School Board Update 4.12.10
Creating a Balanced Elementary Math Program
Goal Statement
To provide a balanced elementary mathematics program that includes rigor in number systems and operations, particularly in fact fluency and the early introduction of US algorithms in the four major operations, combined with a conceptual understanding of the mathematical concepts at each grade level K-5 delivered consistently across all elementary buildings.
5 Strands of Mathematical Proficiency
Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics The National Research Council
Action Plan Focus Areas
1) Fact Fluency
2) Algorithms
3) Assessment
4) Differentiation to Meet Student Needs
5) Math Instruction Time
6) Professional Development
7) Parent Component
Lesson Plan √
Fact Fluency √
Assessment √
Algorithm √
Sample Check List
optional
optional
Fast Facts re. Fact Fluency
Timeline: Nov ‘09: Add. & Multipli. banks opened Dec ’09: Sub. & Div. banks opened Future: Extended banks In all operations
Expectations: Answer each fact correctly 4 x’s in 4 sec. Practice at least once a week Teacher-based expectations Students may choose from all banks
Factors Influencing Data: Computer availability Frequency of use Computer skills Familiarity of tool
Teacher Reports
The red band indicates which facts have been answered
incorrectly.
Asked: #of facts attempted Correct: # of facts answered
correctly within 4 sec.
Teacher Reports
District Key: Total Possible=20 A = 19, 20 B = 13-15 P = 16-18 BB = 12 or less
District Key: Total Possible=25 A = 24, 25 B = 15-19 P = 20-23 BB = 14 or less
Measuring Student Success
Pre- & Mid-Year Assessment Comparison Data Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5
Each dot plot shows the number of points correct out of 25.
Each dot represents up to 2 students.
The top dot plot in each grade level shows pre-assessment results.
The bottom dot plot in each grade level shows mid-assessment results.
Measuring Student Success
Pre- & Mid-Year Assessment Results
Measuring Student Success AIMSweb Probe - January 2010
Second Probe – May 2010
Concepts & Applications Computation
Fuchs & Fuchs
Assesses Problem Solving Skills
Results show~ • Grades 3, 4, & 5: Area of strength
district-wide
Assesses Computation Skills
Results show~ • Grade 3 & 5: Area of strength across buildngs
• Grade 4: Area of need
Instructional Time for Mathematics
60 minutes daily
& add’l time
• Grades 3-4 (minimum 20 min. 3 x’s week)
• Title I Math Intervention
• Grade 5 (minimum 20 min. 3 x’s week)
• Add’l instruction provided by IST’s
Professional Development
Reaching Out to Parents
Parents ~ Students ~ Teachers
Parents
Elementary Fact Practice
Parent Handbook
Parents
Parents
Parents
Parents
Parents
Parents
Parents
LINK
Parents
Parents
Past ~ Present ~ Future
☛ Continue With Action Plan
☛ Collect Additional Data
☛ Hold on Expansion of 2nd Edition Investigations
☛ Conduct Program Review
Past ~ Present ~ Future
Date 2010-2011 Math Program Review
Apr ‘10 Announce Plan to Review Math Program
May ‘10 Establish Review Committee Membership and Expectations Establish Communication Loops With Parents & Faculty Update School Board on Review Plan
Jun ‘10 Convene Math Review Committee Distribute Research on Various Approaches to Math Instruction Complete Benchmarking Process with Cohort Districts
Jul/Aug ‘10 Read and Discuss Research
Sept ‘10 Determine Programs to Review Develop Evaluation Rubric
Oct ‘10 Determine Sub-Groups & Review Selected Programs
Nov ‘10 Review Results & Determine Top Three Programs Invite Publishers to Present
Dec ‘10 Publishers Present & Materials are Re-evaluated
Jan/Feb ‘11 Discuss Results & Prepare Recommendation to School Board
Past ~ Present ~ Future
RtII Math: The 3-Tier Approach
Responders Group Questions & Comments
1. Where was the update on children’s mathematical understanding? 2. Why was the math review process not done this school year? 3. Where is the validity and reliability in the locally created assessments? 4. Why isn’t the AIMSweb results compared to local criteria? 5. Is the emphasis on facts and algorithms at the expense of childrens’
mathematical understanding? 6. Are we really looking carefully at all five strands of mathematical proficiency? 7. Will there be a pilot of alternative math materials next year? 8. Is it too early to do a review of materials because of the limited time we have
used Investigations II? 9. Are our assessments measuring what we want students to learn? 10. Where is the data to show what has happened with the implementation of the
Action Plan?
Responders Group Questions & Comments
1. The Action Plan has had positive results in the classroom resulting in students becoming more proficient in fact fluency.
2. My daughter loves the fact fluency application and has been very proud of her growth and accomplishments.
3. You need to be careful of the emphasis that is placed on state assessments, as they do not assess many important aspects of learning.
4. There are differences of opinion about what is the best instructional appoach for teaching mathematics.
5. Investigations does not support explicit instruction. 6. The added emphasis on fact fluency and algorithms does not seem to be
hindering the development of conceptual understandings. 7. There has been a large amount of work and investment made on behalf of the
children this year. 8. Teachers have participated in a significant amount of professional development
this year. 9. Direct instruction is not a cure-all. It does not work with all students. 10. We need a common goal to work towards in the future. 11. IES Program Guide for students struggling with mathematics (RtI model) calls for
explicit instruction in the core curriculum. 12. There is currently insufficient research to support specific strategies for math
instruction at Tier II and Tier III of the RtII Model.
Questions/Comments
Thank You!