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!