted students should be allowed to accelerate their learning. The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 9

31. enVision Math (Pearson/Scott Foresman) Everyday Math (McGraw Hill/Wright Group) HSP Math (Harcourt School Publishers) Math Connects (McMillan/McGraw Hill) Math Expressions (Houghton Mifflin) Progress in Mathematics (Sadlier-Oxford) Programs Reviewed

32. Saxon Math (Saxon) Singapore Math (Singapore) Think Math (Harcourt School Publishers) Glencoe (5th and 6th grade) Programs Reviewed

33. Level Six~ Most Important: Content is comprehensive and accurate at each grade level The Rubric: 6 Levels18 Indicators Total

34. Builds conceptual understandings & computational fluency through vertical articulation Defines core content and essential concepts / understandings clearly Aligns content with state and national standards Develops concepts using multiple representations in order to formulate generalizations Requires use of mathematical language, vocabulary, and notation Promotes critical thinking, problem-solving, and reasoning Level Five

35. Uses materials that meet grade level expectations for students. Uses multiple forms of assessment and embeds continuous assessment in student learning Includes a variety of questioning techniques (fact and recall, open-ended, probing and clarifying, application, transfer) beyond recitation Level Four

36. Engages all students in active learning through worthwhile tasks in which they construct mathematical understandings Makes meaningful connections within mathematics, to other content areas, and to real-life situations Supports teachers’ efforts to differentiate for whole group instruction, small group collaboration and individualized instruction as needed. Level Three

37. Reflects the use of technology, real-life applications, and careers Supports the teachers efforts to differentiate through varied methods of instruction, learning styles and cultures Level Two

38. Provides both intervention, enrichment activities and additional resources to extend student learning Provides multiple opportunities to apply and practice skills and concepts in order to promote fluency and understanding. Implementation of curriculum materials: level of PD, implement K-6 at one time; online parent resources Level One

39. After review by the study groups, the programs were rank ordered based on the score earned on the rubric. The 'top' programs were invited to send a representative to meet with the committee and answer questions and present their program. Ranking of Programs

40. The following publishers were invited to meet with the committee: enVision Everyday Math HSP Math Math Connects Math Expressions Top Programs

41. Following the presentations, the committee agreed to eliminate the following programs from consideration: enVision Everyday Math Math Expressions Second Round of Review

42. The full committee used the rubric to evaluate the two top programs by grade level Harcourt School Publishers (HSP) Math Math Connects Second Round of Review

43. The Results

44. The committee determined that HSP Math is the best choice for BRRSD because: It is aligned with the recommendations of the National Math Advisory Panel It provides for coherent and comprehensive instruction using traditional algorithms and conceptual understanding It includes sufficient materials (concrete and virtual) for practice that leads to mastery. It provides for intervention and enrichment in accordance with our RTI model It’s Unanimous!

45. The Superintendent recommends the adoption to the BOE The BOE approves the adoption The community supports the budget The materials are purchased (K-6) Professional Development occurs Between Now and September:

46. Additional Data

47. Elementary Most of the districts in our comparison group with 3rd and 4th grade NJ ASK results that are better than BRRSD use a math program other than Everyday Math Secondary Seven of the ten districts in our comparison group have SAT mean scores in math higher than BRRSD (pre-EDM students) PSAT Results for students who are pre-EDM are not significantly different from results from EDM students Student Achievement Data

48. Percent of Students ‘partially proficient’ by Grade Level

49. Special Education Results

50. Secondary Data