bridgewater-raritan regional school district

Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District

Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School DistrictK-6 Math Program Evaluation

February 2009


Co-Chairs of the Committee

• 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


Description of the Process

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.


The Process Continued

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


Understanding the Task

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


The Task

• 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


Schedule of Meetings

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


Background Information 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


Perceptions of the Program

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 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 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


In your professional opinion, what are the advantages of the EDM curriculum materials?

• 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 limitations of the EDM curriculum materials?

• 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


Perceptions of the Program

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


Understanding the Debate

Traditional Pedagogy Teacher Centered Explicit Instruction Content Oriented

Reform Pedagogy Student Centered Discovery Learning Process Oriented

Strategic use of both is

the key to success!


The ‘traditional’

view of ‘reform’

curricula:


The ‘reform’ view of

‘traditional’ curricula:


Professor Wilson from Johns Hopkins:

• “The reality is, if, like in high performing countries, we could cut down the content to 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 Milgram from Stanford:• “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.”


Review of the Research

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 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)


The National Math Panel ReportRecommendation # 1

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.



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.



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.



Students should develop immediate recall of arithmetic facts to free the “working memory” for solving more complex problems.



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.



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 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.



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.



Mathematically gifted students should be allowed to accelerate their learning.


Programs Reviewed

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

Saxon Math (Saxon) Singapore Math (Singapore) Think Math (Harcourt School Publishers) Glencoe (5th and 6th grade)


The Rubric: 6 Levels18 Indicators Total

Level Six~ Most Important: Content is comprehensive and

accurate at each grade level


Level Five 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 Four

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 Three 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 Two

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 One

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


Ranking of Programs

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.


Top Programs

The following publishers were invited to meet with the committee:

enVision Everyday Math HSP Math Math Connects Math Expressions


Second Round of Review

Following the presentations, the committee agreed to eliminate the following programs from consideration: enVision Everyday Math Math Expressions


Second Round of Review

The full committee used the rubric to evaluate the two top programs by grade level Harcourt School Publishers (HSP) Math Math Connects


The Results

Grade HSP Math Math Connects

K 99.6 88.5

1 96.2 78.8

2 100.0 82.0

3 95.5 94.7

4 91.3 96.1

5 97.9 88.8

6 95.5 82.3

Total 676.4 611.2


It’s Unanimous! 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


Between Now and September: 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


Additional Data


Student Achievement Data 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


School 2006 3M 2007 3M 2008 3M 2006 4M 2007 4M 2008 4M Math Program

BRRSD 6.7 5.8 6.2 8.0 5.4 5.3 Everyday Math

DFG 5.7 4.8 5.0 7.7 6.1 6.1

Bernards 1.2 2.2 2.4 3.5 2.1 2.8 Everyday Math

Hillsborough 6.2 3.7 4.3 9.5 3.9 4.7 Everyday Math

Montgomery 6.9 5.7 8.8 5.0 3.4 4.0 Everyday Math

Warren 3.9 2.4 4.9 5.3 5.8 5.9 Harcourt Math

Watchung 0 1.3 3.4 1.2 0 2.7 Houghton-Mifflin

Princeton 5.1 7.4 4.2 7.0 5.8 4.8 Everyday Math

West-Windsor 3.2 3.5 5.5 6.8 4.7 6.0 TERC Investigations

Flemington-Raritan

6.1 3.6 1.3 7.3 4.4 3.8 Everyday Math

South Brunswick

6.0 6.9 7.4 11.0 8.4 7.7 Math Investigations

Holmdel 4.4 7.2 5.2 7.6 8.1 7.2 Houghton-Mifflin

Long Hill 6.0 4.8 8.0 4.2 4.5 9.8

Chatham 1.7 1.4 1.5 3.7 4.1 5.3 Harcourt Math

Percent of Students ‘partially proficient’ by Grade Level


Special Education Results2005-2006 2006-2007

BRRSD DFG Bernards Chatham Warren BRRSD DFG Bernards Chatham Warren

3rd Grade 28.6 16.8 1.3 7.1 22.2 16.4 15.7 10.7 8.1 17.2

4th Grade 31.9 26.4 13.2 21.1 28.9 22.8 20.9 8.3 21.1 18.4

5th Grade 20.7 32.4 10.5 23.7 24.2 26.7 25.7 17.1 17.1 29.5

6th Grade 46.2 50.3 25.9 51.0 23.7 14.0 39.3 16.1 17.9 19.4

7th Grade 51.4 58.1 28.2 52.0 59.3 46.8 55.6 40.0 54.9 47.5

8th Grade 65.8 57.4 55.3 42.1 36.5 57.7 52.0 27.8 38.6 36.0


Secondary Data

SAT Comparison Data Rank SAT Math

BRRHS 8 568

Ridge 7 594

Hillsborough 10-11 550

Holmdel 3 607

Hunterdon Central 9 553

Montgomery 5-6 596

Princeton Regional 1 619

South Brunswick 10-11 550

West Windsor Plainsboro South 2 618

West Windsor Plainsboro North 4 599

Watchung Hills 5-6 596


PSAT Results

PSAT Math Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

75-80

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

Score Range

Freq

uenc

y 2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

bridgewater-raritan regional school district

Documents