New Math Curriculum

[Anonymous]

As a kindergarten teacher, I hope it's the updated Eureka curriculum. I've loved the hands on, tactile approach, even though it can get tedious with prep. But I've seen positive growth in my students, especially EMLs and kids who haven't been to school before. It lays a solid foundation of number sense, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Evelyn Chung's testimony from today's Board working session relates: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DT5RY27034F2/$file/BOE%20Math%20Testimony.pdf

It sounds like there was only one good choice among the final choices. That's definitely concerning.

Be careful with her recommendations. She doesn’t listen to others opinions and only her beliefs matter regardless of who they may hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a kindergarten teacher, I hope it's the updated Eureka curriculum. I've loved the hands on, tactile approach, even though it can get tedious with prep. But I've seen positive growth in my students, especially EMLs and kids who haven't been to school before. It lays a solid foundation of number sense, in my opinion.

Same, I also like Eureka.

[Anonymous]

Fellow k teacher and this is the first time I’ve ever heard a teacher say they like Eureka.
Yes, it is hands on but any quality early childhood math curriculum should be. That is an incredibly low bar.
As another person already said, this is being done very differently than curriculum changes have been done in the past. Typically a year or two ahead some schools would pilot the curricula being considered. They would offer feedback, the county would make its choice. In comparison the first time most of us heard that we were getting a new curriculum was in early March when we were notified about summer training. No one has heard about the different options. It is very strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fellow k teacher and this is the first time I’ve ever heard a teacher say they like Eureka.
Yes, it is hands on but any quality early childhood math curriculum should be. That is an incredibly low bar.
As another person already said, this is being done very differently than curriculum changes have been done in the past. Typically a year or two ahead some schools would pilot the curricula being considered. They would offer feedback, the county would make its choice. In comparison the first time most of us heard that we were getting a new curriculum was in early March when we were notified about summer training. No one has heard about the different options. It is very strange.

I prefer the traditional teaching methods with an older-style textbook, but MCPS does not allow that. As a parent, at least with Eureka, you can follow along, as there are so many online resources. If you don't get a workbook, you can easily buy or download one to work at home with your kids and support them.

[Anonymous]

I also hope they go with Eureka Squared. I happened to watch a YouTube video that compares the original Eureka curriculum we currently have with the updated version "Squared". They made a lot of improvements including colored workbooks, easier to read word problems, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fellow k teacher and this is the first time I’ve ever heard a teacher say they like Eureka.
Yes, it is hands on but any quality early childhood math curriculum should be. That is an incredibly low bar.
As another person already said, this is being done very differently than curriculum changes have been done in the past. Typically a year or two ahead some schools would pilot the curricula being considered. They would offer feedback, the county would make its choice. In comparison the first time most of us heard that we were getting a new curriculum was in early March when we were notified about summer training. No one has heard about the different options. It is very strange.

I prefer the traditional teaching methods with an older-style textbook, but MCPS does not allow that. As a parent, at least with Eureka, you can follow along, as there are so many online resources. If you don't get a workbook, you can easily buy or download one to work at home with your kids and support them.

I agree -- as an ES parent, I apprecaite the daily Eureka HW and the homework helpers so I can see what is done. I really hope they stick with it. It is definitely working for my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fellow k teacher and this is the first time I’ve ever heard a teacher say they like Eureka.
Yes, it is hands on but any quality early childhood math curriculum should be. That is an incredibly low bar.
As another person already said, this is being done very differently than curriculum changes have been done in the past. Typically a year or two ahead some schools would pilot the curricula being considered. They would offer feedback, the county would make its choice. In comparison the first time most of us heard that we were getting a new curriculum was in early March when we were notified about summer training. No one has heard about the different options. It is very strange.

Heh, and pretty much every teacher *I* know likes Eureka. Hands-on is not the only reason I like it--it lays a very solid foundation for number sense. I've met so many people who say they've always done math in their head the way Eureka teaches students to do it. I think the curriculum does an effective job of teaching students the why behind their calculations, rather than "because it just is."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I googled math curricula that could meet MD requirements. It looks like there's an IM Math update that meets new requirements. Guessing that's what they'll do?

IM math fwiw has been touted as a great curriculum but from my vicarious experience of it (scripted, Eureka-torture-lite, having kids talk to each other to discuss problems (LOL, theory not practice), it's a far cry from what I remember as MCPS basic standards

Charles County math scores have tanked since adopting IM. They are updating the standards to meet the state requirements but only time will tell how it will play out.

Eureka is a better math program achieving better outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Biggest weakness with Eureka (or any curriculum) is whether teacher is able to follow the curriculum with fidelity. Like go in order and assign regularly/daily.

My kiddos had the assignments in a haphazard order - some lessons skipped, and other lessons skipping around like giving later lessons before earlier lessons.

Eureka is good, but wordy. Good to hear there have been improvements made.

[Anonymous]

This is the evaluation of Eureka at MCPS, which found that while teachers liked it for on-level students, it did not work well for students who were either behind or advanced, or students with special needs or English language learners. Combined, that makes up a large share of MCPS students. Unless the updated version solves those problems, continuing with it would be problematic.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/Eureka%20Math%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf

[Anonymous]

I teach in DCPS and have been teaching Eureka math for 8 years I think, all the same grade level. I really loved the old Eureka and understood it wasn’t a script. The new Eureka Squared is so dumbed down. We just did I think six days of calculating volume. On day SIX they said oh here’s the formula: LxWxH. The kids were all asking if it was a joke. It is probably better for struggling students but my classes where half the kids are above grade level they all complain that it’s boring. Even the word problems are super simple and not a challenge at all.

The slides they provide are awful and some have errors on them. They will say in the script to write a problem on the board. Why not just put it on the slides for us? The slide they give is a full screen “turn and talk” image so I don’t actually have space to write anything.

The online components are meh, and I don’t assign any of the digital stuff because it’s not really interactive, just reading on a screen. The online platform for tests is also super glitchy. One test I couldn’t score because it wouldn’t load. Their customer service emailed me every week “we are working on it!” Then ghosted me.

There are some notable improvements like color in the books and some “classwork” pages instead of doing everything on whiteboards. Fluency is better connected to the current or near future problems. The Application Problem is replaced by one that leads into the work of the day. There are some occasional videos that help model a concept but they are basic and the questions for kids are always “what do you notice, what do you wonder?”

Overall I dislike it and wish we had more freedom to adapt to our students needs but I am required to follow the script.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the evaluation of Eureka at MCPS, which found that while teachers liked it for on-level students, it did not work well for students who were either behind or advanced, or students with special needs or English language learners. Combined, that makes up a large share of MCPS students. Unless the updated version solves those problems, continuing with it would be problematic.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/Eureka%20Math%20Evaluation%20Report%20FINAL2.pdf

There isn’t going to be one model that works for all and they should offer different things to different groups based off need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach in DCPS and have been teaching Eureka math for 8 years I think, all the same grade level. I really loved the old Eureka and understood it wasn’t a script. The new Eureka Squared is so dumbed down. We just did I think six days of calculating volume. On day SIX they said oh here’s the formula: LxWxH. The kids were all asking if it was a joke. It is probably better for struggling students but my classes where half the kids are above grade level they all complain that it’s boring. Even the word problems are super simple and not a challenge at all.

The slides they provide are awful and some have errors on them. They will say in the script to write a problem on the board. Why not just put it on the slides for us? The slide they give is a full screen “turn and talk” image so I don’t actually have space to write anything.

The online components are meh, and I don’t assign any of the digital stuff because it’s not really interactive, just reading on a screen. The online platform for tests is also super glitchy. One test I couldn’t score because it wouldn’t load. Their customer service emailed me every week “we are working on it!” Then ghosted me.

There are some notable improvements like color in the books and some “classwork” pages instead of doing everything on whiteboards. Fluency is better connected to the current or near future problems. The Application Problem is replaced by one that leads into the work of the day. There are some occasional videos that help model a concept but they are basic and the questions for kids are always “what do you notice, what do you wonder?”

Overall I dislike it and wish we had more freedom to adapt to our students needs but I am required to follow the script.

That’s interesting. In MCPS to date we have used the old Eureka, not Eureka Squared, for ES. Now I hope they go with IM (which has worked well for my kid in MS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach in DCPS and have been teaching Eureka math for 8 years I think, all the same grade level. I really loved the old Eureka and understood it wasn’t a script. The new Eureka Squared is so dumbed down. We just did I think six days of calculating volume. On day SIX they said oh here’s the formula: LxWxH. The kids were all asking if it was a joke. It is probably better for struggling students but my classes where half the kids are above grade level they all complain that it’s boring. Even the word problems are super simple and not a challenge at all.

The slides they provide are awful and some have errors on them. They will say in the script to write a problem on the board. Why not just put it on the slides for us? The slide they give is a full screen “turn and talk” image so I don’t actually have space to write anything.

The online components are meh, and I don’t assign any of the digital stuff because it’s not really interactive, just reading on a screen. The online platform for tests is also super glitchy. One test I couldn’t score because it wouldn’t load. Their customer service emailed me every week “we are working on it!” Then ghosted me.

There are some notable improvements like color in the books and some “classwork” pages instead of doing everything on whiteboards. Fluency is better connected to the current or near future problems. The Application Problem is replaced by one that leads into the work of the day. There are some occasional videos that help model a concept but they are basic and the questions for kids are always “what do you notice, what do you wonder?”

Overall I dislike it and wish we had more freedom to adapt to our students needs but I am required to follow the script.

I also teach elementary in DCPS and you summed it up perfectly. And, the lessons are so long. I do like the workbooks and manipulatives but the points you made are on par with my experience too.