Mathematics StudyMathematics StudyOregon School DistrictOregon School District

2005-20062005-2006

History of Math Instruction In History of Math Instruction In OregonOregon

Subject Area Committee developed the Subject Area Committee developed the curriculum based on the Outcome Based curriculum based on the Outcome Based Decision Making Model in 1992Decision Making Model in 1992

The Curriculum was aligned with the The Curriculum was aligned with the National Standards and the District Exit National Standards and the District Exit Outcomes in 1995Outcomes in 1995

It has been periodically revised at some It has been periodically revised at some grade levels ever sincegrade levels ever since

District UnderstandingsDistrict Understandings We are an outcome based districtWe are an outcome based district We strive to maintain an aligned We strive to maintain an aligned

curriculum K-12curriculum K-12 We provide consistent assessments and We provide consistent assessments and

make the curriculum public.make the curriculum public.

In addition, we have also believed that, In addition, we have also believed that, with outcomes clearly identified, teachers with outcomes clearly identified, teachers could choose the “How” of instruction.could choose the “How” of instruction.

This has meant that each building, each grade This has meant that each building, each grade level, each teacher has worked to develop level, each teacher has worked to develop his/her own materials taking some from his/her own materials taking some from published works, workshops attended, and published works, workshops attended, and perhaps websites to provide lessons for perhaps websites to provide lessons for students aligned with the outcomes. Some grade students aligned with the outcomes. Some grade levels have textbooks while most do not.levels have textbooks while most do not.

This work started in 1992. Each time a new This work started in 1992. Each time a new teacher enters the district, the process is teacher enters the district, the process is reviewed and perhaps starts again.reviewed and perhaps starts again.

Most Recent WorkMost Recent Work

For the past two years, the Math SAC group For the past two years, the Math SAC group has met with representatives from all has met with representatives from all buildings K-12. buildings K-12.

The purpose was to look more closely at The purpose was to look more closely at how we are teaching math instead of the how we are teaching math instead of the continuous “tweaking” of the outcomes.continuous “tweaking” of the outcomes.

Last year, a college professor (Dr. John Last year, a college professor (Dr. John Koker) presented current thought on the Koker) presented current thought on the teaching of Math.teaching of Math.

Thoughts that EmergedThoughts that EmergedFrom Dr. Koker From Dr. Koker

Students should be real problem solvers.Students should be real problem solvers. Getting the right answer isn’t as important as Getting the right answer isn’t as important as

knowing how to work the problem.knowing how to work the problem. Students should be taught the skills but not at Students should be taught the skills but not at

the expense of time to tackle real problems.the expense of time to tackle real problems. Traditional math is not focused much on Traditional math is not focused much on

developing problem solving skills.developing problem solving skills. Therefore, students have not had a chance to Therefore, students have not had a chance to

exercise their natural problem solving ability.exercise their natural problem solving ability.

So What Does The So What Does The Research Say?Research Say?

ResearchResearch

Third International Mathematics and Third International Mathematics and Science Study Science Study

(TIMSS)(TIMSS)

Video Video Study sampled 8Study sampled 8thth grade classrooms in Germany, Japan, and United States with findings grade classrooms in Germany, Japan, and United States with findings reported in February 1999reported in February 1999

FindingsFindings

The differences between the lessons taught in each country fell into four broad categories:

How lessons were structured and deliveredWhat kind of Mathematics is presented in the

lessonWhat kind of mathematical thinking students are

engaged in during the lessonHow Teachers view reform

To Begin With, There is a Difference To Begin With, There is a Difference in Lesson Goal.in Lesson Goal.

Solving problems is the end goal for the U.S. Solving problems is the end goal for the U.S. and German teachers. and German teachers.

In Japan, understanding mathematics is the In Japan, understanding mathematics is the overarching goaloverarching goal

There are Differences in the Scripts There are Differences in the Scripts Teachers Use to Generate the LessonsTeachers Use to Generate the Lessons

US and German teachers demonstrate and/or US and German teachers demonstrate and/or explain how to solve an example problem. explain how to solve an example problem.

The goal in both countries is to teach students a The goal in both countries is to teach students a method for solving the example problems. method for solving the example problems.

Then students practice solving examples on their Then students practice solving examples on their own while the teacher helps individual students own while the teacher helps individual students who are experiencing difficulty.who are experiencing difficulty.

Japanese lessons appear to be reversed.Japanese lessons appear to be reversed.

Problem solving comes first, followed by a Problem solving comes first, followed by a time in which students reflect on the time in which students reflect on the problem, share the solution methods they problem, share the solution methods they have generated, and jointly work to develop have generated, and jointly work to develop understandings of the concepts.understandings of the concepts.

U.S. college Mathematics Professors U.S. college Mathematics Professors evaluated the quality of mathematical evaluated the quality of mathematical content. content.

They rated the lessons on a scale of Low, They rated the lessons on a scale of Low, Medium, and High.Medium, and High.

39% of Japanese and 28% of German lessons received the Highest Rating

None of the U.S. lessons received the Highest Rating89% of the U.S. lessons received the Lowest Rating

Compared to 11% of the Japanese lessons

96% of student working time in Germany and 96% of student working time in Germany and 90% in the United States is spent in practicing 90% in the United States is spent in practicing routine procedures, compared to 41% in Japanroutine procedures, compared to 41% in Japan

Japanese students spend 44% of their time Japanese students spend 44% of their time inventing new solutions that require conceptual inventing new solutions that require conceptual thinking about mathematics.thinking about mathematics.

Teachers and ReformTeachers and Reform Great effort has been put into the reform of Great effort has been put into the reform of

mathematics teaching in the United States.mathematics teaching in the United States.

Japanese teachers come closer to implementing the Japanese teachers come closer to implementing the spirit of current ideas advanced by U.S. reformers spirit of current ideas advanced by U.S. reformers than do U.S. teachers.than do U.S. teachers.

70% of teachers claim to be implementing reform 70% of teachers claim to be implementing reform ideas in their lessons, however when asked to justify ideas in their lessons, however when asked to justify claims, they referred to surface features such as use claims, they referred to surface features such as use of manipulatives or cooperative groups, rather than of manipulatives or cooperative groups, rather than focusing lessons on high-level mathematical thought.focusing lessons on high-level mathematical thought.

Key PointsKey Points The current U.S. mathematics classes requires less The current U.S. mathematics classes requires less

high-level thought than classes in Germany and high-level thought than classes in Germany and Japan.Japan.

U.S. mathematics teachers’ typical goal is to teach U.S. mathematics teachers’ typical goal is to teach students to do something, while Japanese teachers’ students to do something, while Japanese teachers’ goal is to help them understand mathematical goal is to help them understand mathematical concepts.concepts.

Japanese classes share many features called for by Japanese classes share many features called for by U.S. mathematics reforms, while U.S. classes are less U.S. mathematics reforms, while U.S. classes are less likely to exhibit these features.likely to exhibit these features.

Although most U.S. teachers report familiarity with Although most U.S. teachers report familiarity with reform recommendations, relatively few apply the key reform recommendations, relatively few apply the key points in their classrooms.points in their classrooms.

U.S. Department of EducationU.S. Department of Education

The Solution: Ensure schools use scientifically based methods with long-term records of success to teach math and measure student progress. Establish partnerships with universities to ensure that knowledgeable teachers deliver the best instruction in their field.

The Challenge: America's schools are not producing the math excellence required for global economic leadership and homeland security in the 21st century.

Reform vs. Traditional MathReform vs. Traditional Math

The National Council of Teachers of The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) vision was shared in Mathematics (NCTM) vision was shared in 1989 and again in 2000 for mathematics 1989 and again in 2000 for mathematics reform.reform.

The “vision” has caused apparent debate The “vision” has caused apparent debate and a division between groups – one and a division between groups – one advocating “Traditional” Math and one advocating “Traditional” Math and one advocating “Reform” Mathadvocating “Reform” Math

ComparisonComparison Traditional MathTraditional Math

Basic math strands with fixed Basic math strands with fixed limits upon grade levellimits upon grade level

Math operations taught in Math operations taught in isolated segmentsisolated segments

Product oriented (right answer Product oriented (right answer needed)needed)

Math taught in isolationMath taught in isolation Paper Pencil OrientationPaper Pencil Orientation Teacher dispenses Teacher dispenses

informationinformation Students work independentlyStudents work independently Emphasis on drill and practiceEmphasis on drill and practice Content repetition at each Content repetition at each

grade level with limited “new” grade level with limited “new” learning introducedlearning introduced

Assessment occurs by unit in Assessment occurs by unit in paper pencil formatpaper pencil format

Reform MathReform Math Limits of basic math strands Limits of basic math strands

expanded – more open endedexpanded – more open ended Integration of math operationsIntegration of math operations Process oriented (variety of Process oriented (variety of

methods)methods) Math integratedMath integrated Use of technology and Use of technology and

manipulativesmanipulatives Teacher guidesTeacher guides Students work cooperativelyStudents work cooperatively Emphasis on “doing”, Emphasis on “doing”,

applying, and using skills wit applying, and using skills wit higher order thinking.higher order thinking.

Increased amount of “new” Increased amount of “new” learning at each grade levellearning at each grade level

Mastery demonstrated in a Mastery demonstrated in a variety of ways including variety of ways including performance of tasks.performance of tasks.

““Yes but what does the data show Yes but what does the data show for our district? for our district?

Do we have a need to change?”Do we have a need to change?”

Comparison of Local to State WKCE Results for 4Comparison of Local to State WKCE Results for 4thth Grade Math Over timeGrade Math Over time

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Adv

P r of

Basic

Min

Adv 41% 30% 36% 29% 36% 31%

P r of 43% 41% 49% 44% 45% 40%

Basic 9% 11% 7% 10% 12% 10%

Min 6% 17% 7% 14% 6% 16%

Local State Local State Local State

Fal l '02 Fal l '03 Fal l .'04

Reading Proficiency Rating for 4th Grade

District Wide

25%

51%

60%54%

89% 88% 89% 91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

AdvancedProficient

Total P/A

Notice how we have stayed close to 90% in over P/A

Notice how the % Advanced has risen over the course of years.

Math Proficiency Ratings for 4th Grade

District Wide

42% 41%36% 36%

87%84% 85%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

AdvancedProficient

Total P/A

Notice how total P/A has been below 90% and dropping

Notice how the % Advanced continues to decline.

Oregon Elementary Mathematics Scale Score Distribution

2004-2005

500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760

0 50 100 150 200 250

Above Green = AdvancedAbove Yellow = ProficientAbove Red = BasicBelow Red = Minimal

According to Achieve, Inc.According to Achieve, Inc.Students who take challenging courses and meet high standards in Middle School are much more likely to enter High School ready to succeed.

Algebra is widely recognized as a “gateway” course – students who take it by the end of 8th grade are much more likely to take rigorous courses in high school that lead to a college degree.

Oregon School District WKCE Mathematics

Mean Scale Scores Over Time

600

650

700

750

800

Total ElemBKENKEPVEOMSOHS

Total Elem 641.8 638.4 638.4

BKE 637.1 637.9 641.7

NKE 641.8 639 634.4

PVE 645.9 638 640.6

OMS 713.9 709.1 716.8

OHS 755 755.8 754.2

02-03 03-04 04-05

4th Grade

Advanced is

649 and above

8th Grade

Advanced is

730 and above

10th Grade Advanced is

769 and above

7

34

8

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2002 2004

7th Grade8th Grade

Oregon DataOregon DataNumber of Students Taking Algebra by 8Number of Students Taking Algebra by 8thth Grade Grade

Oregon DataOregon DataNumber of students taking Geometry by 8Number of students taking Geometry by 8thth and and

99thth Grade Grade

0

32

7

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2004

8th Grade9th Grade

Oregon DataOregon DataNumber of Students Taking Algebra II by 9Number of Students Taking Algebra II by 9 thth grade grade

6

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2004

9th Grade

Oregon DataOregon DataNumber of Students Taking Pre-CalculusNumber of Students Taking Pre-Calculus

15

43 44

7

51

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2004

10th Grade11th Grade12th Grade

Oregon DataOregon DataNumber of Students Taking Advanced Placement Number of Students Taking Advanced Placement

Math ClassesMath Classes

224

81

3

28

91

0102030405060708090

100

2002 2004

10th Grade11th Grade12th Grade

Percent of Total Involved In Percent of Total Involved In Advanced MathematicsAdvanced Mathematics

23%

14%6%

25%

52%

21%

16%

3%

27%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2002 2004

8th Grade9th Grade10th Grade11th Grade12th Grade

2005-06 Progress2005-06 ProgressFall – 2005: Fall – 2005: Data was shared with K-5 Data was shared with K-5

teachersteachers

The decision was made to pilot The decision was made to pilot two math programs – two math programs – Everyday Math and Growing Everyday Math and Growing With Math. These two were With Math. These two were chosen based on results of chosen based on results of comparable districts and comparable districts and recommendations.recommendations.

Results of WKCE by Similar Size Districts % Proficient/Adv Series Used

Waunakee 96% Everyday Math

Kimberly 92% Everyday Math

Middleton/CP 87% Everyday Math

Kettle Moraine 90% Everyday Math

Mequon Thiensville 93% Everyday Math

Germantown 96% Growing With Math

Math Series DistrictWKCE A/P

2002 WKCE A/P 2003 WKCE A/P 2004

Trailblazers Ashwaubenon 88% 78% 81% (46% P / 35%A)

Scott Foreman Cedarburg 82% 92% 89% 39% P / 50% A

Growing With Math Germantown 83% 93% 96% 39% P / 57% A

Scott Foreman Howard Suamico 83% 92% 86% 48% P / 38% A

Everyday Math Kettle Moraine 89% 89% 90% 32% P / 58% A

Everyday Math Kimberly 88% 91% 92% 33% P / 59% A

CGI Math (K-2 Investigations 3-5) McFarland 83% 89% 82%

44% P / 38% A

Everyday Math Mequon-Thiensville 89% 93% 93% 29% P / 64% A

Everyday Math Middleton-Cross Plains 85% 88% 87% 34% P / 53% A

Everyday Math Monona Grove 80% 83% 83% 32% P / 51% A

Everyday Math New Berlin 89% 92% 92% 30% P / 62% A

Everyday Math Waunakee 86% 91% 94% 37% P / 57% A

Everyday Math Wauwatosa 83% 88% 83% 32% P / 51% A

Everyday Math Whitefish Bay 91% 91% 87% 33% P / 54% A

         

No Series - Outcomes Oregon 84% 85% 82% 46% P / 36% A

What Did We Learn from the PilotWhat Did We Learn from the Pilot

Reaction from the StudentsReaction from the Students

Kids had FUN with math this year!Kids had FUN with math this year!

When asked what their favorite subject was, When asked what their favorite subject was, they would say “MATH”.they would say “MATH”.

Kids asked to stay in from recess to play Kids asked to stay in from recess to play MATH games!MATH games!

Reaction from the ParentsReaction from the Parents

Teachers who piloted the new materials this year commented that: Parents liked the Letter to the Parents that

came home every day with Everyday Math. Parents shared excitement about the district

moving in this direction for Math. One parent indicated concern about the

possibility of decreased time spent on Math Facts.

Decision Making ProcessDecision Making Process

All K-5 Math teachers heard information about both programs.

Positive information about both programs.

Teachers identified most important considerations

Independently rated both programs.

The K-5 principals worked together to tabulate the results and make a recommendation.

The K-5 DecisionThe K-5 Decision The decision was made to follow

the Everyday Math approach in all classrooms grades 3-5 and also in grades K-2 in Netherwood Knoll and Brooklyn.

Prairie View is being given the opportunity to use Growing With Math in Grades K-2 with an agreement that they work to make the transition from 2nd to 3rd grade seamless.

IssuesIssues Training will be necessary for teaching staff.

This will begin in April or May.This will begin in April or May. Curriculum time will be set aside as a high priority Curriculum time will be set aside as a high priority

need.need. Parents will need an opportunity to learn

about the program. A representative from the company will be A representative from the company will be

brought in to run events for parents. brought in to run events for parents. Schedule Change

Rome Corners is working to increase math Rome Corners is working to increase math minutes.minutes.

Outcome Revisions Time will be necessary to revise outcomes.

This work will be done over the course of next year.

During this time we will need to set aside our current outcomes as they are not in alignment with the new math program.

Parents will receive information about student progress using assessments from the math series until we readjust the outcomes.

Materials Purchase The textbook allocation for 06-07

will be used to purchase non-consumable materials for K-5.

In addition, the program requires a consumable workbook at a cost of approximately $16 per student. This will be a reoccurring yearly cost. We would like to request board

consideration of adding this amount to the K-5 budget tiers.

Next StepsNext Steps Grade 6-8

This spring, 6-8th grades will be involved in discussion and review of math programs that are available and that will align with Everyday Math.

A decision may be made to pilot materials next year.

The process will take The process will take time and results will not time and results will not be immediate be immediate we will be focused on

consistency and high expectations for our students

with a goal of increasing the number of students reaching Advanced status on state testing and

increasing the number of students taking higher level math classes before they leave the Oregon School District.