An Evaluation of Three Curricula 1 Running head: AN EVALUATION OF THREE CURRICULA An Evaluation of Three Curricula: Everyday Mathematics, Investigations, and Saxon Gwenanne Salkind George Mason University EDCI 856 Dr. Patricia Moyer-Packenham April 29, 2006An Evaluation of Three Curricula 2 Introduction I reviewed three K-5 mathematics curricula to determine the best curriculum for use in K-5 classrooms in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). FCPS is a large school district located outside Washington, DC in Virginia. It is the 12th largest school district in the United States with over 160,000 students enrolled. The diverse population of students includes African American (10.8%), Asian American (17.4%), Hispanic (16%), and White (50.2%). There are large numbers of students with limited English proficiency (22,868) and receiving special education services (24,000). A little less than 20% of the students in FCPS receive free or reduced price lunch, but 35 elementary schools have over 35% poverty and receive Title I funding. There are a total of 136 elementary schools in FCPS. The teachers at those schools vary in their educational background and number of years of teaching experience. They all work under federal and state guidelines governing education. Selection Criteria I developed a questionnaire to use in the evaluation of the three curricula (see Appendix A). There were 11 questions on the questionnaire. Each question was rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 4 (high) with a total of 44 points possible for the overall rating. The questions were developed using a number of resources including Choosing a Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum (Goldsmith, Mark, & Kantrov, 2000, p. 145-146), On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness (National Research Council, 2004), and The Virginia Department of Education’s Review of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (2005). The first question asked if there were research studies to back up the program’s effectiveness. It was important to determine if there was any empirical evidence to support the use of any of the three programs. The second question asked if the program addressed theAn Evaluation of Three Curricula 3 Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL). This was important because all FCPS schools must teach the SOL. Schools are accountable to this, and their students are tested on the standards at the end of the school year. Sanctions are in place for schools that do not meet Annual Yearly Progress goals. The curricula that the schools use must help the students learn the standards. Questions 3 and 4 were designed to help me review the mathematics content and pedagogy in the programs. Since time did not allow me to take an in depth look at all the content strands and topics, I chose two topics that were crucial to student learning at grades K-5: basic facts & algorithms and fraction concepts. These questions were adapted from Choosing a Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum (Goldsmith et al., 2000, p. 145-146). The questions asked how basic facts, algorithms, and fraction concepts were presented and developed in the programs. This helped me to determine the instructional approaches of the three programs and the types of understanding that children were expected to gain. Question 11also helped me to assess the instructional practices and learning theory incorporated within each curriculum. It was important that the curricula included the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) process standards (2000) of representation, connections, communication, reasoning and proof, and problem solving. I also was looking for a balance between conceptual understanding and procedural skill. Manipulative and technology use was another consideration. Question 6 on the questionnaire was asked to determine if professional development for teachers was built into the programs. How do the programs support teachers with different experience and mathematical knowledge? I believe that teachers need tremendous support in order to provide quality instruction to students. The textbooks should be one source of this support and should include information on mathematics content and pedagogy. The remainingAn Evaluation of Three Curricula 4 questions on the questionnaire helped me to assess the organization and structure of the materials, support for parents, and student assessment practices. Description of Curricula I chose to evaluate Everyday Mathematics (EM) (University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2002e), Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (TERC, 1998) and Saxon Math (Hake & Saxon, 2001a, 2001b; Larson, 2004). Two of the three programs (EM and Investigations) were developed with funds from the National Science Foundation. FCPS adopted Everyday Mathematics as one of three approved elementary textbooks in 2001. Investigations was adopted as a supplemental text. Saxon Math was not adopted, but one elementary school received special permission from the school board to use the textbook. Evaluating these three programs was beneficial to me because it helped me to become more familiar and articulate about the programs. FCPS will be adopting textbooks again in the near future. This comparison report may be useful in that adoption process. Everyday Mathematics EM was designed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project over an eleven year period from 1985 – 1996. A team of authors developed the entire curriculum, K-6, which is in contrast to how most curricula are developed, simultaneously by a different team of authors at each grade level. The grade level curricula were developed sequentially, one at a time, beginning with kindergarten (Carroll, 1998; Isaacs, Carroll, & Bell, 2001). The slow development of the program allowed time for the authors to conduct field studies on each grade level, make revisions to the program, and build the program from one grade level to the next. This resulted in a cohesive, comprehensive curriculum.An Evaluation of Three Curricula 5 EM instruction is implemented in a spiraling manner, revisiting topics throughout the school year and in subsequent school years. Each time a topic is repeated, it is revisited at a slightly higher level and in a different context (Fuson, Carroll, & Drueck, 2000; University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, 2002b). The program is implemented through individual, small group, and whole class activities.