About Us

New Middle School Math Instructional Materials -- Questions and Answers

Quick Links:

K-12 Math Task Force | M.S. Math Textbook Review | Meetings, Agendas, Presentations | CMP Study | Links

 

Recording of February 1st Middle School Math Forum (mp3)

NEW!! Middle_School_Math_Q&A

The Olympia School District administration will present a recommendation to adopt CMP2 as the core math program at the middle school level, to utilize our current Glencoe math textbooks and a classroom set of Prentice-Hall's Middle School Mathematics textbooks as supplements to the CMP2 program, and to continue offering an algebra and geometry option. Read More...

MAP Testing Summary

CMP Graphs

Background: The Olympia School Board will be considering a recommendation to purchase new math instructional materials for middle school students to be implemented in the 2007-2008 school year. Here are some common questions and responses about the new instructional materials.

What is the rationale for considering new math instructional materials in middle school?
Data and anecdotal evidence indicates that many middle school students face challenges in math. For example, the OlyALT/MAP test measures student performance against their peers from around the nation, and although Olympia students test at a higher level in math than other students in the country, there has been a dip or leveling off in performance for sixth graders. This three-year trend shows that sixth graders decrease in their growth in math and they don’t gain back the lost ground to be on par with our expected student performance level. Additionally, WASL scores for 7th graders over the past three years show that between 35-43% of the district’s students do not meet the state standards in math. Teachers and administrators report that many middle school students simply do not find math to be relevant or meaningful so they struggle with it. To view this data, click here.


How does changing the instructional materials relate to higher student achievement?
Student achievement involves many factors – effort, quality of instruction, family support, socio-economic status, individual aptitude with a particular subject area, individual learning styles and many more. Research indicates that aligning instruction with the standards on which students will be assessed will lead to improved student achievement. The goal in selecting instructional materials is find those that best align to the standards on which students will be held accountable. Additionally, in support of the adoption of new materials, a number of other components are critical: on-going, meaningful professional development for teachers, regular assessment of student learning, and analysis of assessment data in order to make instructional decisions for each student. Student achievement is more likely to increase with a comprehensive approach to improving curriculum and changing instructional materials is one part of that effort. Whatever is recommended, it is agreed that a balance of both basic math skills and fluency, and contextual based learning and application needs to exist. We want all our students to develop math fluency as well as an ability to understand math, problem solve, and think critically.

What was the process for adopting new instructional materials?
In the fall of 2005, the Olympia School District developed the following groups for the purpose of improving student learning in math:

THE K-12 MATH TASK FORCE was developed to review the needs of the district and identify priorities. This committee is comprised of teaching and administrative staff from the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. To view a list of the K-12 Math Task Force members, click here.


THE ELEMENTARY MATH TEAM was developed to review the needs of students in math at the elementary school level. A recruitment effort was made to identify at least two members from each school (one from primary and one from intermediate levels) and at least three members from each grade level. The recruitment request included a commitment for 2-5 years, for the purpose of developing site specialists in mathematics who will assist in ensuring on-going communications, common instrucional strategies exists at each school. On-going work includes: re-design and implementation of classroom based assessments (CBAs), development of common math vocabulary at each grade level, development of supplemental tools for basic skill development, and professional development through professional learning communities.

THE MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH REVIEW COMMITTEE was developed after the work of the K-12 Math Task Force identified the priority need to be at the middle school level. The goal of the composition of this team was to include a variety of stakeholders from each grade level as well as the parent community. All middle school math teachers were invited to participate and each of the comprehensive high schools was encouraged to include 2-3 staff members. The committee included: 2 teachers from each of our comprehensive high schools, 1 teacher from our alternative high school, 2-4 teachers from each of our four middle schools, 5 parents, 2 elementary teachers, 2 administrators, 1 district office staff member. To view a list of the members of the Middle School Math Textbook Review Committee, click here.


THE HIGH SCHOOL MATH TEAM has not been fully developed as the focus has been on middle school math. However, all high school math teachers and principals were invited to a meeting to determine the needs of the high schools. At this meeting the group agreed to stay with the current practice of course offerings (algebra, geometry, algebra II, pre-calculus, etc.). It was further agreed that the same text books in algebra, geometry, and algebra II, will be purchased in both comprehensive high schools and middle schools.

Summary of the Olympia School District Math Initiative – 2005 to present
In determining the district priorities the K-12 Math Task Force endorsed the use of an elementary school survey to determine the teachers’ perspective regarding the effectiveness and desire to continue with the “Trailblazers” math curriculum. The results indicated the majority of elementary teachers desired to continue using “Trailblazers.”
In an elementary principals meeting, the principals were asked their perspective about continuing with “Trailblazers” and they supported it unanimously.

After reviewing data relating to student achievement in math, a separate group was formed to review Middle School math materials.

The Middle School Math Review Committee met all day in which the members were divided into small groups and asked to review seven different middle school math textbooks and rate each book as a group.

The Middle School Math Review Committee reviewed the following seven textbooks.

At the conclusion of the review there was discussion regarding the pros and cons of each book. Through this process, two consensus ideas surfaced that impacted the next steps in the process. First, a substantial majority of the members of the committee indicated their support for three textbooks: Glencoe’s Application and Connections and McDougall Littell’s Math 1, 2, 3, both traditional style approaches, and Connected Math Project 2 (CMP2), a reform math approach.

A traditional method of instructional materials is what most of us are familiar with. This approach is one in which skills or algorithms are presented and modeled and then students are asked to do a number of problems to reinforce the learning. Often times in a traditional approach there is skill development through practice but little contextual base. Generally with a traditional approach the teaching methodology is primarily direct instruction.

In a reform math approach the math concepts are interwoven into applications or everyday problems. Students are asked, in the learning, how to reason and solve problems using mathematical concepts. Students are expected to have the mathematical skills to solve the problems. Often the instructional methodology includes small groups working together. Research supports that learning in a contextual basis provides for greater retention and application of concepts.

Drill and practice are deemed important components of instruction in either methodology. Drill builds speed and accuracy of desired learning after concepts and procedures have been meaningfully developed.

The second meeting of the Middle School Math Review Committee was a full afternoon meeting. The focus was on a review of information and data, and in-depth discussion on a traditional approach vs. a reform approach. During this meeting the committee was asked if there was an interest in making a visit to other districts and/or bringing in representatives from the three textbook vendors to give a presentation on the benefits of their products. The committee decided that they would rather meet with and question a panel of people with experience in CMP at a future meeting.

The third meeting of the Middle School Math Review Committee was a full afternoon meeting. At this meeting a panel of four spent approximately an hour and a half presenting their experiences and answering questions. Upon the conclusion of the panel, members of the committee discussed the pros and cons of a reform approach and the pros and cons of a traditional approach. After discussion, the committee was asked to vote and recommend an approach.

Committee members determined that if the committee voted in support of a reform approach, CMP2 would be recommended to the School Board for adoption. If the committee were to vote in support of a traditional approach, there would be further review of Glencoe’s Application and Connections and McDougall Littell’s Math 1, 2, 3.

The vast majority of committee members, 15 out of 20, voted to recommend a reform approach. Three parents and one other committee member were opposed. Not present at this meeting was one high school teacher who had indicated opposition to a reform approach, one middle school teacher who sent an e-mail indicating she supported a reform approach, and one middle school administrator who indicated support of reform math. In addition, all middle school principals were asked for their perspective and all four supported the move to a reform approach.

What was the timeline used to adopt a new math textbook?
Here is a list of meetings that were held over the past two-and-a-half years to discuss this issue of adopting a new middle school math curriculum:

What were the criterion that were used when evaluating these texts?
Committee members weighed several factors and scored the texts individually on each of the following criteria:

The committee reviewed WASL data from the 136 school districts that are using CMP at the middle schools and found positive results for the most part. To review WASL data from the 136 school districts using CMP at their middle schools, click here:

Why did the committee recommend Connected Math Project?
The vast majority of the Middle School Math Review Committee members supported the recommendation for CMP after reviewing various pieces of data and talking to leading math experts. For example, the committee reviewed a 1999 study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which looked at 13 middle school math programs. In that study, CMP was the only program that received an “exemplary” rating. To view the study, log on to:
http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/mgmth/report/default.htm

Textbooks available for Public Review
In the middle school math material review process the committee identified three textbooks as finalists. These textbooks are available for public review at the Timberland Regional Library as well as at each of our four middle schools.


What are the dates for the continuation of the process?

Who is on the Middle School Math Textbook Review Committee?

Click here to get a list of members of this committee.

Helpful informational resource links: