New Math Curriculum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That has nothing to do with the curriculum, that has to do with the teacher, department and principal and it is a huge issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a math content coach in a Title 1 school and this is exactly right. Eureka works great for our students in compacted math but is a disaster for our ELD students who make up the majority of our population. There is no boxed curriculum which can deliver the same high standards and rigor to below grade level students who are also struggling with language and students who grew up advanced. Test scores are not going to be fixed with a new curriculum. We need standards that are more reasonable and to drop standardized testing in elementary. Children should be encouraged to learn and be celebrated for growth rather than just stating that they are failures for not meeting rigorous standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That has nothing to do with the curriculum, that has to do with the teacher, department and principal and it is a huge issue.

It also has to do with how much training teachers get, including coaching on how to teach math. It seems like a lot of elementary school teachers dislike teaching math and need help. Schools have a reading specialist, but not a math specialist. It doesn’t seem like central office provides much oversight or help. A strong curriculum is important, but the implementation matters just as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a math content coach in a Title 1 school and this is exactly right. Eureka works great for our students in compacted math but is a disaster for our ELD students who make up the majority of our population. There is no boxed curriculum which can deliver the same high standards and rigor to below grade level students who are also struggling with language and students who grew up advanced. Test scores are not going to be fixed with a new curriculum. We need standards that are more reasonable and to drop standardized testing in elementary. Children should be encouraged to learn and be celebrated for growth rather than just stating that they are failures for not meeting rigorous standards.

ELD students are placed in a differentiated class for math, aren't they? I think that happens at the secondary level, but it sounds like it would be helpful at the ES level as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a math content coach in a Title 1 school and this is exactly right. Eureka works great for our students in compacted math but is a disaster for our ELD students who make up the majority of our population. There is no boxed curriculum which can deliver the same high standards and rigor to below grade level students who are also struggling with language and students who grew up advanced. Test scores are not going to be fixed with a new curriculum. We need standards that are more reasonable and to drop standardized testing in elementary. Children should be encouraged to learn and be celebrated for growth rather than just stating that they are failures for not meeting rigorous standards.

ELD students are placed in a differentiated class for math, aren't they? I think that happens at the secondary level, but it sounds like it would be helpful at the ES level as well.

Wait, where does this happen? At least in middle school, I believe EML students are all in the same mainstream classes as everyone else except for English, even the very beginner EML students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a math content coach in a Title 1 school and this is exactly right. Eureka works great for our students in compacted math but is a disaster for our ELD students who make up the majority of our population. There is no boxed curriculum which can deliver the same high standards and rigor to below grade level students who are also struggling with language and students who grew up advanced. Test scores are not going to be fixed with a new curriculum. We need standards that are more reasonable and to drop standardized testing in elementary. Children should be encouraged to learn and be celebrated for growth rather than just stating that they are failures for not meeting rigorous standards.

ELD students are placed in a differentiated class for math, aren't they? I think that happens at the secondary level, but it sounds like it would be helpful at the ES level as well.

Wait, where does this happen? At least in middle school, I believe EML students are all in the same mainstream classes as everyone else except for English, even the very beginner EML students.

Everyone is in one class- from those who don’t speak a word of English to those who are 4 grade levels below and on an IEP to those who are advanced and working on enrichment at home. All of these kids are given the same curriculum and expected to meet the same standards.Its impossible and doesn’t benefit any of the groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a math content coach in a Title 1 school and this is exactly right. Eureka works great for our students in compacted math but is a disaster for our ELD students who make up the majority of our population. There is no boxed curriculum which can deliver the same high standards and rigor to below grade level students who are also struggling with language and students who grew up advanced. Test scores are not going to be fixed with a new curriculum. We need standards that are more reasonable and to drop standardized testing in elementary. Children should be encouraged to learn and be celebrated for growth rather than just stating that they are failures for not meeting rigorous standards.

ELD students are placed in a differentiated class for math, aren't they? I think that happens at the secondary level, but it sounds like it would be helpful at the ES level as well.

Wait, where does this happen? At least in middle school, I believe EML students are all in the same mainstream classes as everyone else except for English, even the very beginner EML students.

Everyone is in one class- from those who don’t speak a word of English to those who are 4 grade levels below and on an IEP to those who are advanced and working on enrichment at home. All of these kids are given the same curriculum and expected to meet the same standards.Its impossible and doesn’t benefit any of the groups.

This is clearly the problem! We have a similar problem in our extended family. Two (different) nut allergies, one gluten free, one gluten free dairy free, 2 kosher, one keto, and one who won’t eat anything not hot. If we all try to eat the exact same thing, we can pretty much only eat grilled chicken and vegetables for every meal. It’s much better to offer a larger set of options and people can mix and match and meet their needs.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know what they chose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know what they chose?

The Board is voting on it in like 5 days But of course they still have not announced the recommendation yet

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know how much these curricula cost? With apparent workbooks that cannot be taken home an must be re-used??

What is the actual and long-term benefit of paying $$$ for scripted curricula that can be taught by any MCPS staff in 6-12, yet not hiring more math teachers?

fwiw math teachers in MCPS many years ago (everyone got a math teacher in math classes) used to be some of the strongest teachers ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how much these curricula cost? With apparent workbooks that cannot be taken home an must be re-used??

What is the actual and long-term benefit of paying $$$ for scripted curricula that can be taught by any MCPS staff in 6-12, yet not hiring more math teachers?

fwiw math teachers in MCPS many years ago (everyone got a math teacher in math classes) used to be some of the strongest teachers ever.

The curriculum will be a tiny cost in a $3.5 B school district. It's worth it. We do not want to go back to curriculum 2.0, which was truly awful.

[Anonymous]

The Board really, really wants to hide what it picked doesn't it. How is it that the recommendation memo is still not up? They got the calendar up, but not this? Hmm...

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DN3SDL722FC2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Board really, really wants to hide what it picked doesn't it. How is it that the recommendation memo is still not up? They got the calendar up, but not this? Hmm...

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DN3SDL722FC2

They're probably still scrambling to pull everything together. Which is frightening in and of itself....

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know which curriculum are being considered and for what grade levels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know which curriculum are being considered and for what grade levels?

This has all been so hush hush and the committee that reviewed is still under an NDA apparently. I believe this has to do with the new requirement for integrating algebra and geometry and then them having to trickle down the content across grade levels...