CAP report-02.25.12 (revised) copy - TEAM-Math

TEAM-‐Math/East Alabama Regional Inservice Center Curriculum Analysis Project1

Final Report

Revised February 25, 2012

IMPORTANT NOTE: The “Singapore Math” program reviewed in this report is not Math in Focus, Singapore Math distributed by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which is on the 2011-‐2012 textbook adoption list for Alabama. The review provided should not interfere in any way with your consideration of Math in Focus, which was not reviewed by the committee. We regret any confusion that may have occurred.

1 This project was supported by a generous gift from BBVA Compass Bank, with additional funding for participant support provided by the East Alabama Regional Inservice Center.

Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Reviews for Grades K-‐5 ...................................................................................................................... 6 Investigations Series .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Go Math! Series .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Scott Foresman – Addison Wesley Series (“enVisionMath”) ......................................................... 11 Think Math! Series ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Everyday Mathematics Series ..................................................................................................................... 13 Saxon Math Series ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Math Out of the Box Series ............................................................................................................................ 15 Singapore Math Series .................................................................................................................................... 16 McGraw Hill Series (“My Math”) ................................................................................................................. 17

Reviews for Grades 6-‐8 .................................................................................................................... 18 Glencoe Series—“Your Common Core” edition ................................................................................... 19 “Big Ideas Learning” Series ........................................................................................................................... 20 “Connected Mathematics” Series ............................................................................................................... 21 Prentice Hall Series .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Glencoe Series (“Math Connects”) ............................................................................................................. 24 Holt McDougal Series ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Reviews for Grades 9-‐12 ................................................................................................................. 26 “Discovering Mathematics” Series ............................................................................................................. 28 CORD Mathematics Series ............................................................................................................................. 30 Glencoe Series .................................................................................................................................................... 31 Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) ................................................................................................ 33 Holt-‐McDougal Series ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Saxon Mathematics Series ............................................................................................................................. 36 Pearson Mathematics Series ........................................................................................................................ 37 Singapore Mathematics Series ................................................................................................................... 38 Holt McDougal Series ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Participants in the Review .................................................................................... 40

Appendix B: Sample Tools .............................................................................................................. 41 Appendix C: Summary Forms ........................................................................................................ 50

Introduction

In this report are the findings of a team of teachers and other education professionals who undertook an intensive review of curriculum materials from November 2011 to January 2012. This section includes background information about the project. The following section outlines the methodology used in the review, followed by sections outlining the findings of the committee by gradeband. The Challenge In 2010, a coalition of national organizations released the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-‐M), a document outlining standards for K-‐12 mathematics that would ensure that students graduating from high school are ready for future success, whether entering the workforce or going on to pursue additional education (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). Since that time, 46 states have adopted those standards as their state mathematics framework; Alabama adopted the standards in November 2010, naming its version the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. These standards represent a significant shift from Alabama’s previous state standards in at least three ways:

(a) Many topics have been moved earlier in the curriculum, in some cases as far down as two grade levels, as is the case with division of fractions.

(b) Many topics have a different content focus than before. For example, geometry for middle and high school has a prominent focus on transformations.

(c) A set of “Standards of Mathematical Practice” have been included across the grades that include a focus on mathematical reasoning and higher-‐order thinking far beyond that included in previous state standards.

These changes represent a significant challenge for teachers as they need to reconsider what is taught at each grade level, as well as how they need to teach material in order to help students reach the required level of mathematical competence. Moreover, they will need to reconsider what instructional materials will be most useful in supporting their efforts. Meeting these challenges is particularly difficult in east Alabama, which is comprised of multiple small school districts that may lack the number of teachers to mount an adequate response. The TEAM-‐Math Partnership Fortunately, east Alabama has an established partnership ready to help the teachers of the region work together more effectively across districts to respond to the CCSS-‐M. TEAM-‐Math is a partnership of Auburn University’s College of Education and College of Sciences and Mathematics, Tuskegee University, and school districts in east Alabama with the common mission of “Transforming East Alabama Mathematics” (abbreviated as TEAM-‐Math) through a systemic change model, which includes professional development, teacher leader development, curriculum alignment, improvement of teacher preparation, and stakeholder outreach.

TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 2

Since the formation of TEAM-‐Math in 2002, it has provided intensive professional development for over 1,500 teachers and administrators in east Alabama through funding from the National Science Foundation and the Malone Family Foundation. This work has resulted in significantly improved teacher and student attitudes towards mathematics, as well as improvements in student performance in mathematics. More recently, TEAM-‐Math has received funding from the National Science Foundation to support a Teacher Leader Academy in which 35 K-‐12 teacher leaders from across the region receive an annual stipend to continue teaching full-‐time in high-‐needs school districts. Along with professional development designed to stimulate their growth as teacher leaders, they receive tuition to pursue advanced graduate degrees at Auburn University. In addition to the Teacher Leader Academy, TEAM-‐Math continues to partner with school districts and other organizations such as the East Alabama Council of Teachers of Mathematics to provide professional development to a larger group of teacher leaders. In the spring, over 150 teachers attended a leadership event providing them with an overview of the Common Core State Standards. The proposed project will build on this event, providing additional opportunities for teachers throughout the east Alabama region to collaborate in formulating a response to the Common Core State Standards. The Opportunity As a part of the TEAM-‐Math effort, a curriculum materials review process was conducted in Fall 2003, the last time the state of Alabama had a state adoption of textbooks for mathematics. Based on that process which involved teachers from 12 school districts, the project recommended textbooks to be used for each gradeband, along with a supplemental text that would provide additional support for fully meeting the national standards for mathematics. As the new state adoption process began, TEAM-‐Math began to explore possibilities for funding a new round of review. In response to an invitation from BBVA Compass Bank, Dr. Marilyn Strutchens and Dr. W. Gary Martin prepared a proposal outlining the Curriculum Analysis Project, which was eventually funded. Furthermore, representatives from the East Alabama Regional Inservice Center (EARIC) approached Drs. Strutchens and Martin regarding the possibility of conducting a textbook review, partially in response to administrators who found the effort in 2003 useful. EARIC provided additional funding to help make this project possible. The kick-‐off meeting was held on November 29, 2012, with four additional meetings held in December and January. 50 teachers representing 13 of the 15 school districts in the East Alabama Inservice Region attended at least four of the meetings; see Appendix A.


Methodology

The TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project used tools developed by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Project.2 This project, supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Brookhill Foundation, and Texas Instruments, brought together a national team of 14 educators with expertise in mathematics, mathematics education, and school administration. Their effort resulted in a set of tools to be used in analyzing mathematics curriculum materials, along accompanying professional development to be used in implementing the tools. The first meeting of the project focused on an overview of the Common Core State Standards on which the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards are based and an introduction to the use of the tools. In subsequent meetings, participants met in gradeband groups-‐-‐K-‐2, 3-‐5, 6-‐8, and 9-‐12—as given in the Common Core State Standards. They worked through a set of three tools, which are described below. Samples of these tools are provided in Appendix B. Tool 1 Tool 1 “provides information about the degree to which specific trajectories of mathematics topics are incorporated appropriately across grade-‐band curriculum materials” (p. 6). Rather than attempting to do a comprehensive checklist of topics covered, Tool 1 focuses on providing an in-‐depth analysis of the development of key curriculum sequences across the four grade bands. Two ratings were made for each curriculum sequence: Coverage assesses whether the materials meet the content standards as written, while Balance assess whether the content is developed in a way that ensures an adequate balance between conceptual development and procedural skill. See sample Tool 1 in Appendix B. The participants met in grade-‐band groups to conduct the Tool 1 review. Generally a pair or trio of teachers at a particular grade level worked together to review all the textbooks with respect to one of the content areas identified in Tool 1. Cross-‐grades groups working on the same content area then convened to compile their results for the gradeband, recording their findings on a form entitled “TOOL 1 Summary – Content Area for Gradeband;” see Appendix C. Finally, all participants for the gradeband met together to reach consensus on general conclusions about the various textbook series, recording their results on the form entitled “TOOL 1 Summary – Gradeband (across content areas),” also given in Appendix C. Note that these summary forms were developed by the TEAM-‐Math/EARIC project to facilitate consensus building and are not a part of the original Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Project. These cross-‐grades and cross-‐content areas meetings were typically held as soon as all the small groups were ready to discuss particular textbooks. All available textbooks were reviewed using Tool 1.

2 See http://commoncoretools.me/2011/07/09/curriculum-‐analysis-‐tool/ for the materials.


Tool 2 Tool 2 is used to “determine the extent to which the curriculum materials were designed to provide students opportunities to engage in the Standards for Mathematical Practice” (p. 12). Note that the Standards for Mathematical Practice describe the “processes and proficiencies” about mathematics that students should develop as they are learning the content. In contrast to previous state frameworks, these processes are considered an integral part of the curriculum to be taught and are to be included in accountability measures. Thus, the Standards for Mathematical Practice represent a significant shift in the mathematics required in Alabama schools. To make the process manageable, Tool 2 builds on the analyses done with Tool 1, reconsidering the curriculum materials for the same content areas but with respect to their ability to support the development of the mathematical practices. Participants were asked to document examples of where each of the practices occur, then to summarize their findings using a series of guided questions at the end of the tool. The Tool 2 review process was organized in much the same manner as Tool 1. Once again, the participants met in grade-‐band groups and continued to work in small groups by content area. A similar consensus-‐building process was used as with Tool 1: See “TOOL 2 Summary – Content Area for Gradeband” and “TOOL 2 Summary – Gradeband (across content areas)” in Appendix C. Note that some textbooks were found inadequate on Tool 1 and thus were not included the Tool 2 review. Tool 3 Tool 3 is designed to “address three overarching considerations that will impact the materials’ effectiveness in supporting the CCSSM”-‐-‐ Equity/Diversity/Access, Formative Assessment, and Technology. In contrast to Tools 1 and 2, which focused primarily on the student and teacher textbooks, participants were encouraged to look at the full range of materials provided as part of a curriculum program. Participants were asked to respond to a series of questions about the support provided by the program in the three overarching areas, then to make a final determination of the program’s success in addressing those overarching considerations. Participants again met in gradeband groups, generally first discussing the questions in small groups, then meeting as a full group to come to a consensus about each of the three areas, recording their conclusions on a separate sheet. Final Consensus When the groups completed their review of the textbooks using Tools 1, 2, and 3, they were asked to come to a final consensus regarding the usefulness of a curriculum program in supporting student success with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. To help with this process, the groups were given a form entitled “Final Summary for Textbook


Series”; see Appendix C. On this form, they summarized their findings from their previous reviews and identified overall strengths and weaknesses. Finally, they were asked to rate the textbook according to the following rubric:

• Recommended. The curriculum materials fully align with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.

• Acceptable. The curriculum materials adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with additional supplementation for missing standards.

• Marginal. The curriculum materials minimally align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, but could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with extensive supplementation. (This category was renamed “Marginally Acceptable” in the report for the purpose of clarity.

• Not Acceptable. The curriculum materials do not adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards and are not likely to support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards:

The summaries prepared by the groups became the basis for the findings presented in the following sections; the groups’ summaries for the Tools 1-‐3 were also consulted as needed. A draft of the report was prepared and submitted to the group for approval to ensure that it accurately reflects the consensus reached. Note that the K-‐2 and 3-‐5 gradeband groups held additional joint meetings to discuss their conclusions about particular series. When possible, a group consensus was reached reflecting the potential for a series to support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards across grades K-‐5. In two cases, the gradeband groups had differing opinions about a set of curriculum materials; in those cases, the final recommendation is given as “Mixed.” The combined judgments of the K-‐5 group are presented in the following section, followed by the recommendations for grades 6-‐8 and 9-‐12. Curriculum Materials Reviewed All curriculum materials on the Alabama State Adoption list that could serve as the primary textbook for adoption by a school or district and whose materials were provided by the publisher were included in this review. Supplementary materials were not included. Also, computer-‐based curricula were not included due to limitations of the review process and to the lack of availability of technology in the school districts involved in the process. In some cases, additional texts or series not on the adoption list were included based on the interest of the reviewers; these materials are clearly identified as not being on the adoption list.


Reviews for Grades K-‐5 The reviewers for grades K-‐5 met in two groups by gradeband – K-‐2 and 3-‐5 to review textbooks for alignment with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards (ACCRS). These groups worked individually to complete reviews of the textbook series, then met together in order to come to a consensus for K-‐5. In most cases there was agreement in the conclusions reached by the two groups. However, in some cases, there were differences between the two groups in which case the rating of the group with the lower ratings was generally adopted as the overall rating, since a series must successfully meet the needs of the entire span of grades. In two cases, consensus was not possible due to the significant differences in the judgments of the two gradebands; these are labeled “Mixed.” In general, significant differences in opinion are highlighted in the report. A summary of the textbooks reviewed follows; additional explanation for the ratings of each series is provided on the following pages. Recommended. The following textbook series was found to fully align with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.

• Investigations Series (published by Pearson Education, Inc.) Acceptable. The following series was found to adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with additional supplementation for missing content standards.

• Go Math! Series (published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) Marginally Acceptable. The following series was found to minimally align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, but could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with extensive supplementation:

• Scott Foresman – Addison Wesley Series (“enVisionMATH”) (published by Pearson Education, Inc.)

Mixed. The following series received very high ratings at some grade levels and very low ratings at other grade levels. As a result, it is not possible to recommend the series as fully supporting the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards across grades K-‐5. However, these series might be useful at particular grade levels as indicated in their reviews.

• Think Math! Series (published by Education Development Center, Inc.) • Everyday Mathematics Series (published by The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.)


Not Acceptable. The following series did not adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and are not likely to support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards:

• Saxon Math Series (published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) • Math Out of the Box Series (published by Carolina Biological Supply Company) • Singapore Math Series (Published by Marshall Cavendish Education)

Note that this reviewed “Singapore Math” series is not “Math in Focus, Singapore Math” (distributed by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), which is included on the state adoption list.

• McGraw Hill Series (“My Math”) (published by The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.)


Investigations Series Published by Pearson

Texts Reviewed: • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade K (2nd edition) ©2012 • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade 1 (2nd edition) ©2012 • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade 2 (2nd edition) ©2012 • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade 3 (2nd edition) ©2012 • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade 4 (2nd edition) ©2012 • Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Grade 5 (2nd edition) ©2012 Strengths: • The series encourages students to make

sense of mathematics, building conceptual knowledge as required by the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, through use of multiple entry-‐point problems.

• The building of mathematical practices is embedded throughout the content.

• There are multiple opportunities for discourse, reasoning, and multiple representations.

• There is good support for teachers to implement the mathematical practices and conceptual development.

• The materials use spiral review to build understanding.

• There is a strong emphasis on formative assessment throughout.

• There is support for multiple grouping opportunities that will help student connect to the content.

• The series has good support for accommodations and modifications needed for English Languish Learners and other special populations.

Weaknesses: • There are some mismatches between the

topics covered in the courses and the content standards. A supplement is included to help balance the curriculum.

• The resources for summative assessments are limited.

• The series takes considerable time to implement well.

• There are limited opportunities to integrate mathematics with other subject areas.

• Attention to technology is limited if you don’t buy the supporting CD, which costs extra.

Final Assessment: “Recommended” This series will fully prepare students to be successful on the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, including developing the Standards for Mathematical Practice and deep conceptual understanding of the content. However, implementing the curriculum will require some “shifting” of materials from upper grade levels to lower grades. In some cases,


these adjustments may be quite substantial. The supplemental guide for the Common Core State Standards provides guidance on how to realign the units.


Go Math! Series Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Texts Reviewed: • Go Math Grade K ©2012 • Go Math Grade 1 ©2012 • Go Math Grade 2 ©2012 • Go Math Grade 3 ©2012 • Go Math Grade 4 ©2012 • Go Math Grade 5 ©2012 Strengths: • Real-‐world and cross-‐curricular

connections are included that will spur student interest and help to build students’ conceptual understanding.

• While attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice was strong in some areas and in some grade levels, it was not consistent across the entire series.

• Resources for differentiated instruction (including English Language Learners) are strong; however, they are not embedded within the materials.

• There are good resources for incorporating technology.

Weaknesses: • There are limited opportunities for

students to fully investigate mathematical ideas without extensive scaffolding or to explore multiple-‐entry level problems. Thus, access to consistent development of the mathematical practices across the series will be limited.

• There is limited attention to formative assessment and assessing student thinking.

Final Assessment: “Acceptable” In general, the content standards were covered at an adequate level. There is also some attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice, however this is not consistent across grades, topics, and standards. Thus, attention will need to be paid – through supplemental materials and professional development -‐-‐ to ensure that the mathematical practices are adequately incorporated into daily instruction while implementing the program.


Scott Foresman – Addison Wesley Series (“enVisionMath”) Published by Pearson Education, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • enVision Math Common Core, Grade K ©2012 • enVision Math Common Core, Grade 1 ©2012 • enVision Math Common Core, Grade 2 ©2012 • enVision Math Common Core, Grade 3 ©2012 • enVision Math Common Core, Grade 4 ©2012 • enVision Math Common Core, Grade 5 ©2012 Strengths: • The scope and sequence is generally well

aligned with the content standards, although there were problems with some of the objectives.

• Lessons included real-‐world and cross-‐curricular connections, as well as connections to prior learning that would tend to support students’ development of conceptual understanding.

• Ample practice is provided to support the development of procedural skill.

• The lessons will support a range of instructional organizations, including whole group, small group, and individual.

• A range of resources is provided to support the needs of a range of learners, although the needs of English Language Learners were not adequately addressed, and efforts aimed at differentiation were sometimes superficial.

Weaknesses: • The Standards for Mathematical Practice

were not adequately embedded in the curriculum.

• The teaching tended to be more explicit, and the students were not required to develop the necessary habits of mind.

• The materials do not encourage use of multiple strategies, modeling, or representations.

• Limited in use of formative assessment, such as observations, although some reviewers liked the use of rubrics embedded in the materials.

• The integration of technology was lacking.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” The enVision Math series consistently references the Common Core State Standards throughout the document. However, there is relatively little student engagement in the kinds of investigative activities that would tend to support their development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice. While the series will adequately cover the content standards, teachers will have to make a significant effort to supplement the materials to ensure students develop the necessary mathematical habits of mind described in the practice standards.


Think Math! Series Published by Education Development Center, Inc

Texts Reviewed: • Think Math!, Grade K ©2008 • Think Math!, Grade 1 ©2008 • Think Math!, Grade 2 ©2008 • Think Math!, Grade 3 ©2008 • Think Math!, Grade 4 ©2008 • Think Math!, Grade 5 ©2008 Strengths: • There is a good balance between the

development of conceptual understanding and procedural skill.

• Includes significant attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice. They were effectively embedded throughout the lessons.

• The attention to the needs of English Language Learners and other students with special needs was very strong. The series offered a range of leveled strategies that were varied and appropriate.

Weaknesses: • While grades 1-‐2 found the content

addressed in this series very strong, other grade levels felt that the content did not adequately align with the content standards. Moreover, since this is written as a basal rather than pull-‐out units, it is harder to reorganize the content to match grade-‐level standards. (For K-‐2 this may be less of an issue, since the student materials are consumable.)

• Even when the content was present, it was often ordered and spiraled in an unfamiliar manner. Teacher support would be needed.

• Given that all the activities are presented in a single volume, this makes for very long books!

Final Assessment: “Mixed” (ratings varied dramatically across the grades) It is very difficult to make an overall judgment of this book, since reviewers from some grade levels (particularly grades 1-‐2) found this series to be among the very best they reviewed, while other grade levels (particularly grades 3-‐5) found the lack of content alignment to be an overwhelming deficiency that makes its adoption very difficult without extensive supplementation. This series does appear to have promise in meeting the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. Perhaps a subsequent edition will address some of the issues related to content alignment.


Everyday Mathematics Series Published by The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc

Texts Reviewed: • Everyday Mathematics, Grade K ©2012 • Everyday Mathematics, Grade 1 ©2012 • Everyday Mathematics, Grade 2 ©2012 • Everyday Mathematics, Grade 3 ©2012 • Everyday Mathematics, Grade 4 ©2012 • Everyday Mathematics, Grade 5 ©2012 Strengths: • A tremendous breadth of mathematics is

covered by the series. The content standards were adequately covered, although gaps were identified in K-‐2.

• While investigations were included that might be used to support conceptual development, they were limited in suggesting the kinds of questioning that would support student learning.

• The Standards for Mathematical Practice were addressed, although there was disagreement on the effectiveness. While the 3-‐5 reviewers felt they were frequently embedded, the K-‐2 reviewers did not feel the intent of the practices was fully met.

• Multiple assessments were provided, including, self-‐assessments, formative, and summative.

• Resources were provided that would help teachers effectively differentiate instruction.

Weaknesses: • The standards were not written for the

Common Core State Standards, including extra content that is not needed for each grade. Given the design of the course, it would be difficult to only focus on required content.

• The K-‐2 reviewers felt that too many topics were primarily teacher guided and would not adequately develop the necessary depth of content. Moreover, the fast pace of the material would be challenging.

• Some concerns were expressed that the format of the teacher guide was less useful and the design of the materials will create difficulties in implementation.

• Use of technology was limited.

Final Assessment: “Mixed” (ratings varied dramatically across the grades) This was somewhat of a split decision, with the grades 3-‐5 reviewers generally rating the series higher than the K-‐2 reviewers. However, both groups agreed that this series could be useful for meeting the requirements of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. The groups were particularly split on attention to the Standards for Mathematics Practice, with the K-‐2 group skeptical that the materials would adequately support their development. Professional development would be essential in learning to navigate the series in order to help students accomplish the standards.


Saxon Math Series Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Texts Reviewed: • Saxon Math K ©2012 • Saxon Math 1 ©2012 • Saxon Math 2 ©2012 • Saxon Math Intermediate 3 ©2012 • Saxon Math Intermediate 4 ©2012 • Saxon Math Intermediate 5 ©2012 Strengths: • There is a strong emphasis on

procedural knowledge. • The spiral design allows for on-‐going

review and ample opportunities for practice.

Weaknesses: • There is very little attention to the

conceptual development needed to develop the necessary depth of knowledge of the content standards.

• The series is based on direct, explicit instruction that will not support students’ development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• While there are occasional investigations, these are not sufficient to provide students opportunities to engage in multiple entry-‐level problems or mathematical discussion.

• Opportunities to use technology are not embedded.

• The support for formative assessment is weak.

Final Assessment: “Not Recommended” This series will not support students’ development of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While the series is strong on building procedural knowledge, it does not provide balance in developing the necessary conceptual knowledge. Moreover, the Standards for Mathematical Practices are not adequately addressed.


Math Out of the Box Series Published by Carolina Biological Supply Company

Texts Reviewed:

• Math Out of the Box K (2nd edition) ©2009 • Math Out of the Box 1 (2nd edition) ©2009 • Math Out of the Box 2 (2nd edition) ©2009 • Math Out of the Box 3 (2nd edition) ©2009 • Math Out of the Box 4 (2nd edition) ©2009 • Math Out of the Box 5 (2nd edition) ©2009

Strengths: • Scattered among the materials were a

number of lessons that had promise for supporting the growth of students’ mathematical understanding. However, this was not a consistent focus.

Weaknesses: • The kit-‐based approach is designed to

promote investigation. However, the activities were generally found to lack depth and the necessary focus on conceptual development.

• There is little opportunity for students to develop the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• The materials were not engaging and lacked visual appeal.

Final Assessment: “Not Recommended” This series will not support students’ development of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While some activities have promise, there is not a consistent focus on developing the depth of content needed for success, nor are the Standards for Mathematical Practice adequately developed.


Singapore Math Series Published by Marshall Cavendish Education

Note that the reviewed “Singapore Math” series is not “Math in Focus, Singapore Math” (distributed by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), which is included on the state adoption list.

Texts Reviewed: • Early Bird Standards Edition Kindergarten Mathematics © 2008 • Primary Standards Edition Mathematics 1 ©2008 • Primary Standards Edition Mathematics 2 ©2008 • Primary Standards Edition Mathematics 3 ©2008 • Primary Standards Edition Mathematics 4 ©2008 • Primary Standards Edition Mathematics 5 ©2008 Strengths: • This program covers a wide range of

content. • Some lessons are student-‐centered,

building appropriate conceptual understanding, but most tend to be more focused on developing procedural skill.

• The student books are colorful and engaging.

Weaknesses: • The content does not correlate with the

Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. There are gaps in content that are not addressed at some grade levels.

• There is not an adequate balance between procedural and conceptual understanding.

• There are few problem-‐based lessons that will help students develop the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• The teacher’s editions are not easy to use.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series will not support students’ development of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While some lessons have promise, there is not a consistent focus on developing the depth of content needed for success, nor are the Standards for Mathematical Practice adequately developed.


McGraw Hill Series (“My Math”) Published by The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc

Texts Reviewed: • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade K ©2013 • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade 1 ©2013 • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade 2 ©2013 • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade 3 ©2013 • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade 4 ©2013 • McGraw Hill My Math, Grade 5 ©2013 Strengths: • The content standards were adequately

addressed.

Weaknesses: • The series lacked the kinds of

investigative activities that would build conceptual understanding. The focus of the instruction seems to be on developing procedural skills.

• The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not developed in a consistent manner that seems likely to promote student success.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series was received very late in the process. While it did not receive a complete review using all of the tools, the reviewers sampled key content strands and felt that it does not adequately promote the depth of knowledge or incorporate the necessary attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practices needed for success with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


Reviews for Grades 6-‐8 A summary of the textbooks reviewed follows; additional explanation for the ratings of each series is provided on the following pages. Recommended. No textbook series was found to fully align with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. Acceptable. The following series were found to adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with additional supplementation for missing content standards.

• Glencoe Series-‐-‐“Your Common Core” edition (published by McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.)

• “Big Ideas Learning” Series (published by Big Ideas Learning LLC) Marginally Acceptable. The following series were found to minimally align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, but could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with extensive supplementation:

• “Connected Mathematics” Series (published by Pearson Prentice Hall) o May be effectively used in conjunction with a series that does not adequately

address the Standards for Mathematical Practice. • Prentice Hall Series (published by Pearson Education, Inc.)

Not Acceptable. The following series did not adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and are not likely to support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards:

• Holt McDougal Series (published by Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt) • Glencoe Series (“Math Connects”) (published by McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.)


Glencoe Series—“Your Common Core” edition Published by McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Glencoe Math, Your Common Core edition, Course 1 ©2013 • Glencoe Math, Your Common Core edition, Course 2 ©2013 • Glencoe Math, Your Common Core edition, Course 3 ©2013 Strengths: • The content standards are thoroughly

covered in a comprehensive way that matches the language of the Common Core, reflecting an appropriate level of rigor.

• While the Standards for Mathematical Practice were addressed, the consensus was that much more is needed. The practices are not sufficiently embedded in the curriculum to ensure that students encounter them in an on-‐going manner needed to meet the requirements.

• The materials included self-‐assessments for teachers, which may help them to develop the practices.

• There is moderate attention to technology that might help to support student learning, including access to electronic versions of the materials.

Weaknesses: • There were some concerns about the

ordering of the material. • Generally, procedures were introduced

first, before the conceptual development. This may limit the depth of knowledge that students gain.

• Student investigations were present, but tended to be overly scaffolded, not providing opportunities for students to develop their own strategies for solving problems.

• While the materials include opportunities for student self-‐assessment, they are not well developed; more attention to assessment (such as portfolios) would be useful.

• There is limited attention to providing differentiation of instruction to meet a range of learning needs.

Final Assessment: “Acceptable” This series thoroughly addresses the content standards but not in a way that will help students develop the depth of knowledge and the facility with the Standards for Mathematical Practices needed to fully meet the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. Teachers will need to consistently supplement the series to reach these broader goals. (In particular, the Connected Math Project was highlighted as potentially a good fit to provide that supplementation, as it fully incorporates development of conceptual understanding and the mathematical practices but does not adequately address all the content standards; see review below.) Finally, some concerns were expressed about the consumable nature of the series; while there may be benefits to this “workbook” format, it was unclear what the financial ramifications might be.


“Big Ideas Learning” Series Published by Big Ideas Learning LLC

Texts Reviewed:

• Big Ideas Math, A Common Core Curriculum, Grade 6 ©2012 • Big Ideas Math, A Common Core Curriculum, Grade 7 ©2012 • Big Ideas Math, A Common Core Curriculum, Grade 8 ©2012

Strengths: • The content standards were well

developed, incorporating investigations that will help students develop the necessary depth of conceptual understanding.

• Graphics and pictures are used well to help illustrate concepts.

• The integration of reading and writing (e.g., journaling) into the materials could support students in developing the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• The incorporation of assessment options (investigative and more traditional) including rubrics was useful.

• The teacher support materials were user-‐friendly and informative.

Weaknesses: • There were concerns about the degree of

development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice. The practices were not fully embedded across the curriculum in all the grades.

• The “real world” applications were limited in number and in depth.

• Some concepts may need additional reinforcement beyond what is provided.

• There is little use of technology to support student learning, and it is hard to find. There is limited use of graphing calculators.

• Materials supporting special learning needs (e.g., at-‐risk students, English Language Learners) were not readily available.

• Limited support for remediation for students who need extra help was present.

Final Assessment: “Acceptable” The emphasis on developing the major concepts in alignment with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards is the major strength of this series, reflecting its title – “Big Ideas Math.” However, without proper attention by the teachers to the Standards for Mathematical Practice, there is a danger that they will not be adequately developed. Thus, significant additional support in terms of professional development and supplemental activities will be required for the successful implementation of this program to fully meet the requirements of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


“Connected Mathematics” Series Published by Pearson Prentice Hall

Texts Reviewed: • Connected Mathematics 2, Grade 6 ©2009 • Connected Mathematics 2, Grade 7 ©2009 • Connected Mathematics 2, Grade 8 ©2009 Strengths: • The series is clearly designed based on

best practices – engaging students in understanding mathematics and developing mathematical reasoning.

• There is an effective balance between developing conceptual understanding and procedural skills. There is rich development of the concepts through student investigations, linked to procedural skills.

• The investigations include consistent attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• The program is built on multiple entry-‐point problems that will support the needs of a wide range of learners.

• The use of reading and writing throughout the program will to support students’ development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

Weaknesses: • The content covered in each grade is not

well aligned to the content standards. While a supplemental book purports to help with making the transition, it was not at all adequate. Some units are repeated in more than one grade, which is not feasible. Moreover, the supplemental activities provided were not well integrated into the overall approach taken by the project.

• The use of technology was not extensively integrated into the materials.

• Use of the materials requires extensive teacher training, including how to communicate with parents about the program goals.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” – it may be useful in conjunction with another series to provide a balance between coverage of the content and the development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice. In many important respects Connected Mathematics is the most aligned to the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. The consistent use of investigations along with meaningful practice problems ensures that students will develop both deep conceptual understanding along with procedural fluency. Moreover, the mathematical habits of mind found in the Standards for Mathematical Practice are an integral part of the development in the course. Despite these strengths, the reviewers felt that its lack of alignment to the content standards ultimately prevented them from fully recommending the series. There is no clear pathway to implementing the program so that the content standards will be fully met. There was, however, a strong sense that the activities and units could be used in


conjunction with another series that is well aligned with the content standards but is less supportive of the Standards for Mathematical Practice to fully meet the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


Prentice Hall Series Published by Pearson Education, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Course 1 Mathematics, Common Core ©2012 • Course 2 Mathematics, Common Core ©2012 • Course 3 Mathematics, Common Core ©2012 Strengths: • While the primary focus of this series is

on the development of procedural skill, a variety of approaches are developed.

• A set of activity labs provides opportunities for students to explore the topics in a more conceptual level. However, these labs are not an embedded part of the curriculum and may not adequately connect concepts and procedures.

• The “Why Learn This” discussion at the start of each chapter helps students to link ideas across the course.

Weaknesses: • The series is not set up to directly

address the content standards as outlined in the Common Core. While the “front-‐piece” of the books helps to bridge the gaps, the progression of standards across the series is weak.

• Students may not develop the necessary conceptual understanding, given that the primary emphasis of the series is on developing procedural skill.

• The “real world” applications tended to be superficial, and many examples seem contrived.

• Some of the models used were confusing and/or misapplied to the topics being developed.

• Attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice was not consistently embedded in the materials.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” There are grave concerns about the ability of this series to adequately address the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While meeting the content standards may be possible with some effort, developing the depth of conceptual knowledge needed for long-‐term success is a grave concern. Moreover, attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice is not consistently embedded in the materials. Use of the activity labs may be useful in addressing these concerns but is far from a complete solution. Extensive supplementation would be necessary to prepare students for continuing to meet the standards. Given the weaknesses identified, the reviewers did not review the series for implementation issues.


Glencoe Series (“Math Connects”) Published by McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Math Connects Course 1 ©2012 • Math Connects Course 2 ©2012 • Math Connects Course 3 ©2012 Strengths: • None noted.

Weaknesses: • There are significant gaps in the content

covered. Moreover, the courses were not organized to support logical development of the content.

• The emphasis of the series is on developing procedural skill, with little attention to developing conceptual understanding.

• Attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice was not embedded across the curriculum.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series is unlikely to support students’ attainment of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While most of the content is covered, it is not developed in a way that will build conceptual understanding or support development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice.


Holt McDougal Series Published by Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt

Texts Reviewed: • Holt McDougal Mathematics, Grade 6 ©2012 • Holt McDougal Mathematics, Grade 7 ©2012 • Holt McDougal Mathematics, Grade 8 ©2012 Strengths: • The development of Operations and

Expressions is well done.

Weaknesses: • While the content standards are largely

met, the material was not organized to help students build their mathematical knowledge. Many opportunities to build connections were missed.

• The primary focus of the materials is on developing procedural skill.

• Little attention is paid to conceptual development. Models for helping to explain the concepts were missing or inadequate.

• Attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice was not embedded across the curriculum.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series is unlikely to support students’ attainment of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. While most of the content is covered, it is not developed in a way that will build conceptual understanding or support development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice.


Reviews for Grades 9-‐12 While the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics specifies grade-‐level standards for K-‐8, the standards for 9-‐12 are not differentiated by course or grade. However, the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards includes course-‐level organization of the standards into Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II with Trigonometry as the three-‐course sequence designed to meet the requirements of the Common Core State Standards. Accordingly, the review team for grades 9-‐12 reviewed textbook series matching the first three years of high school – either Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II for traditionally arranged series or the first three books in an integrated series. They organized their review by the courses as designed by the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards in order to facilitate the process. Appendix D summarizes the standards within each of the Tool 1 content areas that were addressed by the respective course-‐level review teams. A summary of the textbooks reviewed follows; additional explanation for the ratings of each series is provided on the following pages. Recommended. No textbook series was found to fully align with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards. Acceptable. The following series was found to adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with additional supplementation, particularly with the content standards.

• Discovering Mathematics Series (published by Kendall-‐Hunt) Marginally Acceptable. The following series were found to minimally align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and could support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards with extensive supplementation:

• CORD Mathematics Series (published by CORD Communications, Inc.) • Glencoe Series (published by McGraw-‐Hill Companies, Inc.)

o Supplementation will particularly be needed to meet the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

• Interactive Mathematics Program (published by Key Curriculum Press) o May be effectively used in conjunction with a series that does not adequately address

the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Not Acceptable. The following series did not adequately align with Alabama College and Career Ready Standards, and are not likely to support teachers in meeting the requirements of the standards:

• Holt-‐McDougal Series (published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) • Saxon Mathematics (published by Saxon Publishers)


• Pearson Mathematics Series (published by Pearson Education, Inc.) • Singapore Math (published by Star Publishing Pte Ltd.) • Holt McDougal Series (“Larson”) (published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)


“Discovering Mathematics” Series Published by Kendall-‐Hunt3

Texts Reviewed: • Discovering Algebra (2nd edition) ©2007

o Note: This text is not included on the state textbook list due to copyright date. However, districts might request a waiver to purchase it in order to complete the series.

• Discovering Geometry (4th edition) ©2008 • Discovering Advanced Algebra (2nd edition) ©2010 Strengths: • There is a good balance between

conceptual development and procedural practice.

• The Standards for Mathematical Practices are embedded throughout the development in a way that students will participate in doing the practices, not just observing the teachers modeling them.

• Instruction includes multiple-‐entry level problems that will accommodate the needs of a wide range of learners.

• Good support for teachers is found both in the teacher text as well as in supplemental web-‐based materials and webinars.

Weaknesses: • There were content objectives within

each of the three courses that were not adequately addressed. While the gaps in content for Algebra I and Algebra II could be readily addressed, the gaps in content for Geometry were more significant and could not be as easily addressed. In particular, the objectives related to transformational geometry were not adequately addressed.

Final Assessment: “Acceptable” This series emphasizes conceptual understanding. Students must engage in the mathematical practices in order to complete the investigation activities that drive the instruction, making the Mathematical Practice Standards an embedded part of the curriculum that support the development of mathematical habits of mind. Students are expected to utilize and develop mathematical models throughout the series. Support for teachers is found in margin notes of the teacher text – these are helpful in creating student-‐centered lessons – as well as on-‐line and in supplemental materials. Multiple entry-‐level problems promote differentiated instruction and address the needs of learners at all levels. There are a variety of assessment types available that focus on conceptual knowledge and will prepare students to be successful on assessments that incorporate the Standards of Mathematical Practice. Manipulatives and mathematical models are an expected part of

3 This series was originally published by Key Curriculum Press but was recently acquired by Kendall Hunt.


instruction and exploration. Specific technology tools are indicated in developing and solving problems and promoting the practice standards. Multiple content gaps were noted in the series. Also, teacher professional development will be needed so that teachers can become familiar with the textbook and how to effectively teach from it. Teachers must understand the Mathematical Practices are HOW instruction has to happen. The investigation activities cannot be skipped if the content standards are all going to be addressed along with the practice standards. This textbook series does support the development of teacher practices required by the shift toward teaching the Mathematical Practice Standards.


CORD Mathematics Series Published by CORD Communications, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Algebra I, Learning in Context (3rd Edition) ©2011 • Geometry, Learning in Context (3rd Edition) ©2011 • Algebra II, Learning in Context ©2008 Strengths: • The coverage of the content standards is

generally acceptable, although there are some gaps.

• In general, there is a good balance in the development of conceptual and procedural understanding.

• Attention to the mathematical practices was present, although the activities were generally too guided and did not provide students with adequate opportunities to fully develop the practices.

• Good integration of applications problems.

Weaknesses: • In some cases, the activities will not fully

engage students in developing the necessary understanding. Sample solutions emphasized procedural solutions rather than student thinking.

• While opportunities for developing the mathematical practices are present, they are not an integral part of the program.

• To successfully meet the content and practice standards will require major effort on the part of the teacher.

• There were concerns about equity, particularly examples of stereotyping by race/ethnicity and gender.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” This series provides a balance of conceptual and procedural problems including application problems and procedural problems. Students are provided opportunities to participate in the embedded mathematical standards; however, some activities are procedural, or their structure is scaffolded too much. Multiple content gaps were noted in each of the books for this series. Additional supplemental materials were unavailable for analysis, and the textbook contained minimal support for implementing the intended teaching strategies. Students have opportunities to utilize and develop mathematical models throughout but it is not a required element in learning. There is a balanced approach to assessment including conceptual and procedural tasks. The use of technology as a mathematical tool for learning is not embedded in this textbook series. For skilled teachers who are able to supply the necessary supplementation, this series is acceptable. However, fully meeting the requirements of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards will be challenging for teachers who are less knowledgeable. This textbook series does provide opportunities to support teacher practices required by the shift toward teaching Mathematical Practice Standards.


Glencoe Series Published by McGraw-‐Hill Companies, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Algebra I ©2012 • Geometry ©2012 • Algebra II with Trigonometry ©2012 Strengths: • The coverage of the content standards is

quite complete with relatively few gaps and is well aligned with the ACCRS.

• Ample procedural practice is provided throughout the textbooks.

• Abundant resources supporting implementation are provided on line.

• Strategies for “Response to Intervention” are prominently integrated.

• Multiple opportunities for assessment are incorporated.

• Geometry included attention to conceptual learning, more so than Algebra I and Algebra II with Trigonometry.

• Some attention to use of technology and manipulatives is included, which might help to support student learning.

Weaknesses: • On the whole, attention to conceptual

understanding is not embedded across the series. It is not a consistent expectation for students, although Geometry included more attention to conceptual understanding than either Algebra I or Algebra II with Trigonometry.

• Attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice is not embedded across the series. They are addressed as something to observe rather than something for students to do.

• The additional technological and on-‐line resources do not connect with the content development as presented in the teacher and student textbooks.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” This textbook series tends to be more procedural than conceptual. While the content standards are addressed at an acceptable level, the Standards for Mathematical Practice are marginally addressed but not fully developed. Teachers who are adept at modifying procedural lessons to focus more on conceptual knowledge and to incorporate attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice might be able to successfully use this series. While multiple entry-‐level problems are included in each section, they are not the center of instruction. Support for teachers is available in the margin notes of the teacher text, in supplemental materials and on-‐line. Expanding on the suggestions of the margin notes can move the attempt to meet the needs of all learners from superficially “tracked” problem sets to true differentiated instruction. Manipulatives and mathematical models are seen throughout the text, however, they are not integrated into the lessons. Multiple assessments stressing procedural skills are available. In addition, projects are available in the on-‐line support materials. Teachers who primarily rely on the printed textbook will find it difficult to successfully meet the requirements of the ACCRS. Instructional support for developing habits of mind is not evident. The use of technology as a


tool is given superficial attention that is mainly procedural in nature or is suggested for advanced learners rather than supporting technology as a mathematical learning tool for all learners. Teacher professional development will be needed to ensure that the available resources are used to the best advantage in developing the practice standards. A “business as usual” approach of teaching the text from beginning to end will not support student learning of content and practice standards as required by the ACCRS. This textbook series provides only superficial support for the development of teacher practices required by the shift toward teaching Mathematical Practice Standards. Use of a supplemental text (such as the Interactive Mathematics Project) will be needed to address that gap.


Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) Published by Key Curriculum Press

Texts Reviewed: • Interactive Mathematics Program Year 1 (2nd Edition) ©2009 • Interactive Mathematics Program Year 2 (2nd Edition) ©2009 • Interactive Mathematics Program Year 3 (2nd Edition) ©2009 Strengths: • This program fully develops the

Standards for Mathematics Practice across the three-‐year sequence.

• The integrated nature of the program supports the development of connections among mathematical topics.

• The use of multiple entry-‐level problems supports the mathematical development of a range of learners.

• The supplemental materials provide excellent support for teachers in meeting the mathematical practices and in meeting the needs of a range of students.

Weaknesses: • There are significant gaps in the content

covered, particularly in Geometry. • The integrated organization of the

program does not align well with the content standards in courses described the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.

• The series is relatively light in building the necessary procedural skills and does not provide adequate support for students who need additional practice with concepts and skills.

Final Assessment: “Marginally Acceptable” – it may be useful as a supplement to support the development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice This series emphasizes conceptual understanding over strictly procedural skill development; IMP provides opportunities for a variety of levels to engage in application problems and does not rely solely on procedural skill development and practice. The standards for mathematical practice are fully developed and embedded as essential elements, and the development of mathematical habits of mind is supported throughout. There were multiple gaps found in the content, and the integrated structure of the series makes it difficult to fit into non-‐integrated courses as the main text; however, selected units and activities would be very useful in supporting teacher development of the mathematical practices. Teachers are supported throughout the text in implementing the intended teaching approach, additional problems provide opportunities for extending and reinforcing learning, but very little supplemental materials are available. Manipulates and mathematical models are used by students and essential to the development of concepts. Multiple opportunities for student assessment are described including formative, summative, and self-‐assessment; however, assessment of strictly procedural skills is limited. Specific technology tools are not indicated throughout investigations; however students are encouraged to use a variety of tools including technology and to make decisions about what tools are appropriate.


This program does an exemplary job of meeting the Standards for Mathematical Practice, beyond what is found in any other series. However, the integrated organization of the program will make it very difficult to meet the content standards without significant realignment of the content covered in the courses in the Alabama standards. While not acceptable as a primary text, selected units and activities would be very useful in supporting teacher development of the mathematical practices.


Holt-‐McDougal Series Published by Holt-‐McDougal

Texts Reviewed: • Algebra I ©2013 • Geometry ©2013 • Algebra II with Trigonometry ©2013 Strengths: • The coverage of the content standards is

quite complete for Algebra I and Algebra II with Trigonometry. However, there are significant gaps in Geometry.

• The supplementary materials for Algebra I and II were very good, providing some support for meeting the Standards for Mathematical Practice. However, the materials for Geometry were not as successful.

Weaknesses: • The development of the content is very

procedural in nature, with little attention to developing conceptual understanding.

• The Standards for Mathematical Practice were minimally addressed and were not embedded into the development of the content.

• Attention to assessment, technology, and equity was often superficial or completely missing.

• The on-‐line resources were of limited value and difficult to use.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series does not adequately address the Standards for Mathematical Practice or include adequate attention to conceptual development. While these issues may be partially mitigated in Algebra I and II through extensive use of the supplementary materials, no such support is available for Geometry. Moreover, there are significant gaps in the content objectives addressed in Geometry.


Saxon Mathematics Series Published by Saxon Publishers

Texts Reviewed: (Note that this series is not included on the state adoption list but was reviewed due to its use in local schools.) • Saxon Math: Algebra I (4th edition) ©2008 • Saxon Math: Geometry ©2008 • Saxon Math: Algebra II (4th edition) ©2008 Strengths: • The coverage of the content standards is

relatively complete for Algebra I but has significant gaps for Geometry and Algebra II with Trigonometry.

• The supplemental Common Core book might be useful in better aligning the series with the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.

Weaknesses: • The development of concepts is

scattered among multiple lessons and materials and thus is difficult to locate, increasing the challenge of compensating for missing content.

• The primary emphasis is on developing procedural skill, with less attention to developing conceptual understanding of topics.

• There is very little attention to the development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This series does not adequately address the Standards for Mathematical Practice or include adequate attention to conceptual development of the topics in the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


Pearson Mathematics Series Published by Pearson Education, Inc.

Texts Reviewed: • Algebra I, Foundations Series ©2011 • Geometry, Common Core ©2012 • Algebra II, Common Core©2012 Strengths: • There is ample opportunity to practice

procedural skills.

Weaknesses: • There is only a superficial attempt to

develop conceptual understanding. • There is little attention to the Standards

for Mathematical Practice.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” There is too much emphasis on procedural skills and very little attention paid to conceptual development. The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not developed. Use of this series will not adequate support student progress towards the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


Singapore Mathematics Series Published by Star Publishing Pte Ltd

Texts Reviewed: • Discovering Mathematics 1 © 2010 • Discovering Mathematics 2 © 2010 • Discovering Mathematics 3 © 2010 • Discovering Mathematics 4 © 2010 • Discovering Additional Mathematics © 2010 Strengths: • None noted.

Weaknesses: • There is no continuity between concepts. • The series is very difficult to navigate.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” There is minimal conceptual development of the content within a section of material and no connections between sections of material. This series is difficult to use and not teacher friendly. Teachers using this text will find it difficult to meet the requirements of the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards.


Holt McDougal Series Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Texts Reviewed: • Larson Algebra I ©2012 • Larson Geometry ©2012 • Larson Algebra II with Trigonometry ©2012 Strengths: • The vertical alignment between concepts

is good. • Extension activities promote conceptual

understanding. • Transformations are well handled in

Geometry.

Weaknesses: • There are many gaps in content. • Problems are presented in very

procedural ways that require only surface learning.

• There is not much conceptual learning evident.

• There is no discovery.

Final Assessment: “Not Acceptable” This text is much too procedural with little attention to development of concepts or conceptual understanding. While the geometry text holds some bright spots, overall, the series will not meet the Alabama College and Career Ready Standards requirements.


Appendix A: Participants in the Review Alexander City Karen Courtney

Susan Green

Lisa Morgan

Donna Nall

Debra Pierce

Auburn City Nancee Garcia

Candice Lifsey

Clarissa Williams

Anna Wright

Barbour County Bridgett Carter

Kathryn Griffin

Bullock County Angela Adams

Robyn Drew

Hope Felton

Derick Hurt

Clayton Hutsler

Elmore County Natasha Davis

Michael Hodum

Rebeca Horn

Joanne Knott

Michelle Russell

Shelia Varner

Robert Vilardi

Judy Welch

Joanne Wells

Lanett City Whitney Nolen

Angela Robinson

Lee County Meri Lynn Gregory

Lisa Lishak

Rae Norton

Denise Peppers

Sabrina Wade

Macon County Jehanara Ali

Lisa Etheridge

Ricardo Palmore

Opelika City Kelly Baal

Barbara Kozak

Lauren Lee

Ryan McDonald

Lori Shaw

Phenix City Mary Capo

Carolyn Hemmings

LaSean Spencer

Russell County Valentina Barthlett

Regina Giles

Ken Newsome

Tallapoosa County Brad Bearden

Audrey Stockdale

Tallassee City Catherine Carrigan

Erin Smith


Appendix B: Sample Tools On the following pages, samples of Tools 1, 2, and 3 from the Mathematics Curriculum Materials Analysis Project are provided.

TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 42 CCSSM Curriculum Analysis Tool 1—Number and Operations in Base Ten for Grades K-‐2 Name of Reviewer _______________________ School/District ______________________________________________Date ________________ Name of Curriculum Materials____________________________________________ Publication Date ___________Grade Level(s) _________ Content Coverage Rubric (Cont) Not Found (N) - The mathematics content was not found. Low (L) - Major gaps in the mathematics content were found. Marginal (M) - Gaps in the content, as described in the Standards, were found and these

gaps may not be easily filled. Acceptable (A) - Few gaps in the content, as described in the Standards, were found and

these gaps may be easily filled. High (H) - The content was fully formed as described in the Standards.

Balance of Mathematical Understanding and Procedural Skills Rubric (Bal): Not Found (N) - The content was not found. Low (L) - The content was not developed or developed superficially. Marginal (M) - The content was found and focused primarily on procedural skills and minimally on

mathematical understanding, or ignored procedural skills. Acceptable (A) -The content was developed with a balance of mathematical understanding and procedural

skills consistent with the Standards, but the connections between the two were not developed. High (H) - The content was developed with a balance of mathematical understanding and procedural skills consistent with the Standards, and the connections between the two were developed.

CCSSM Grade K CCSSM Grade 1 CCSSM Grade 2 K.NBT/CC Counting and Cardinality/ Number and Operations in Base Ten

Chap. Pages

Cont N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H

1.NBT Number and Operations in Base Ten

Chap. Pages

Cont N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H


Chap. Pages

Cont N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H

Work with numbers 11-19 to gain foundations for place value

Understand place value Understand place value.

1. Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (e.g., 18 = 10 + 8); understand that these numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones.

2. Understand that the two digits of a two-digit number represent amounts of tens and ones. Understand the following as special cases: a. 10 can be thought of as a bundle of ten ones — called a “ten.” b. The numbers from 11 to 19 are composed of a ten and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones. c. The numbers 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 refer to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine tens (and 0 ones).

1. Understand that the three digits of a three-digit number represent amounts of hundreds, tens, and ones; e.g., 706 equals 7 hundreds, 0 tens, and 6 ones. Understand the following as special cases: a. 100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens — called a “hundred.” b. The numbers 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 refer to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine hundreds (and 0 tens and 0 ones).

Counting and Cardinality Extend the counting sequence Understand place value 1. Count to 100 by ones and tens 2. Count forward beginning from a given

number within the known sequence. 3. Write number from 0 to 20. Represent a

number of objects with a written numeral 0-20.

1.Count to 120, starting at any number less than 120. In this range read and write numerals and represent a number of objects with a written numeral.

2. Count within 1000; skip count by 5s, 10s,100s. 3. Read and write numbers to 1000 using base-ten numerals, number names, and expanded form.


CCSSM Curriculum Analysis Tool 1—Number and Operations in Base Ten for Grades K-2 CCSSM Grade K CCSSM Grade 1 CCSSM Grade 2

K.NBT/CC Counting and Cardinality/ Number and Operations in Base Ten

Chap. Pages

Cont N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H


Chap. Pages

Cont N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H


Chap. Pages

Contt N-L-M-

A-H

Bal N-L-M-

A-H

Work with numbers 11-19 to gain foundations for place value

Understand place value Understand place value.

4. Identify whether a number of objects is one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number of objects in another group. 5. Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

3. Compare two two-digit numbers based on meanings of the tens and ones digits, recording the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, and <.

4. Compare two three-digit numbers based on meanings of the hundreds, tens, and ones digits, using >, =, and < symbols to record the results of comparisons.

Notes/Examples


CCSSM Mathematical Practices Analysis Tool 2 Page 1 Name of Reviewer ____________________________________ School/District ________________________________________Date ________ Name of Curriculum Materials ____________________________________________ Publication Date __________Grade Level(s) ___________ Tool 1 Domain Considered _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Opportunities to Engage in the Standards for Mathematical Practices Found Across the Content Standards

Overarching Habits of Mind

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. 6. Attend to precision.

Evidence of how the Standards for

Mathematics Practice were addressed

(with page numbers)

Reasoning and Explaining

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively. 3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.


Mathematics Practice were addressed

(with page numbers)


CCSSM Mathematical Practices Analysis Tool 2 Page 2 Modeling and Using Tools

4. Model with mathematics. 5. Use appropriate tools strategically.


Mathematics Practice were

addressed (with page numbers)

Seeing Structure and Generalizing

7. Look for and make use of structure. 8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.


Mathematics Practice were

addressed (with page numbers)


Synthesis of Standards for Mathematical Practice Page 3 (Mathematical Practices à Content) To what extent do the materials demand that students engage in the Standards for Mathematical Practice as the primary vehicle for learning the Content Standards?

(Content à Mathematical Practices) To what extent do the materials provide opportunities for students to develop the Standards for Mathematical Practice as “habits of mind” (ways of thinking about mathematics that are rich, challenging, and useful) throughout the development of the Content Standards?

To what extent do accompanying assessments of student learning (such as homework, observation checklists, portfolio recommendations, extended tasks, tests, and quizzes) provide evidence regarding students’ proficiency with respect to the Standards for Mathematical Practice?

What is the quality of the instructional support for students’ development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice as habits of mind?

Summative Assessment

(Low) – The Standards for Mathematical Practice are not addressed or are addressed superficially.

(Marginal) The Standards for Mathematical Practice are addressed, but not consistently in a way that is embedded in the development of the Content Standards.

(Acceptable) – Attention to the Standards for Mathematical Practice is embedded throughout the curriculum materials in ways that may help students to develop them as habits of mind.

Explanation for score


CCSSM Curriculum Materials Analysis Project-‐-‐Overarching Considerations (Tool 3) Page 1

CCSSM Curriculum Analysis Tool 3 (Overarching Considerations) This tool should be used after reviewing mathematics curriculum materials using Tool 1 (Content Analysis) and Tool 2 (Mathematical Practices Analysis). After reviewing the curriculum materials carefully, answer the questions below reflecting important overarching considerations with regard to the materials. Overarching considerations are those that support the teaching of Mathematics Core Content and Practices. Equity: NCTM (1991) calls for teachers to build on how students’ linguistic, ethnic, racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds influence their learning; to help students to become aware of the role of mathematics in society and culture; to expose students to the contributions of various cultures to the advancement of mathematics; and to show students how mathematics relates to other subjects; and to provide students with opportunities to apply mathematics to authentic contexts. CCSSM also notes that, “The Standards should be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outset, along with appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs.” Formative Assessment is a critical part of classroom instruction, and curriculum materials can provide a variety of levels of support with regard to information to teachers about student learning. Finally, the increasing availability of technology offers opportunities to use technology mindfully in ways that enable students to explore and deepen their understanding of mathematical concepts. Name of Reviewer ______________________________School/District ___________________________________________Date ________________ Name of Curriculum Materials ____________________________________________________ Publication Date __________Grade Level(s) _______ Rubric for answering questions about Overarching Considerations:

Not Found (N) - The curriculum materials do not support this element. Low (L) - The curriculum materials contain limited support for this element, but the support is not embedded or consistently present within or across grades. Medium (M) - The curriculum materials contain support for this element, but it is not always embedded or consistently present within or across grades. High (H) - The curriculum materials contain embedded support for this element so that it is consistently present within and across grades.

Questions about Overarching Considerations (Page 1) See Rubric Comments/Examples Equity N-L-M-H

To what extent do the materials: 1. Provide teachers with strategies for meeting the needs of a range of

learners?

2. Provide instructional support to help teachers sequence or scaffold lessons so that students move from what they know to what they do not know?

3. Provide opportunities for teachers to use a variety of grouping strategies? 4. Embed tasks with multiple entry-points that can be solved using a variety

of solution strategies or representations?


5. Suggest accommodations and modifications for English language learners that will support their regular and active participation in learning mathematics?

CCSSM Instructional Materials Analysis Project--Overarching Considerations (Tool 3) Page 2

Questions about Overarching Considerations (Page 2) See Rubric Comments/Examples

To what extent do the materials: N-L-M-H 6. Provide opportunities to use reading, writing, and speaking in

mathematics lessons.

7. Encourage teachers to draw upon home language and culture to facilitate learning?

8. Encourage teachers to draw on multiple resources such as objects, drawings, and graphs to facilitate learning?

9. Draw upon students’ personal experiences to facilitate learning? 10. Provide opportunities for teacher and students to connect mathematics

to other subject areas?

11. Provide both individual and collective opportunities for students to learn using mathematical tasks with a range of challenge?

12. Provide opportunities for advanced students to investigate mathematics content at greater depth?

13. Provide a balanced portrayal of various demographic and personal characteristics?

Assessment 14. Provide strategies for gathering information about students’ prior

knowledge and background?

15. Provide strategies for teachers to identify common student errors and misconceptions?

16. Assess students at a variety of knowledge levels (e.g., memorization, understanding, reasoning, problem solving)?

17. Encourage students to monitor their own progress? 18. Provide opportunities for ongoing review and practice with feedback

related to learning concepts, and skills.


19. Provide support for a varied system of on-going formative and summative assessment (formal or informal observations, interviews, surveys, performance assessments, target problems)?

CCSSM Instructional Materials Analysis Project--Overarching Considerations (Tool 3) Page 3

Questions about Overarching Considerations (Page 2) See Rubric Comments/Examples Technology N-L-M-H

To what extent do the materials: 20. Integrate technology such as interactive tools, virtual

manipulatives/objects, and dynamic mathematics software in ways that engage students in the Mathematical Practices?

21. Include or reference technology that provides opportunities for teachers and/or students to communicate with each other (e.g. websites, discussion groups, webinars)?

22. Include opportunities to assess student mathematical understandings and knowledge of procedural skills using technology?

23. Include or reference technology that provides teachers additional tasks for students?

24. Include teacher guidance for the mindful use of embedded technology to support and enhance student learning?

Notes/Examples: Summary Discussion Questions

1. Equity: To what extent do the materials contain embedded support for elements of equity consistently within and across grades? 2. Assessment: To what extent do the materials contain embedded support for elements of assessment consistently within and across grades? 3. Technology: To what extent do the materials contain embedded support for elements of technology consistently within and across grades? 4. Overall: To what extent do the materials incorporate the Overarching Consideration elements to advance students’ learning of

mathematical content and engagement in the mathematical practices?


Appendix C: Summary Forms

TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 51 TOOL 1 Summary – Content Area for Gradeband TEXTBOOK SERIES: _________________________________________________ GRADES: _____________ CONTENT AREA: ________________________________________ People in Discussion: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Overall Impressions: 1. What are your overall impressions of the curriculum materials

examined? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the materials you

examined? Standards Alignment: 3. Have you identified gaps within this domain? What are they? If so,

can these gaps be realistically addressed through supplementation? 4. Within grade levels, do the curriculum materials provide sufficient

experiences to support student learning within this standard? 5. Within this domain, is the treatment of the content across grade

levels consistent with the progression within the Standards?

Balance between Mathematical Understanding and Procedural Skills 6. Do the curriculum materials support the development of students’

mathematical understanding? 7. Do the curriculum materials support the development of students’

proficiency with procedural skills? 8. Do the curriculum materials assist students in building connections

between mathematical understanding and procedural skills? 9. To what extent do the curriculum materials provide a balanced focus

on mathematical understanding and procedural skills? 10. Do student activities build on each other within and across grades in

a logical way that supports mathematical understanding and procedural skills?

TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 52 TOOL 1 Summary – Gradeband (across content areas) TEXTBOOK SERIES: _________________________________________________ GRADES: _____________

CONTENT AREAS INCLUDED: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

People in Discussion: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Overall Impressions: 11. What are your overall impressions of the curriculum materials

examined? 12. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the materials you

examined? Standards Alignment: 13. Have you identified gaps within this domain? What are they? If so,

can these gaps be realistically addressed through supplementation? 14. Within grade levels, do the curriculum materials provide sufficient

experiences to support student learning within this standard? 15. Within this domain, is the treatment of the content across grade

levels consistent with the progression within the Standards?

Balance between Mathematical Understanding and Procedural Skills 16. Do the curriculum materials support the development of students’

mathematical understanding? 17. Do the curriculum materials support the development of students’

proficiency with procedural skills? 18. Do the curriculum materials assist students in building connections

between mathematical understanding and procedural skills? 19. To what extent do the curriculum materials provide a balanced focus

on mathematical understanding and procedural skills? 20. Do student activities build on each other within and across grades in

a logical way that supports mathematical understanding and procedural skills?

TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 53 TOOL 2 Summary – Content Area for Gradeband (vertical alignment within a content area) TEXTBOOK SERIES: _________________________________________________ GRADES: _____________ CONTENT AREA: _____________________________________________________ People in Discussion: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Mathematical Practices à Content) To what extent do the materials demand that students engage in the Standards for Mathematical Practice as the primary vehicle for learning the Content Standards? (Content à Mathematical Practices) To what extent do the materials provide opportunities for students to develop the Standards for Mathematical Practice as “habits of mind” (ways of thinking about mathematics that are rich, challenging, and useful) throughout the development of the Content Standards? To what extent do accompanying assessments of student learning (such as homework, observation checklists, portfolio recommendations, extended tasks, tests, and quizzes) provide evidence regarding students’ proficiency with respect to the Standards for Mathematical Practice? What is the quality of the instructional support for students’ development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice as habits of mind?






TEAM-‐Math/EARIC Curriculum Analysis Project p. 54 TOOL 2 Summary – Gradeband (across content areas) TEXTBOOK SERIES: _________________________________________________ GRADES: _____________

CONTENT AREAS INCLUDED: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

People in Discussion: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Mathematical Practices à Content) To what extent do the materials demand that students engage in the Standards for Mathematical Practice as the primary vehicle for learning the Content Standards? (Content à Mathematical Practices) To what extent do the materials provide opportunities for students to develop the Standards for Mathematical Practice as “habits of mind” (ways of thinking about mathematics that are rich, challenging, and useful) throughout the development of the Content Standards? To what extent do accompanying assessments of student learning (such as homework, observation checklists, portfolio recommendations, extended tasks, tests, and quizzes) provide evidence regarding students’ proficiency with respect to the Standards for Mathematical Practice? What is the quality of the instructional support for students’ development of the Standards for Mathematical Practice as habits of mind?







FINAL SUMMARY FOR TEXBOOK SERIES (across all tools) TEXTBOOK SERIES: _________________________________________________ GRADES: _____________ People in Discussion: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF PROCESS Tool 1: ☐ Completed ☐ Not completed Content areas: Judgment:

Tool 2: ☐ Completed ☐ Not completed Content areas: Judgment:

Tool 3: ☐ Completed ☐ Not completed Judgment:

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

FINAL ASSESSMENT: ☐ Recommended ☐ Acceptable ☐ Marginal ☐ Unacceptable Comments on potential usage:

Documents

CAP report-02.25.12 (revised) copy - TEAM-Math