Testimonials+from+Others


 * We are beginning to collect narrative feedback from teachers and leaders in other districts who have already gone through the process of adopting math curriculum & textbooks with Common Core State Standards in mind.**


 * Our first statement was graciously collected by committee member, Debbie Collins, who is networking with teachers at a Math & Science Collaborative Summer Institute titled "Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Focus on Fractions"** The eloquent statement below comes from a 2nd grade teacher & math curriculum leader within the Upper Saint Clair School District.

"In our district I can share information about our math series in grades K-5. About 4 years ago our Math Curriculum Committee began researching new math programs. We didn't fully realize at the time the impact that Common Core would have on everyone, we just had a math series (Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley 2001 edition) that was getting very old and we were worried would go out of print before we were comfortable, or ready, to make the switch.

We looked at all of the math series available and chose to go with Investigations 2012 (with Common Core alignments) in kindergarten and first grade and enVisionMATH 2012 Common Core for grades 2 - 5. We felt this was the best fit for our students, families, and teachers. It's a little scary adopting so fast, but since we were already 3 years into the process we certainly didn't feel rushed. I have been saying "we're surfing the Common Core math wave ... we may be heading straight for a coral reef, but we'll just hang on a make good decisions as we go forward." We did decide to roll it in over a two year period to try and reduce some gaps and because of budgetary constraints. Fourth, fifth, and kindergarten began using it last year and first, second, and third will adopt and begin using it this year. It's also been nice because last year and this year a lot of time has been devoted to math, so upcoming years we can shift to Common Core reading changes without overwhelming our teachers by trying to do both at the same time. I guess we'll see in hindsight.

PROS: - We prefer to have a balanced approach to mathematics instruction (constructivism and traditional) and enVision allows the best of both worlds to emerge in the classroom. - Investigations in grades K and 1 will provide a really strong foundation in number sense and place value which we sorely needed. And ... the children really do start off loving math! - We liked how enVision allowed kids to explore a variety of strategies in math and presented concepts in ways that our teachers had never had the chance to present, but it also supported traditional algorithms which our middle schools still valued. - There were quite a few differentiation components available. We flexibly regroup our students in math. Students take a pretest before every chapter and are regrouped based on their score, rate of acquisition, and learner habits. The teachers also rotate who teaches which group. We feel it allows us to better meet the needs of every learner yet not fall into the "tracking" mode because it's based on a variety of indicators and kids can move for each chapter based on their needs. - The online components were adequate for our needs and allow us to do as much or as little as we feel we need to in order for students to gain mastery. - Going through our first year of Common Core math at fourth and fifth we felt it aligned extremely well with CC and also with PA CC. I have gone through and done an alignment and there are just a few gaps we need to be aware of, but we feel this would always be the case no matter the program. - This series does integrate and give opportunities for development of the mathematical practices. This is the area our staff needs more training in over the next few years. - Written communication practice is valued in the program and we did not want to lose this component when we switched programs. - The topics do allow for the more focused depth that is required by the CC. Our fourth grade kids spent a TON of time on fractions! - There were quite a few components ("Core and More"). The core should be taught by everyone, the more are pieces that individual teachers can choose to incorporate based on need. CONS: - A lot of Topics (instead of chapters). The teachers feel like they are assessing all of the time and it's taking away from instructional time. We'll continue to work through this as a staff this year. - We actually need to work on development of more enrichment materials. There are some, but for our students and the way we regroup, there is not enough. Same issue we had with our previous series but we did not see any programs that met this specific need for us. - Parent education about all of the different strategies used. Our parents are very comfortable with the "just do it like this" and be done. We'll have to work hard this year to educate them on the value of these alternative methods. - Doesn't allow for as much investigative math at the upper levels, but once again the committee felt the balanced approach was a better overall fit. If you have any specific questions now or in the future, please feel free to email me. Good luck with your search. I sure don't envy your team. It was a long, exhaustive process and for good or bad I'm happy to be //surfing the wave!// Shannon -- 2nd Grade Teacher, Eisenhower ElementaryElementary Math Curriculum Leader"