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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.