Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Seattle Schools Math Adoption - What is Going On?


First, here's a link to School Board policy (see top of chart "Selection and Adoption of Instructional Materials").

To review, here's what we reported (via reader Rick B) in early January:

The top three programs are to be selected as finalists by Friday the 10th. Additional copies of these finalist programs will be ordered from publishers and distributed to ~5 locations around the city for formal public review and comment during the month of March.

Final selection of a single program will take place by the end of March, to be submitted to the SB for introduction Apr 23rd and approval May 7th. 

Clearly, those finalists have not been selected (or, at least, no announcement made).  The next meeting of the Math Adoption Committee is Feb. 7th so I would hope we would hear something then.

Also, SPS Communications reached out to us with the SPS Math Director, Anita Box.  She was kind enough to answer some of my questions.

The process seems to be about half done.  After the Committee picks three finalists, those three will then be announced and the public again allowed to review them and give input.  (I asked about trends from the public from the first round but that won't be available until the January minutes of the Adoption Committee.) 

What is interesting to me is that the final recommendation to the Board from the Adoption Committee IS the one that the Board will vote on.  I had it in my head that the three finalists when to Shauna Heath, head of C&I, and then she/other district officials decided on the finalist. 

Nope, Ms. Box said (and the policy backs that up) that the final choice of the Adoption Committee is the one submitted to the Board.  (And, that's what Rick B's remarks indicate as well.)

I reread the policy and the only kind of violation I see is this:

The adoption timeline will be posted on the Curriculum & Instruction website, and through any other method defined in the communication strategy. 

The timeline is not at the C&I website (and I would have expected to see it under Initiatives).

End of update.

There seems to be some mystery and oddities going on with the Math Adoption.

1) Many parents are asking - Where IS this process?  Who are the finalists for the new math adoption?

2) Then we have this letter from some teachers at Pathfinder saying that none of curricula are "adequate for preparing the high standards of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics."  This is surprising because no curricula could be selected that did not meet CC standards.   And that Pathfinder letter says that "there are curricula currently being developed" to meet CC "in its entirety" and yet they don't name it.  If it were that vital for the Board and the Math Adoption Committee to look at this issue, why not name the curricula?

The Math Committee did say that they did NOT want any math that was "CCS lite" but that it would have a "sincere" alignment to CC state standards for Math.  (Naturally, this is a moving target as no one state has had any real, long-term experience with teaching CC math standards.)

In a previous thread, I said what's the rush but I was wrong  I had just gone blank on how long math curriculum in SPS has been mostly bad for most students.  We need this new curriculum to meet the challenges of Common Core AND to help our students get the best possible math education they can.

I don't think a deadstop is a good idea.  

3) I am hearing rumblings that the final three picks coming from the Math Adoption Committee may not be the ones the district announces.

That could be a problem and if you want to make parents suspicious for any future curriculum adoption committees AND blow a hole in this one - then that's the way to do it.

4)  I know that one of the curricula was adopted by Highline.  One Board member told me that he/she had examined the choices and felt that there were definitely some fine ones in there.

I would love to hear from members of the Math Adoption Committee (either in Comments or at  


Anonymous said...

my extended response to the Pathfinder teachers will be written -

toooo many teachers on the math reformie side miss some unpleasant realities of reality. hundreds of millions and billions of humans have lots of needs and those needs require lots of work. lots and lots of that work is NOT sitting around like The Thinker, making High Level Thoughts! & Powerpoints! Lots of that work is just plain old grunt work -

and how do we automate and make grunt work efficient? how do we make it pay family wages? (we'll ALL go to Harvard Law & then we'll ALL sue each other all the time??) how do we divide it up so we call get some grunt work and we all get some "creative" work ... btw - can't it be creative to do your grunt work well, OR, only Harvard Law grads get creative work?

HOW DO YOU CONDEMN KIDS TO NOT BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, COMPETE, SUCCEED? Make sure that they don't have any arithmetic skills!

It seems as if it is bad to just flat out acknowledge that in reality, lots of work is grunt work, that lots of "creative" jobs have lots of grunt work, and you just ain't ever gonna get good at anything until you can master the grunt work of that anything.

I'm so tired of all the high-falutin psuedo thinking disparaging what most of us do for much of our lives - lots of grunt work - including mastering fractions, percents, decimals, integers, order of operations - stuff that most of the affluent kids get to master on their march to Cambridge.


Anonymous said...

YEAH AdoptSinagporeYesterday!!

Math is not sexy, not fun, not even interesting, perhaps, to some (it is to me, though). It is not group work, it is not group think, it is not cooperation. It is 'get the job done', factor that trinomial,memorize that multiplication table, I would welcome drill-and-kill simplicity and focus. Science, Social Studies, PE, etc lend themselves to multimedia group work extravaganzas. Math is math.

Anonymous said...

I am a math lead teacher at our school and my colleague and I looked at the candidate curriculums when they were on display. I concur with the Pathfinder teachers that all the curriculums seemed to just simply put a CC stamp on their books.

Common Core is quite intense and if you look deeply you will see a range of "Depth of Knowledge" ranging from rote work (~10% of the standards) to quite deep thinking (majority). The curriculums on display were not deep in any way and were almost all "fill in the blanks." There was almost no show your thinking or describe the meaning of the concept. It was deeply concerning as it did not seem to promote deep understanding and will surely not set them up well for the SBAC.

I know it's hard to wait since the EDM we have is horrible. BUT... that does not mean we should pick another poor curriculum. It's better to wait a year and do this again.

- Concerned Mathie

Melissa Westbrook said...

So Concerned, are you saying that it's "CC lite" and will not pick up what CC wants students to pick up?

Boy, this really picking up on the issue of being prepared for CC and how it appears that CC is being rushed.

Anonymous said...

'show your thinking' & 'explain your reasoning' =

well, for kids who do NOT have all kinds of external $upport re$ource$, it means NOT learning that there is precision in math - a circle isn't about hugging a tree, making a painting, coloring your toes and being happy - it is just a circle...

like the big bertha tunnel ! with a line (road surface) intersecting the circle. it MIGHT be fun to think about tunnel design - it won't be when you can't do any fractions or decimals.

It is criminal that you can't do fractions or decimals cuz the high falutin are so busy with their heads in the clouds beyond dirty reality phantasy that they couldn't deign to help you master basics.

Why not kill another year with crap curriculum, cuz ... yawn ... we're gonna teach high level tinking, I tink! the poor kids aren't


Anonymous said...

You must not have gotten a really close look at math in focus. I think I agree with you about myMath, in the early years- sloppy, too basic and too hard in parts, not great. The middle school continuation is good, though. It is filled with word problems, and difficult/critical thinking ones at that. Of course describing rote operations does not take as many words as describing critical thinking skills, so if you do a straight percentage, rote work will not appear to be nearly as emphasized as it is. Certainly more in the early years- are you a middle school teacher, maybe? I will definitely grant you not by then, but I think that's because there is an expectation that arithmetic is done in elementary.

I happen to have Singapore books 3-5 a and b, and compared those to the common core grade 4 standards. It's all in there, and presents so much clearer than the curriculums in use at my children's schools. There are fewer "options" for how to solve a problem or do a particular operation, but that is so, so, so much better for teaching how math actually builds on itself.

"Deep" is a synonym for "only available through discovery math curriculum" at one of my schools. I doubt you teach at it (no lead math teacher), but though theoretically I like deep knowledge, in practice I have only heard it used to explain why children aren't going to get a foundation in mathematical operations and are instead going to "discover" multiplication 6 different ways and come out still unable to tell you what 8x4 is. My kids are fine, but honestly it's only because we supplemented with these Singapore books. Depth of knowledge often comes from rote work in math, which I am sure you know and see every day. I really don't think we should allow the children of seattle one more year of this, and I think you are wrong about whether the curriculums presented are both good enough to teach our kids with and able to handle common core.


Anonymous said...

Frankly, let the Common Core wait. We should not have to continue to wait for a decent math curriculum in Seattle. Not one more year. No. We use Singapore and JUMP at home. Let's get on with it. Let's get a decent curriculum while the CC works itself out. Thank you Melissa for this post on the math adoption committee.


ben said...

Are we talking about the same common core standards that are out there?

I've looked through the k-5 ones and don't see anything particularly deep or not represented in most of the sample textbooks frankly.

For example let's look at a piece of grade 5:

CCSS.Math.Content.5.OA.A.1 Use parentheses, brackets, or braces in numerical expressions, and evaluate expressions with these symbols.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.OA.A.2 Write simple expressions that record calculations with numbers, and interpret numerical expressions without evaluating them. For example, express the calculation “add 8 and 7, then multiply by 2” as 2 × (8 + 7). Recognize that 3 × (18932 + 921) is three times as large as 18932 + 921, without having to calculate the indicated sum or product.
Analyze patterns and relationships.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.OA.B.3 Generate two numerical patterns using two given rules. Identify apparent relationships between corresponding terms. Form ordered pairs consisting of corresponding terms from the two patterns, and graph the ordered pairs on a coordinate plane. For example, given the rule “Add 3” and the starting number 0, and given the rule “Add 6” and the starting number 0, generate terms in the resulting sequences, and observe that the terms in one sequence are twice the corresponding terms in the other sequence. Explain informally why this is so.

Understand the place value system.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.1 Recognize that in a multi-digit number, a digit in one place represents 10 times as much as it represents in the place to its right and 1/10 of what it represents in the place to its left.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.2 Explain patterns in the number of zeros of the product when multiplying a number by powers of 10, and explain patterns in the placement of the decimal point when a decimal is multiplied or divided by a power of 10. Use whole-number exponents to denote powers of 10.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.3 Read, write, and compare decimals to thousandths.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.3a Read and write decimals to thousandths using base-ten numerals, number names, and expanded form, e.g., 347.392 = 3 × 100 + 4 × 10 + 7 × 1 + 3 × (1/10) + 9 × (1/100) + 2 × (1/1000).
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.3b Compare two decimals to thousandths based on meanings of the digits in each place, using >, =, and < symbols to record the results of comparisons.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.A.4 Use place value understanding to round decimals to any place.
Perform operations with multi-digit whole numbers and with decimals to hundredths.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.B.5 Fluently multiply multi-digit whole numbers using the standard algorithm.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.B.6 Find whole-number quotients of whole numbers with up to four-digit dividends and two-digit divisors, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the relationship between multiplication and division. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.
CCSS.Math.Content.5.NBT.B.7 Add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals to hundredths, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used.


I'm curious in concrete terms what does missing "intensity" and "depth" mean?

Linh-Co said...

I have a math degree, was a Seattle classroom teacher, math specialist, and now am a private tutor. I see 29 kids a week from 6 different schools: Whittier, Salmon Bay, Whitman, North Beach, Hamilton, and Lincoln. I've also worked with kids from Adams, Loyal Heights, and Queen Anne Elementary. I work with students who need remedial work as well as APP students. I can tell you a lot of students come to me with very little skills and not a lot of understanding of basic arithmetic ideas. The kids who are working at advanced level have done so with outside supplementation from parents.

I have never met a student with good problem solving skills and conceptual understanding who couldn't do arithmetic. Proficiency and understanding go hand in hand. As noted by the NMAP (National Math Advisory Panel) "For all content areas, conceptual understanding, computational fluency, and problem solving skills are each essential, and mutually reinforcing..."

A teacher that understands math and knows the level of their students should be able to ask appropriately challenging and "higher order" thinking questions without being spoon fed by the textbook. A great teacher friend of mine once said, "You can't buy creativity in a box."

I also have to ask some of the concerned teachers if they bothered to read any of the story problems from Math in Focus and if they are able to solve these problems. "Fun activities" such as quilt making from programs like TERC Investigations did not teach students math or "critical" thinking skills and yet was loved by primary teachers who thought they were doing a good job teaching math. These feel good activities did not build students' confidence in math and did not make students love math more.

The whole premise for discovery math was to cast a wider net. The experiment failed widening the gap between those could do math and those who couldn't.

Common Sense said...

This is a very large investment. Textbooks should be piloted before adoption.

Anonymous said...

They all are this year, and have been for years, aside from math in focus, which Highline piloted two (?) years ago and immediately adopted, and is closely based on Singapore, which is in elementary schools all over the city now.


Anonymous said...

I have looked at the Common Core (CC) math curriculum examples and I believe that over the long run it will be a huge disaster. It will widen the gap between those who can do math and those who cannot (as stated above) and it will lead to many many tearful nights for students as they waste precious time trying to understand what the curriculum wants them to do. In the end students will not develop the skills in computation that will assist them in their future endeavors. After looking at the CC math criteria I feel that there is the potential there to end up with a math curriculum that is even worse than what we have now.

In contrast, several of the finalists in the running for adoption by the SPS will be a great improvement over our existing curriculum and are proven effective in teaching math skills. The fact that they align adequately but minimally with CC is an advantage.


Melissa Westbrook said...

There are a couple of issues in play here.

One - the biggest - is how to teach math. I am just not the person to ask on that question so I leave that to educators and others with expertise.

Two - meeting CC standards. That's a bit hazy to me because the blowback from around the country is huge. Many districts are saying no and Arne Duncan and Co. are feeling the heat.

So are we buying books based on sound math OR CC compatibility or both? What if CC does NOT become the standard for many states?

Anonymous said...

Good points.

I would urge the district to prioritize sound math over CC compatibility and to move forward with alacrity.


Anonymous said...

I agree with Scientist that the focus should be on choosing a solid program - one that would be chosen even if CCSS were not the standard du jour. Whatever is chosen will be with us for another 7+ years, whatever happens to CCSS in that time. If strict alignment to CC takes precedence over solid coverage of arithmetic, then we will be no better off.

The Pathfinder letter seems focused on the "Standards of Practice," as described in CCSS, but those standards develop with solid content coverage. Additionally, CCSS makes it clear that the standards don't dictate pedagogy.

From the introduction to the math CCSS:

These Standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods. For example, just because topic A appears before topic B in the standards for a given grade, it does not necessarily mean that topic A must be taught before topic B. A teacher might prefer to teach topic B before topic A, or might choose to highlight connections by teaching topic A and topic B at the same time. Or, a teacher might prefer to teach a topic of his or her own choosing that leads, as a byproduct, to students reaching the standards for topics A and B.

If a student can't add, subtract, multiply, and divide, how do they begin to master fractions? If a student hasn't mastered the basics of fractions, how can they explain proportions or understand rates or manipulate equations?

I am working with middle school students that still haven't mastered long division or multiplying multi-digit numbers with the standard algorithms. They were simply never taught beyond the EDM lattice mathod.


Anonymous said...

The bribes from the publishers are still being tabulated


Anonymous said...

I'm on the Math Adoption Committee, so I've read through the Common Core Stds. for elementary math. Overall, I think this is a positive move for the district and the country at large.
But there's one thing missing. The Common Core standards list in numbing detail all the skills, proficiencies, and mathematical understanding that students are expected to have by a certain grade level. What's missing are some basics standards for math TEACHERS. There should be a simple, biannual test for elementary math teachers requiring them to demonstrate proficiency in all the areas they teach. I believe this would weed out quite a number of ineffective teachers.

concerned citizen

Karen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Jane and Karen, I am going to respond to you on the open thread so as not to take this thread further off topic.

Gen Ed Mom

Anonymous said...

Should we care what Pathfinder's staff recommends? Maybe their MSP score data will help us decide.

data source:

2012-13 MSP/HSPE Results

G Readg Math
3 84.9% 86.8%
4 78.8% 66.7%
5 75.9% 70.4%
6 84.5% 67.2%
7 72.3% 57.4%
8 87.5% 40.0%

Does this data give us reason to listen to a SUBSET (see footnote) of Pathfinder staff

Footnote: 12 signed. all but two singers are working in primary school so these teachers don't have to deal with poorly educated older students. No middle school teachers signed. Principal did not sign.)

Math tutor (with good business due to SPS' crummy math)

Anonymous said...

The discrepancy between reading and math passing rates of same cohort is concerning.

The 8th grade passing rate for reading is 87.5%, yet only 40% of those same kids are passing in math. The precipitous drop from 3rd grade to 8th grade scores are also troubling.

-We Need New Math Program

Lisa said...

I am one of the Pathfinder teachers who wrote and signed the letter to the math adoption committee and school board.

I teach 3rd grade math, and last year 100% of my students met or exceeded standard on the MSP. So if having good test scores means your opinion is more valued, as Anonymous seems to think, then I guess mine must mean something. My students' high test scores had little to do with the less-than-stellar curriculum last adopted by the school district. Instead, it was due to hours spent every week modifying, adding to, and deleting from the Everyday Math curriculum, along with a great deal of professional development with very smart people from the UW.

Whether you agree that Common Core standards are good or bad is beside the point. They are what our state has adopted, and as educators it is now our job to do our very best to get our students to meet them. Good teaching and good curricula are needed for that. We need a math curriculum that is aligned with those standards. Of the Math Adoption Committee's finalists, Singapore is the least aligned, both in the content and practice standards.

In response to the comment that the Pathfinder middle school teachers did not sign the letter, this is because they weren't asked to do so as those teachers hadn't looked at any of the curricula.


ben said...

@Lisa - Singapore Math is not directly being evaluated so I assume you're referring to Math in Focus. Can you please supply some examples of how it is not aligned in either content or practice? I'd like to know what is driving this conclusion.


Anonymous said...

For those not familiar with the CCSS, there are the grade level standards (or content standards), and the "Standards of Mathematical Practice" (or practice standards). The practice standards are more about habits of mind and how students engage with math in general, while the content standards are about specific skills for each grade.

It seems the "standards of mathematical practice" are what a knowledgeable, experienced teacher would bring to the classroom. Does the adoption committee expect the standards of mathematical practice to be explicitly contained in the texts?

Here's an example of a teacher's "I Can" statements that cover the standards of practice on an elementary level:

Mathematical Practice Standards

You can print out a copy for your classroom. Now you're good to go. You're welcome.

-Seattle parent

Anonymous said...

I am a Pathfinder parent and I have nothing but respect for the teachers who wrote that letter. I have witnessed huge growth in my child's understanding of math this year. She is not a kid to whom math comes easily. She has math anxiety. Her classroom is crowded. Despite that, she has made huge, HUGE strides in math this year. The teachers at our school are working incredibly hard to bring up the level of math for all our kids. Our PTA can't afford to buy a separate curriculum like other wealthier schools have done. When I see other schools with higher test scores in West Seattle, I see a completely different set of demographics correlating with that and do not put much stock in those numbers. It always boggles my mind that this is ignored when people go on and on about how great a particular math curriculum is over another. I also am highly, HIGHLY suspicious of the education publishing industry. It is an INDUSTRY trying to profit off of our kids. I think based on our experience with Everyday Math, a little dose of skepticism is due here. I am glad our teachers are speaking up. After all, they are the ones who will be evaluated based on this set of standards for better or worse. Personally, I think my child is learning math in a much deeper and fundamental way than I ever did growing up. Memorization is important, but so is being able to think through a problem and solve it. I see both things happening for my kid in spades this year.

Pathfinder mama

Anonymous said...

There was almost no show your thinking or describe the meaning of the concept. It was deeply concerning as it did not seem to promote deep understanding and will surely not set them up well for the SBAC.


The issue I see is that the desired alignment to the CCSS seems to extend beyond content standards. Alignment to the grade by grade content standards, along with general math soundness, should be the primary means for choosing curricula. If sound texts are rejected because of this desire to see the "practice standards" explicitly embedded in the texts, then good curricula may be rejected.

I am having deja vu all over again. The Discovering texts were approved despite them being considered mathematically unsound. Are we going to squander another opportunity to truly improve math education in Seattle schools?


Anonymous said...

I couldn't have said it better fixthemath!

The best math teachers I have seen in the SPS are those that teach math DESPITE what the administration and even the state demand. Often this means supplementing the poor Discovering texts, or alternatively, obtaining a waiver to use a better curriculum. Those teachers do not wring their hands unduly over "alignment".

The worst math teachers I have encountered are those that follow the prescribed curriculum to the letter. This has just been my and my children's personal experience.

The curricula that the Math Adoption Committee support seem like they will enable teachers to have the flexibility to serve their students within the SPS curricula and not have to supplement as so many of the top performing schools do now.


Anonymous said...

According to this presentation by a consulting author of Math in Focus (Singapore based), Singapore Math was "the curriculum that was the most influential for the writing of the Common Core" and was "the model for the writers of the Common Core."

Math in Focus presentation

Look at the results for Denver Public Schools (after just one year with Math in Focus), about min. 10.

It is a mastery program. It is deep, not wide. It uses a concrete to visual to abstract pedagogy. It's very visual and problem based. It presumes that mathematical understanding is needed to solve problems, and basic math skills go hand in hand with problem solving.

Sample problems are introduced around min. 21. They provide good examples of both the mathematical thinking and basic skills embedded in the problem sets.


Anonymous said...

According to the Pathfinder teacher: Of the Math Adoption Committee's finalists, Singapore is the least aligned, both in the content and practice standards.

How can this be? If the writers of Common Core used Singapore Math (on which Math in Focus is based) as the basis for the standards, it should the curriculum most likely to fit the bill.

Look at the discussion around long division (around min. 33) and place value - it's great. Watch the entire presentation and tell me if you can still make the above statement.


Linh-Co said...

What Pathfinder is prescribing cannot be replicated in all schools. It's nice they have smart UW people that are helping the teachers modify EDM but will this service be provided to all Seattle elementary schools. And what is the cost of this service? We understand that curriculum is not a stand alone. Given the weak math proficiency in elementary math teachers, I'm hoping we choose a textbook that has a good scope and sequence, thorough explanations, worked examples, comprehensive sufficient practice problems, and is student and parent friendly. I am not interested in a convoluted, wordy, numberless textbook that teaches "higher order" thinking which requires extensive teacher training from the UW College of Ed.

Anonymous said...

The Math in Focus curriculum by Singapore is very poorly aligned with the Common Core Standards in Mathematics. Below are examples from only the 1st and 3rd grade units. The curriculum is similarly misaligned in the other grades. Hope this answers some of the questions about how Math in Focus is not aligned.

In 1st grade here are some of the areas of misalignment:
• Chapter 13: Five days addition and subtraction with regrouping using standard algorithm within 40. Addition and subtraction using standard algorithm is a 4th grade standard
• Chapter 17: Five days addition and subtraction to 100 using regrouping and standard algorithm. First grade standard is addition and subtraction using visual models, drawings and the relationship between addition and subtractions: 1.NBT.4
• Chapter 18: Multiplication and division – 5 days, some in story form but focus on “How many groups of ___ can you make?” And, “How many groups can ____ make?” Multiplication is not introduced until 2nd grade and division is not introduced until 3rd grade
• Chapter 19: Money, including adding and subtracting with money Not a first grade standard

Missing content:
• 1.0A.7 Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8 – 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.
• Geometry is only addressed for a total of 9 days lacking attention 1.G.1 and 1.G.3
In 3rd Grade here are some of the areas of misalignment:
• Chapter 3: Addition up to 10,000 using the standard algorithm Both of these are 4th grade standards (4.NBT.4). 3rd grade standard is to add and subtract within 1,000 without the standard algorithm (3.NBT.2)
• Chapter 4: Subtraction up to 10,000 using the standard algorithm Both of these are 4th grade standards (4.NBT.4). 3rd grade standard is to add and subtract within 1,000 without the standard algorithm (3.NBT.2)
• Lesson 7.2: Multiplying 2- and 3-digit numbers This is a 4th grade standard (4.NBT.5)
• Lesson 7.3: Multiplying with regrouping This is maybe a 4th grade standard (4.NBT.5) but even that is not clear
• Chapter 11: Converting kilometers to meters and meters to kilometers, centimeters to meters and meters to centimeters, and so on This is a 5th grade standard (5.MD.1)
• Lesson 14.3: Multiplying and dividing fractions to find equivalent fractions This is a 4th grade standard (4.NF.1)
• Lesson 14.5: Adding and subtracting fractions This is a 4th grade standard (4.NF.3)
• Lesson 14.6: Fractions of sets This a 4th grade standard (see Progression Documents 3-5 Numbers and Operations/Fractions – pg. 2)
• Chapter 17: Angles This is a 4th grade standard (4.MD.5.a)
Missing Content:
• Multiplying and dividing x1, x2, x3, x 4, x5, x 10


Linh-Co said...

Time and Money is a 2nd grade CCSS standard. I see nothing wrong with introducing it one year ahead. The idea of multiplication and division is introduced in 1B as pictures with concrete examples such as a drawing of 16 pencils and asking students to circle groups of 2. There is nothing developmentally inappropriate about this. There are not expecting students to do multi-digit multiplication.

I used to teach first grade math as a math specialist and used this very lesson. None of the students had trouble understanding this idea. The standards are baseline they are not supposed to be used as ceilings.

Anonymous said...

By adding content you have less time to focus on the larger content areas that need attention. It might not seem like a few days on money, patterns, multiplication & division is a big deal until you look at how much time in total is being taken away from the other areas. That was one of the faults with EDM, it taught a lot of watered down content at all grade levels.

-don't cram it all in

Anonymous said... the concern about alignment is that Math in Focus teaches some concepts earlier than the CCSS? Or that it teaches too much? So you are suggesting we should reject it outright? Because the standards are too high?

I don't know to what the "missing content" list refers. Are the chapter and lesson references from Math in Focus? And from what grade? It really is not clear what point you are trying to make.


Anonymous said...

I note that if one 3rd grade class got 100%, then we must conclude that the other 3rd grade class (assuming 2 classrooms at Grade 3) got about 72% passing or exceeding standard. Why the big discrepancy?

I suppose the Pathfinder staff is referring to a particular curriculum that is either brand new or to a curriculum so inadequate (vs CCSS) that they weren't able to bring it into alignment as quickly as the curricula submitted to SPS.

I notice the TERC is in this category. It won't have its aligned edition ready until 2015.

Perhaps Pathfinder teachers are TERC lovers, and are wanting to delay adoption so the forthcoming CCSS aligned TERC can be considered?

Just wondering

Math Tutor said...

We Hold our Tutors to a Higher Standard, and Pay our Tutors More Fairly, than nearly any other Tutoring Company.Thus, we have Better (and more Experienced) Tutors.We accept only the top tutor applicants, and will never compromise our selectivity in order to artificially inflate our ranks. In addition, every member of the Team is required to have recently scored in the 95th percentile or above on any standardized test that he/she teaches.Math Tutor Austin, Math Tutor Atlanta, Math Tutor Houston, Math Tutor Seattle.
Science Tutor Las Vegas | Math Tutor Hawaii | Math Tutor Las Vegas | Tutor for kids Las Vegas | Math Tutor Charlotte | Math Tutor Phoenix | Math Tutor Los Angeles | Math Tutor Boston | Math Tutor New York | Math Tutor Denver | Math Tutor Chicago |